Skip to main content
NCBI home page
The BMJ logoLink to The BMJ
. 1996 Nov 30;313(7069):1390–1393. doi: 10.1136/bmj.313.7069.1390

Are research ethics committees behaving unethically? Some suggestions for improving performance and accountability.

J Savulescu 1, I Chalmers 1, J Blunt 1
PMCID: PMC2352884  PMID: 8956711

Abstract

The results of recent empirical investigations in research synthesis imply that research ethics committees are behaving unethically by endorsing new research which is unnecessary and by acquiescing in biased under-reporting of research which they have approved. The performance and accountability of research ethics committees would be improved if they required those proposing research to present systematic reviews of relevant previous research in support of their applications; to summarise the results of these reviews in the information prepared for potential participants; to register new controlled trials at inception; and to ensure that the results of these trials are made publicly available within a reasonable period of time after completion of data collection.

Full text

PDF
1390

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Alberti K. G. Local research ethics committees. BMJ. 1995 Sep 9;311(7006):639–640. doi: 10.1136/bmj.311.7006.639. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Antman E. M., Lau J., Kupelnick B., Mosteller F., Chalmers T. C. A comparison of results of meta-analyses of randomized control trials and recommendations of clinical experts. Treatments for myocardial infarction. JAMA. 1992 Jul 8;268(2):240–248. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Assendelft W. J., Koes B. W., Knipschild P. G., Bouter L. M. The relationship between methodological quality and conclusions in reviews of spinal manipulation. JAMA. 1995 Dec 27;274(24):1942–1948. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Baum M. L., Anish D. S., Chalmers T. C., Sacks H. S., Smith H., Jr, Fagerstrom R. M. A survey of clinical trials of antibiotic prophylaxis in colon surgery: evidence against further use of no-treatment controls. N Engl J Med. 1981 Oct 1;305(14):795–799. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198110013051404. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Chalmers I., Gray M., Sheldon T. Handling scientific fraud. Prospective registration of health care research would help. BMJ. 1995 Jul 22;311(6999):262–262. doi: 10.1136/bmj.311.6999.262b. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Chalmers I. Publication bias. Lancet. 1993 Oct 30;342(8879):1116–1116. doi: 10.1016/0140-6736(93)92099-f. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Chalmers I. Underreporting research is scientific misconduct. JAMA. 1990 Mar 9;263(10):1405–1408. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Delamothe T. Whose data are they anyway? BMJ. 1996 May 18;312(7041):1241–1242. doi: 10.1136/bmj.312.7041.1241. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Denny W. F. The use of placebo controls. N Engl J Med. 1995 Jan 5;332(1):61–62. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Dickersin K. Why register clinical trials?--Revisited. Control Clin Trials. 1992 Apr;13(2):170–177. doi: 10.1016/0197-2456(92)90022-r. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Easterbrook P. J., Berlin J. A., Gopalan R., Matthews D. R. Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet. 1991 Apr 13;337(8746):867–872. doi: 10.1016/0140-6736(91)90201-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Egger M., Smith G. D. Misleading meta-analysis. BMJ. 1995 Mar 25;310(6982):752–754. doi: 10.1136/bmj.310.6982.752. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Freedman B. Equipoise and the ethics of clinical research. N Engl J Med. 1987 Jul 16;317(3):141–145. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198707163170304. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Freedman Benjamin. Scientific value and validity as ethical requirements for research: a proposed explication. IRB. 1987 Nov-Dec;9(6):7–10. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Garfield P. Cross district comparison of applications to research ethics committees. BMJ. 1995 Sep 9;311(7006):660–661. doi: 10.1136/bmj.311.7006.660. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Gilbert C., Fulford K. W., Parker C. Diversity in the practice of district ethics committees. BMJ. 1989 Dec 9;299(6713):1437–1439. doi: 10.1136/bmj.299.6713.1437. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Gøtzsche P. C. Reference bias in reports of drug trials. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1987 Sep 12;295(6599):654–656. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Harlan W. R. From the National Institutes of Health. JAMA. 1994 Jun 8;271(22):1729–1729. doi: 10.1001/jama.271.22.1729. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Henry D., Hill S. Comparing treatments. BMJ. 1995 May 20;310(6990):1279–1279. doi: 10.1136/bmj.310.6990.1279. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Herxheimer A. Clinical trials: two neglected ethical issues. J Med Ethics. 1993 Dec;19(4):211–218. doi: 10.1136/jme.19.4.211. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Jacobsen G., Hals A. Medical investigators' views about ethics and fraud in medical research. J R Coll Physicians Lond. 1995 Sep-Oct;29(5):405–409. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Koopmans P. P. Registration of drugs for treating cancer and HIV infection: a plea to carry out phase 3 trials before admission to the market. BMJ. 1995 May 20;310(6990):1305–1306. doi: 10.1136/bmj.310.6990.1305. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Lau J., Antman E. M., Jimenez-Silva J., Kupelnick B., Mosteller F., Chalmers T. C. Cumulative meta-analysis of therapeutic trials for myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 1992 Jul 23;327(4):248–254. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199207233270406. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Lau J., Schmid C. H., Chalmers T. C. Cumulative meta-analysis of clinical trials builds evidence for exemplary medical care. J Clin Epidemiol. 1995 Jan;48(1):45–60. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(94)00106-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Middle C., Johnson A., Petty T., Sims L., Macfarlane A. Ethics approval for a national postal survey: recent experience. BMJ. 1995 Sep 9;311(7006):659–660. doi: 10.1136/bmj.311.7006.659. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Milne R., Chambers L. Assessing the scientific quality of review articles. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1993 Jun;47(3):169–170. doi: 10.1136/jech.47.3.169. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Milne R., Donald A., Chambers L. Piloting short workshops on the critical appraisal of reviews. Health Trends. 1995;27(4):120–123. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Moher D., Olkin I. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. A concern for standards;. JAMA. 1995 Dec 27;274(24):1962–1964. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Moher D. Publication bias. Lancet. 1993 Oct 30;342(8879):1116–1116. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Mulrow C. D. The medical review article: state of the science. Ann Intern Med. 1987 Mar;106(3):485–488. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-106-3-485. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. National Council on Bioethics in Human Research (Canada). Working Group on Evaluation Protecting and promoting the human research subject: a review of the function of research ethics boards in Canadian faculties of medicine. NCBHR Commun. 1995 Winter;6(1):3–32. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Oxman A. D., Guyatt G. H. The science of reviewing research. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1993 Dec 31;703:125–134. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1993.tb26342.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Oxman A. D., Sackett D. L., Guyatt G. H. Users' guides to the medical literature. I. How to get started. The Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA. 1993 Nov 3;270(17):2093–2095. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Pearn J. Publication: an ethical imperative. BMJ. 1995 May 20;310(6990):1313–1315. doi: 10.1136/bmj.310.6990.1313. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Rachels J. Active and passive euthanasia. N Engl J Med. 1975 Jan 9;292(2):78–80. doi: 10.1056/NEJM197501092920206. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Riordan F., Thomson A. P. How to get patients' consent to enter clinical trials. Reports of trials should state proportion of people who refuse to participate. BMJ. 1996 Jan 20;312(7024):185–186. doi: 10.1136/bmj.312.7024.185c. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Roberts J., Smith R. Publishing research supported by the tobacco industry. BMJ. 1996 Jan 20;312(7024):133–134. doi: 10.1136/bmj.312.7024.133. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Rothman K. J., Michels K. B. The continuing unethical use of placebo controls. N Engl J Med. 1994 Aug 11;331(6):394–398. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199408113310611. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Scherer R. W., Dickersin K., Langenberg P. Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts. A meta-analysis. JAMA. 1994 Jul 13;272(2):158–162. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Shapiro M. F., Charrow R. P. Scientific misconduct in investigational drug trials. N Engl J Med. 1985 Mar 14;312(11):731–736. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198503143121128. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Shapiro M. F., Charrow R. P. The role of data audits in detecting scientific misconduct. Results of the FDA program. JAMA. 1989 May 5;261(17):2505–2511. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Simes R. J. Publication bias: the case for an international registry of clinical trials. J Clin Oncol. 1986 Oct;4(10):1529–1541. doi: 10.1200/JCO.1986.4.10.1529. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Vandenbroucke J. P. De Cochrane Collaboration en 'evidence-based medicine'. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 1995 Jul 22;139(29):1476–1477. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Weijer C., Shapiro S., Fuks A., Glass K. C., Skrutkowska M. Monitoring clinical research: an obligation unfulfilled. CMAJ. 1995 Jun 15;152(12):1973–1980. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. While A. E. Ethics committees: impediments to research or guardians of ethical standards? BMJ. 1995 Sep 9;311(7006):661–661. doi: 10.1136/bmj.311.7006.661. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. de Melker H. E., Rosendaal F. R., Vandenbroucke J. P. Is publication bias a medical problem? Lancet. 1993 Sep 4;342(8871):621–621. doi: 10.1016/0140-6736(93)91449-v. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from BMJ : British Medical Journal are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES