Kamiel Verbeke, Dieter Baeyens, Tomasz Krawczyk, Jan Piasecki, Pascal Borry
{"title":"欺骗性研究的REC综述:针对不同综述需求的多样化指导。","authors":"Kamiel Verbeke, Dieter Baeyens, Tomasz Krawczyk, Jan Piasecki, Pascal Borry","doi":"10.1007/s11019-025-10280-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Deceiving participants is an ethically complicated research practice which remains an important challenge for research ethics committees (RECs) and researchers, despite the availability of abundant research ethics guidance. Exploring this persistent policy-practice divide, we develop a framework for assessing the needs of the REC review of deceptive studies in a context-sensitive way. Different guidance formats are evaluated in light of their potential contribution to the frequently recurring REC review need for consistent and representative rules that set a perimeter for precise, coherent and representative discretionary review to take place. Research ethics guidelines and a new format of \"descriptive living documents\" are argued to respectively provide perimeter-setting rules and support discretionary decision-making about the justifiability of deceptive studies. REC review coordination is argued to benefit from analogous guidance formats to ensure conditions that facilitate successful REC review. As the needs of REC review may differ depending on the context, different mixes of these and possibly other guidance formats may support the REC review of deceptive studies and offer a way out of the policy-practice divide.</p>","PeriodicalId":47449,"journal":{"name":"Medicine Health Care and Philosophy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"REC review of deceptive studies: diversifying guidance for diverse review needs.\",\"authors\":\"Kamiel Verbeke, Dieter Baeyens, Tomasz Krawczyk, Jan Piasecki, Pascal Borry\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11019-025-10280-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Deceiving participants is an ethically complicated research practice which remains an important challenge for research ethics committees (RECs) and researchers, despite the availability of abundant research ethics guidance. Exploring this persistent policy-practice divide, we develop a framework for assessing the needs of the REC review of deceptive studies in a context-sensitive way. Different guidance formats are evaluated in light of their potential contribution to the frequently recurring REC review need for consistent and representative rules that set a perimeter for precise, coherent and representative discretionary review to take place. Research ethics guidelines and a new format of \\\"descriptive living documents\\\" are argued to respectively provide perimeter-setting rules and support discretionary decision-making about the justifiability of deceptive studies. REC review coordination is argued to benefit from analogous guidance formats to ensure conditions that facilitate successful REC review. As the needs of REC review may differ depending on the context, different mixes of these and possibly other guidance formats may support the REC review of deceptive studies and offer a way out of the policy-practice divide.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47449,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medicine Health Care and Philosophy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medicine Health Care and Philosophy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-025-10280-9\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medicine Health Care and Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-025-10280-9","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
REC review of deceptive studies: diversifying guidance for diverse review needs.
Deceiving participants is an ethically complicated research practice which remains an important challenge for research ethics committees (RECs) and researchers, despite the availability of abundant research ethics guidance. Exploring this persistent policy-practice divide, we develop a framework for assessing the needs of the REC review of deceptive studies in a context-sensitive way. Different guidance formats are evaluated in light of their potential contribution to the frequently recurring REC review need for consistent and representative rules that set a perimeter for precise, coherent and representative discretionary review to take place. Research ethics guidelines and a new format of "descriptive living documents" are argued to respectively provide perimeter-setting rules and support discretionary decision-making about the justifiability of deceptive studies. REC review coordination is argued to benefit from analogous guidance formats to ensure conditions that facilitate successful REC review. As the needs of REC review may differ depending on the context, different mixes of these and possibly other guidance formats may support the REC review of deceptive studies and offer a way out of the policy-practice divide.
期刊介绍:
Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy: A European Journal is the official journal of the European Society for Philosophy of Medicine and Health Care. It provides a forum for international exchange of research data, theories, reports and opinions in bioethics and philosophy of medicine. The journal promotes interdisciplinary studies, and stimulates philosophical analysis centered on a common object of reflection: health care, the human effort to deal with disease, illness, death as well as health, well-being and life. Particular attention is paid to developing contributions from all European countries, and to making accessible scientific work and reports on the practice of health care ethics, from all nations, cultures and language areas in Europe.