title: Is mandatory research ethics reviewing ethical?
abstract: Review boards responsible for vetting the ethical conduct of research have been criticised for their costliness, unreliability and inappropriate standards when evaluating some non-medical research, but the basic value of mandatory ethical review has not been questioned. When the standards that review boards use to evaluate research proposals are applied to review board practices, it is clear that review boards do not respect researchers or each other, lack merit and integrity, are not just and are not beneficent. The few benefits of mandatory ethical review come at a much greater, but mainly hidden, social cost. It is time that responsibility for the ethical conduct of research is clearly transferred to researchers, except possibly in that small proportion of cases where prospective research participants may be so intrinsically vulnerable that their well-being may need to be overseen.
authors.affiliation: Griffith University, School of Applied Psychology, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia. m.dyck@griffith.edu.au
authors.forename: Murray
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Dyck
authors.forename: Gary
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: Allen
mesh_terms: D026686:Beneficence; D035843:Biomedical Research / Q000941:ethics*; D054976:Clinical Governance / Q000941:ethics / Q000592:standards; D016265:Conflict of Interest; D026689:Ethical Analysis; D026724:Ethical Review; D028744:Ethics Committees, Research / Q000191:economics* / Q000941:ethics* / Q000592:standards; D032984:Ethics, Research; D006805:Human Experimentation / Q000941:ethics*; D006801:Humans; D015337:Multicenter Studies as Topic / Q000941:ethics; D026684:Personal Autonomy; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D012108:Research Personnel / Q000941:ethics*; D035842:Research Subjects; D012308:Risk Management / Q000941:ethics / Q000592:standards; D012935:Social Justice; D035502:Trust