首页> 外文OA文献 >Never mind the scientific quality, feel the ethics?: an analysis of decision letters by Research Ethics Committees and a reflection
【2h】

Never mind the scientific quality, feel the ethics?: an analysis of decision letters by Research Ethics Committees and a reflection

机译:没关系,科学的质量,有道德吗?:对研究伦理委员会的决定信进行分析并反思

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

Objectives: The performance of NHS research ethics committees (RECs) is of growing interest. It has been proposed that they confine themselves to ‘‘ethical’’ issues only and not concern themselves with the quality of the science. This study aimed to identify current practices of RECs in relation to scientific issues in research ethics applications.\udMethods: Letters written by UK RECs expressing provisional or unfavourable opinions in response to submitted research applications were sampled from the research ethics database held by the Central Office for Research Ethics Committees. Ethnographic content analysis (ECA) was used to develop a coding framework. QSR N6 software was used to facilitate coding.\udResults: ‘‘Scientific issues’’ were raised in 104 (74%) of the 141 letters in our sample. The present data suggest that RECs frequently considered scientific issues and that judgments of these often informed their decisions about approval of applications. Current processes of peer review seemed insufficient to reassure RECs about the scientific quality of applications they were asked to review.\udConclusions: This study provides evidence that scientific issues are frequently raised in letters to researchers and are often considered a quality problem by RECs. In the discussion, the authors reflect on how far issues of science can and should be distinguished from those of ethics and the policy implications.
机译:目标:NHS研究伦理委员会(RECs)的表现受到越来越多的关注。有人提出,他们只将自己局限于“道德”问题,而不关心科学的质量。本研究旨在确定与研究伦理应用中的科学问题相关的REC的当前实践。\ ud方法:英国REC撰写的针对提交的研究申请表达临时或不利意见的信函均来自中央办公室的研究伦理数据库研究伦理委员会。人种学内容分析(ECA)用于开发编码框架。使用了QSR N6软件来简化编码。\ ud结果:样本中的141个字母中有104个(占74%)出现了“科学问题”。目前的数据表明,RECs经常考虑科学问题,而对这些问题的判断通常会为他们的申请批准提供依据。当前的同行评审过程似乎不足以向REC保证他们被要求审查的申请的科学质量。\ ud结论:这项研究提供了证据,证明科学问题经常写给研究人员,并被REC视为质量问题。在讨论中,作者思考了科学问题可以和应该与伦理问题及其政策含义区分开的程度。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号