Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Research ethics committee members’ perspectives on paediatric research: a qualitative interview study.Kajsa Norberg Wieslander, Anna T. Höglund, Sara Frygner-Holm & Tove Godskesen - 2023 - Research Ethics 19 (4):494-518.
    Research ethics committees (RECs) have a crucial role in protecting children in research. However, studies on REC members’ perspectives on paediatric research are scarce. We conducted a qualitative study to explore Swedish scientific REC members’ perspectives on ethical aspects in applications involving children with severe health conditions. The REC members considered promoting participation, protecting children and regulatory adherence to be central aspects. The results underscored the importance of not neglecting ill children’s rights to adapted information and participation. REC members supported (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Science review in research ethics committees: Double jeopardy?Stephen Humphreys, Hilary Thomas & Robyn Martin - 2014 - Research Ethics 10 (4):227-237.
    Research ethics committees ‘(RECs) members’ perceptions of their role in regard to the science of research proposals are discussed. Our study, which involved the interviewing of 20 participants from amongst the UK’s independent (Phase I) ethics committees, revealed that the members consider that it is the role of the REC to examine and approve the scientific adequacy of the research – and this notwithstanding the fact that a more competent body will already have done this and even when that other (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Nonscientific Members of Institutional Review Boards.Joshua Cedric A. Gundayao, Julia Patrick Engkasan & Sharon Kaur - forthcoming - Asian Bioethics Review:1-16.
    Given ICH-GCP’s role in shaping IRB standards in most jurisdictions, clarifying the function and definition of nonscientific members is crucial. ICH-GCP 3.2.1 requires a nonscientific member but its definition focuses on who they are not rather than who they are, creating ambiguity and varied interpretations. This paper reviews the idea of nonscientific members of the IRB to understand their definitions and roles based on current literature. This is because, despite the ICH-GCP’s mandate, recent research is scarce. Our review identifies that (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark