Cargando…
Research ethics oversight in Norway: structure, function, and challenges
BACKGROUND: While the development and evaluation of clinical ethics services in Norway has been recognized internationally, the country’s research ethics infrastructure at times may have been less well developed. In 2016, media interest in the controversial nature of some health services research an...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6327404/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30630475 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-3816-0 |
_version_ | 1783386458511376384 |
---|---|
author | Froud, R. Meza, T. J. Ernes, K. O. Slowther, A. M. |
author_facet | Froud, R. Meza, T. J. Ernes, K. O. Slowther, A. M. |
author_sort | Froud, R. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: While the development and evaluation of clinical ethics services in Norway has been recognized internationally, the country’s research ethics infrastructure at times may have been less well developed. In 2016, media interest in the controversial nature of some health services research and pilot studies highlighted gaps in the system with certain types of research having no clear mechanisms through which they may be given due independent consideration. It is not clear that new legislation, implemented in 2017, will address this problem. SUMMARY: We explore relevant law, committee scope, and the function of the system. We show that 1) Norwegian law provides for ethics assessment for all forms of health research; 2) regional RECs in Norway might not have always enforced this provision, considering some interventional health services research to be outside their remit; and 3) Norwegian law does not explicity provide for local/university RECs, meaning that, in practice, there may be no readily accessible mechanisms for the assessment of research that is excluded by regional RECs. This may include health services research, pilot studies, and undergraduate research. New 2017 legislation has no effect on this specifically but focuses on institutions regulating researcher activity. This may place researchers in the difficult situation of on one hand, needing to hold to recognized ethical standards, while on the other, not readily having access to independent committee scrutiny to facilitate consistent operation with these standards. CONCLUSION: To support researchers in Norway and to protect the public, it may be necessary either to widen the regional RECs’ remit or to make legislative alterations that permit and do not discourage the existence of local RECs. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6327404 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-63274042019-01-15 Research ethics oversight in Norway: structure, function, and challenges Froud, R. Meza, T. J. Ernes, K. O. Slowther, A. M. BMC Health Serv Res Debate BACKGROUND: While the development and evaluation of clinical ethics services in Norway has been recognized internationally, the country’s research ethics infrastructure at times may have been less well developed. In 2016, media interest in the controversial nature of some health services research and pilot studies highlighted gaps in the system with certain types of research having no clear mechanisms through which they may be given due independent consideration. It is not clear that new legislation, implemented in 2017, will address this problem. SUMMARY: We explore relevant law, committee scope, and the function of the system. We show that 1) Norwegian law provides for ethics assessment for all forms of health research; 2) regional RECs in Norway might not have always enforced this provision, considering some interventional health services research to be outside their remit; and 3) Norwegian law does not explicity provide for local/university RECs, meaning that, in practice, there may be no readily accessible mechanisms for the assessment of research that is excluded by regional RECs. This may include health services research, pilot studies, and undergraduate research. New 2017 legislation has no effect on this specifically but focuses on institutions regulating researcher activity. This may place researchers in the difficult situation of on one hand, needing to hold to recognized ethical standards, while on the other, not readily having access to independent committee scrutiny to facilitate consistent operation with these standards. CONCLUSION: To support researchers in Norway and to protect the public, it may be necessary either to widen the regional RECs’ remit or to make legislative alterations that permit and do not discourage the existence of local RECs. BioMed Central 2019-01-10 /pmc/articles/PMC6327404/ /pubmed/30630475 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-3816-0 Text en © The Author(s). 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Debate Froud, R. Meza, T. J. Ernes, K. O. Slowther, A. M. Research ethics oversight in Norway: structure, function, and challenges |
title | Research ethics oversight in Norway: structure, function, and challenges |
title_full | Research ethics oversight in Norway: structure, function, and challenges |
title_fullStr | Research ethics oversight in Norway: structure, function, and challenges |
title_full_unstemmed | Research ethics oversight in Norway: structure, function, and challenges |
title_short | Research ethics oversight in Norway: structure, function, and challenges |
title_sort | research ethics oversight in norway: structure, function, and challenges |
topic | Debate |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6327404/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30630475 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-3816-0 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT froudr researchethicsoversightinnorwaystructurefunctionandchallenges AT mezatj researchethicsoversightinnorwaystructurefunctionandchallenges AT ernesko researchethicsoversightinnorwaystructurefunctionandchallenges AT slowtheram researchethicsoversightinnorwaystructurefunctionandchallenges |