This paper reports an initiative from the National Research Ethics Service (UK) and research ethics committees in the UK to develop a shared ethical debate between committees and to promote standards of ethical review, exploring the problems and practicalities of such an approach.
BrownRA. Why is quality assurance so difficult? A review in quality assurance over the last decade. Intern Med J2002; 32(7): 331–337.
2.
SchoutenLMTHulscherMEJLvan EverdingenJJEHuijsmanRGrolRPTM. Evidence for the impact of quality improvement collaboratives: systematic reviewBrit Med J2008; 336: 1491–1494.
3.
Dixon-WoodsMAngellEAshcroftREBrymanA. Written work: the social functions of research ethics committee letters. Soc Sci Med2007; 65: 792–802.
4.
European Forum for Good Clinical Practice. The procedure for the ethical review of protocols for clinical research in the European Union. Int J Pharm Med2007; 21(1): 1–113.
5.
World Health Organisation. Surveying and Evaluating Ethical Review Practices. A complementary guideline to the operational guidelines for ethics committees that review biomedical research. World Health organisation: Geneva, 2002.
ColemanCHBouessëauM-C. How do we know that research ethics committees are really working? the neglected role of outcomes assessment in research ethics review. BMC medical ethics2008; 9: 6.
8.
National Research Ethics Service. Data on file, 2008.
9.
Dixon-WoodsMAngellETarantCThomasA. What do research ethics committees say about application to do cancer trials. Lancet Oncology2008; 9: 700–701.
10.
AngellESuttonAJWindridgeKDixon-WoodsM. Consistency in decision making by research ethics committees: a controlled comparison. J Med Ethics2006; 32: 662–664.
11.
AngellEJacksonCJAshcroftREBrymanAWindridgeKDixon-WoodsM. Is ‘inconsistency’ in research ethics committee decision-making really a problem? An empirical investigation and reflection. Clinical Ethics2007; 2: 92–99.
12.
FostNLevineRJ. The dysregulation of human subjects research. JAMA2007; 298(18): 2196–98.
13.
TaylorHA. Moving beyond compliance: measuring ethical quality to enhance the oversight of human subjects research. IRB2007; 29(5): 9–14.
14.
BurrisSMossK. US health researchers review their ethics review boards. J Empirical Res Hlth Res Ethics2006; 1(2): 39–58.
15.
HallowellNCookeSCrawfordGParkerMLucassenA. Ethics and research governance: the views of researchers, health-care professionals and other stakeholders. Clinical Ethics2008; 3(2): 85–90.
16.
MeslinEMLaveryJVSutherlandHJTillJE. Judging the ethical merit of clinical trials: what criteria do research ethics board members use?IRB1994; 16(4): 6–10.
17.
ShahSWhittleAWilfondBGenslerGWendlerD. How do IRBs apply the federal risk and benefit standards for pediatric research?JAMA2004; 291(4): 476–482.
18.
SayersGM. Should research ethics committees be told how to think?J Med Ethics2007; 33: 39–42.
19.
Niccolò Machiavelli (1469–1527). The Prince Ch 3. Published 1513.
