Response to Schrag: What are ethics committees for anyway? A defence of social science research ethics review

TitleResponse to Schrag: What are ethics committees for anyway? A defence of social science research ethics review
Publication TypeJournal Article
Year of Publication2012
AuthorsJennings, S
JournalResearch Ethics
Volume8
Issue2
Pagination87-96
Date Published2012
Publication Languageeng
KeywordsJUSTIFICATION , Pragmatics , research , SCHRAG , SOCIAL , Zachary
AbstractZachary Schrag would like to put the burden of proof for continuation of research ethics review in the Social Sciences on those who advocate for research ethics committees (RECs), and asks that we take the concerns that he raises seriously. I separate his concerns into a principled issue and a number of pragmatic issues. The principled issue concerns the justification for having research ethics committees; the pragmatic issues concern questions such as the effectiveness of review and the expertise of the committee members. I argue that RECs can be justified by their role in improving ethical practice and in reducing wrongs done to research participants. I propose a model of review for doing this, which I think would also address the pragmatic issues raised. I then offer an account of where the UK ethics review system is now and suggest three steps which could improve social science ethics review in the UK and move it in a perhaps more desirable direction. 
NotesJennings, Sean 1; Affiliation: 1: University of Birmingham, UK; Source Info: Jun2012, Vol. 8 Issue 2, p87; Subject Term: RESEARCH -- Moral & ethical aspects; Subject Term: SOCIAL science research; Subject Term: JUSTIFICATION (Ethics); Subject Term: PRAGMATICS; Subject Term: RESEARCH subjects (Persons); NAICS/Industry Codes: 541720 Research and Development in the Social Sciences and Humanities; People: SCHRAG, Zachary; Number of Pages: 10p; Document Type: Article
DOI10.1177/1747016112445423

Discipline: 

Subject: 

Publication: