Cargando…
Reviewing the reviewers: the vague accountability of research ethics committees
The role of research ethics committees (RECs) is currently strained by increases in the number of protocols that are in need of review, the scientific and funding complexities of the protocols, and a lack of clear standards for ethics assessment. This commentary describes the significance of these s...
Autor principal: | |
---|---|
Formato: | Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2002
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC137292/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11983036 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/cc1469 |
_version_ | 1782120424489877504 |
---|---|
author | Shaul, Randi Zlotnik |
author_facet | Shaul, Randi Zlotnik |
author_sort | Shaul, Randi Zlotnik |
collection | PubMed |
description | The role of research ethics committees (RECs) is currently strained by increases in the number of protocols that are in need of review, the scientific and funding complexities of the protocols, and a lack of clear standards for ethics assessment. This commentary describes the significance of these strains and calls for clarification of reviewer accountability. To maintain or, in many cases, to restore public and professional trust in the ethics of human research and in REC review of protocols, it is imperative that steps be taken to clarify the accountability of RECs and their individual members. |
format | Text |
id | pubmed-137292 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2002 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-1372922003-02-27 Reviewing the reviewers: the vague accountability of research ethics committees Shaul, Randi Zlotnik Crit Care Commentary The role of research ethics committees (RECs) is currently strained by increases in the number of protocols that are in need of review, the scientific and funding complexities of the protocols, and a lack of clear standards for ethics assessment. This commentary describes the significance of these strains and calls for clarification of reviewer accountability. To maintain or, in many cases, to restore public and professional trust in the ethics of human research and in REC review of protocols, it is imperative that steps be taken to clarify the accountability of RECs and their individual members. BioMed Central 2002 2002-03-11 /pmc/articles/PMC137292/ /pubmed/11983036 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/cc1469 Text en Copyright © 2002 BioMed Central Ltd |
spellingShingle | Commentary Shaul, Randi Zlotnik Reviewing the reviewers: the vague accountability of research ethics committees |
title | Reviewing the reviewers: the vague accountability of research ethics committees |
title_full | Reviewing the reviewers: the vague accountability of research ethics committees |
title_fullStr | Reviewing the reviewers: the vague accountability of research ethics committees |
title_full_unstemmed | Reviewing the reviewers: the vague accountability of research ethics committees |
title_short | Reviewing the reviewers: the vague accountability of research ethics committees |
title_sort | reviewing the reviewers: the vague accountability of research ethics committees |
topic | Commentary |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC137292/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11983036 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/cc1469 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT shaulrandizlotnik reviewingthereviewersthevagueaccountabilityofresearchethicscommittees |