Should research ethics committees meet in public?

Currently, research ethics committees (RECs) in the UK meet behind closed doors—their workings and most of the content of their decisions are unavailable to the general public. There is a significant tension between this current practice and a broader societal presumption of openness. As a form of p...

Full description

Saved in:  
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Sheehan, M. (Author)
Format: Electronic Article
Language:English
Check availability: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
Drawer...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Published: BMJ Publ. 2008
In: Journal of medical ethics
Year: 2008, Volume: 34, Issue: 8, Pages: 631-635
Online Access: Volltext (JSTOR)
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)

MARC

LEADER 00000naa a22000002 4500
001 1816135348
003 DE-627
005 20220908053454.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 220908s2008 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c
024 7 |a 10.1136/jme.2007.022574  |2 doi 
035 |a (DE-627)1816135348 
035 |a (DE-599)KXP1816135348 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rda 
041 |a eng 
084 |a 1  |2 ssgn 
100 1 |a Sheehan, M.  |e VerfasserIn  |4 aut 
245 1 0 |a Should research ethics committees meet in public? 
264 1 |c 2008 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a Computermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
520 |a Currently, research ethics committees (RECs) in the UK meet behind closed doors—their workings and most of the content of their decisions are unavailable to the general public. There is a significant tension between this current practice and a broader societal presumption of openness. As a form of public institution, the REC system exists to oversee research from the perspective of society generally.An important part of this tension turns on the kind of justification that might be offered for the REC system. In this paper I adapt Daniels and Sabin’s accountability for reasonableness model for just resource allocation to the research ethics context to provide some structural legitimacy and to enable progress on the question of openness. After considering the consequences of adopting this model for open REC meetings, I then examine some reasons that might be offered against open meetings. These arguments do not overwhelm the core intuitions behind the presumption of openness but they do, I suggest, give us reason to retreat from fully public meetings. I conclude that there should be important adjustments to the system towards public accountability and that there are grounds for stopping short of fully public meetings. 
773 0 8 |i Enthalten in  |t Journal of medical ethics  |d London : BMJ Publ., 1975  |g 34(2008), 8, Seite 631-635  |h Online-Ressource  |w (DE-627)323607802  |w (DE-600)2026397-1  |w (DE-576)260773972  |x 1473-4257  |7 nnns 
773 1 8 |g volume:34  |g year:2008  |g number:8  |g pages:631-635 
856 |3 Volltext  |u http://www.jstor.org/stable/27720158  |x JSTOR 
856 4 0 |u https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2007.022574  |x Resolving-System  |z lizenzpflichtig  |3 Volltext 
856 4 0 |u http://jme.bmj.com/content/34/8/631.abstract  |x Verlag  |z lizenzpflichtig  |3 Volltext 
935 |a mteo 
936 u w |d 34  |j 2008  |e 8  |h 631-635 
951 |a AR 
ELC |a 1 
ITA |a 1  |t 1 
LOK |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 
LOK |0 001 4185589212 
LOK |0 003 DE-627 
LOK |0 004 1816135348 
LOK |0 005 20220908053454 
LOK |0 008 220908||||||||||||||||ger||||||| 
LOK |0 035   |a (DE-Tue135)IxTheo#2022-08-02#CC9388407FE435437BC4A6B09EBBDA20D74E85A3 
LOK |0 040   |a DE-Tue135  |c DE-627  |d DE-Tue135 
LOK |0 092   |o n 
LOK |0 852   |a DE-Tue135 
LOK |0 852 1  |9 00 
LOK |0 866   |x JSTOR#http://www.jstor.org/stable/27720158 
LOK |0 935   |a ixzs  |a ixrk  |a zota 
OAS |a 1  |b inherited from superior work 
ORI |a SA-MARC-ixtheoa001.raw