Tuyển tập các báo cáo nghiên cứu về y học được đăng trên tạp chí y học General Psychiatry cung cấp cho các bạn kiến thức về ngành y đề tài: Reviewing the reviewers: the vague accountability of research ethics committees. | Available online http content 6 2 121 Commentary Reviewing the reviewers the vague accountability of research ethics committees Randi Zlotnik Shaul Bioethicist Department of Bioethics The Hospital for Sick Children and Department of Paediatrics and Joint Centre for Bioethics University of Toronto Toronto Ontario Canada Correspondence Randi Zlotnik Shaul Published online 11 March 2002 Critical Care 2002 6 121-122 2002 BioMed Central Ltd Print ISSN 1364-8535 Online ISSN 1466-609X Abstract 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. Keywords clinical trial institutional review board professional ethics research ethics research ethics committee Although the need to review the ethics of research conducted in humans is generally accepted there is less agreement over the extent to which reviewers are responsible or answerable for the decisions they make. What is the nature of reviewer accountability RECs like their US and Canadian counterparts institutional review boards and research ethics boards respectively are responsible for assessing human research protocols for conformity to ethical principles. For the purposes of this commentary the term REC will be used to refer to research ethics committees institutional review boards and research ethics boards. This role is currently strained by increases in the number of protocols that are in need of review the scientific and funding .
