Abstract
Research Ethics Boards (REBs) provide oversight for Canadians that research projects will comply with standards of ethics if the studies are carried out as described in the documents that have been approved. While REBs have traditionally been affiliated with institutions such as universities and hospitals, a number of factors - including the increased volume of research being conducted outside academic centres - have resulted in the establishment of some private or independent REBs. This, in turn, has raised concerns about the credibility of REBs in the private sector and their capacity to handle issues around conflict of interest. This Breakout Session was an opportunity to hear the perspectives of people associated with institutional and private REBs and examine perceived problems with boards in the private sector, scrutinize theoretical and structural differences between types of REBs, and look at whether or not there is room for both institutional and private boards in the Canadian research review landscape.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
CIHR (Canadian Institutes of Health Research), NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada), SSHRC (Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada). Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans 1998 (with 2000, 2002 and 2005 amendments). Available: http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/eng/policy-politique/tcps-eptc/ (accessed March 16, 2009).
Civil Code of Québec. Available: http://www2.publicationsduquebec.gouv.qc.ca/dynamicSearch/telecharge.php?type=2&file=/CCQ/CCQ_A.html (accessed March 16, 2009).
Emanuel, E. J., Wood, A., Fleischman, A., Bowen, A., Getz, K. A., et al. (2004). Oversight of human participants research: Identifying problems to evaluate reform proposals. Annals of Internal Medicine, 141, 282–291.
Emanuel EJ, Lemmens T, Elliott C. Should society allow research ethics boards to be run as for-profit enterprises? Ezekiel J. Emanuel’s Viewpoint: Let’s dump the outdated ideology of “for-profit bad, not-for-profit good.” PLoS Medicine 2006; 3: e309. Available: http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0030309&ct=1 (accessed March 16, 2009).
Fost, N., & Levine, R. J. (2007). The dysregulation of human subjects research. JAMA, 298(18), 2196–2198.
Guidance for Clinical Trial Sponsors, Clinical Trial Applications Available: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/prodpharma/applic-demande/guide-ld/clini/ctdcta_ctddec-eng.php (accessed March 16, 2009).
United States Office of Inspector General (OIG) Institutional Review Boards: A Time for Reform. Department of Health and Human Services 1998, Washington.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rolleston, F., Corman, J., Gauthier, S. et al. Ethics Issues with Private Research Ethics Boards: A Breakout Session at the 2009 NCEHR National Conference. J Acad Ethics 7, 69–73 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-009-9084-1
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-009-9084-1