Review of a mock research protocol in functional neuroimaging by Canadian research ethics boards

Objective: To examine how research ethics boards (REBs) review research projects in emerging disciplines such as functional neuroimaging. Design: To compare the criteria applied and the decisions reached by REBs that reviewed the same mock research protocol in functional neuroimaging. Participants:...

Full description

Saved in:  
Bibliographic Details
Authors: de Champlain, J. (Author) ; Patenaude, J. (Author)
Format: Electronic Article
Language:English
Check availability: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
Drawer...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Published: BMJ Publ. 2006
In: Journal of medical ethics
Year: 2006, Volume: 32, Issue: 9, Pages: 530-534
Online Access: Presumably Free Access
Volltext (JSTOR)
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)
Description
Summary:Objective: To examine how research ethics boards (REBs) review research projects in emerging disciplines such as functional neuroimaging. Design: To compare the criteria applied and the decisions reached by REBs that reviewed the same mock research protocol in functional neuroimaging. Participants: 44 Canadian biomedical REBs, mostly working in public university or hospital settings. Main measurements: The mock research protocol “The Neurobiology of Social Behavior” included several ethical issues operating at all three levels: personal, institutional and social. Data consisting of responses to closed questions were analysed quantitatively. Qualitative analysis of open-question responses used mixed classification. Results: Similar criteria were used by most participating REBs. Yet the project was unconditionally approved by 3 REBs, approved conditionally by 10 and rejected by 30. Conclusions: The results point to the difficulty for REBs of reviewing all kinds of research projects, regardless of field, by relying on international and national norms framed in general terms and a possible variation between REBs in the interpretation of their mandate for the protection of research subjects.
ISSN:1473-4257
Contains:Enthalten in: Journal of medical ethics
Persistent identifiers:DOI: 10.1136/jme.2005.012807