The Emergence of Clinical Research Ethics Consultation

Insights From a National Collaborative

on behalf of the Clinical Research Ethics Consultation Collaborative Repository Group

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

10 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The increasing complexity of human subjects research and its oversight has prompted researchers, as well as institutional review boards (IRBs), to have a forum in which to discuss challenging or novel ethical issues not fully addressed by regulations. Research ethics consultation (REC) services provide such a forum. In this article, we rely on the experiences of a national Research Ethics Consultation Collaborative that collected more than 350 research ethics consultations in a repository and published 18 challenging cases with accompanying ethical commentaries to highlight four contexts in which REC can be a valuable resource. REC assists: 1) investigators before and after the regulatory review; 2) investigators, IRBs, and other research administrators facing challenging and novel ethical issues; 3) IRBs and investigators with the increasing challenges of informed consent and risk/benefit analysis; and 4) in providing flexible and collaborative assistance to overcome study hurdles, mediate conflicts within a team, or directly engage with research participants. Institutions that have established, or plan to establish, REC services should work to raise the visibility of their service and engage in open communication with existing clinical ethics consult services as well as the IRB. While the IRB system remains the foundation for the ethical review of research, REC can be a valuable service for investigators, regulators, and research participants aligned with the goal of supporting ethical research.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)39-45
Number of pages7
JournalAmerican Journal of Bioethics
Volume18
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 2 2018

Fingerprint

Ethics Consultation
Clinical Ethics
Research Ethics
Research Ethics Committees
Research Personnel
Research
Ethics
Ethical Review
Administrative Personnel
Informed Consent
Communication

Keywords

  • ethics consultation
  • human subjects research
  • informed consent
  • Institutional Review Board (IRB)
  • research ethics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Issues, ethics and legal aspects
  • Health Policy

Cite this

on behalf of the Clinical Research Ethics Consultation Collaborative Repository Group (2018). The Emergence of Clinical Research Ethics Consultation: Insights From a National Collaborative. American Journal of Bioethics, 18(1), 39-45. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2017.1401156

The Emergence of Clinical Research Ethics Consultation : Insights From a National Collaborative. / on behalf of the Clinical Research Ethics Consultation Collaborative Repository Group.

In: American Journal of Bioethics, Vol. 18, No. 1, 02.01.2018, p. 39-45.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

on behalf of the Clinical Research Ethics Consultation Collaborative Repository Group 2018, 'The Emergence of Clinical Research Ethics Consultation: Insights From a National Collaborative', American Journal of Bioethics, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 39-45. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2017.1401156
on behalf of the Clinical Research Ethics Consultation Collaborative Repository Group. The Emergence of Clinical Research Ethics Consultation: Insights From a National Collaborative. American Journal of Bioethics. 2018 Jan 2;18(1):39-45. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2017.1401156
on behalf of the Clinical Research Ethics Consultation Collaborative Repository Group. / The Emergence of Clinical Research Ethics Consultation : Insights From a National Collaborative. In: American Journal of Bioethics. 2018 ; Vol. 18, No. 1. pp. 39-45.
@article{d8ecdd08130d472b981b474c0bfcbe3f,
title = "The Emergence of Clinical Research Ethics Consultation: Insights From a National Collaborative",
abstract = "The increasing complexity of human subjects research and its oversight has prompted researchers, as well as institutional review boards (IRBs), to have a forum in which to discuss challenging or novel ethical issues not fully addressed by regulations. Research ethics consultation (REC) services provide such a forum. In this article, we rely on the experiences of a national Research Ethics Consultation Collaborative that collected more than 350 research ethics consultations in a repository and published 18 challenging cases with accompanying ethical commentaries to highlight four contexts in which REC can be a valuable resource. REC assists: 1) investigators before and after the regulatory review; 2) investigators, IRBs, and other research administrators facing challenging and novel ethical issues; 3) IRBs and investigators with the increasing challenges of informed consent and risk/benefit analysis; and 4) in providing flexible and collaborative assistance to overcome study hurdles, mediate conflicts within a team, or directly engage with research participants. Institutions that have established, or plan to establish, REC services should work to raise the visibility of their service and engage in open communication with existing clinical ethics consult services as well as the IRB. While the IRB system remains the foundation for the ethical review of research, REC can be a valuable service for investigators, regulators, and research participants aligned with the goal of supporting ethical research.",
keywords = "ethics consultation, human subjects research, informed consent, Institutional Review Board (IRB), research ethics",
author = "{on behalf of the Clinical Research Ethics Consultation Collaborative Repository Group} and Porter, {Kathryn M.} and Marion Danis and Taylor, {Holly A.} and Cho, {Mildred K.} and Wilfond, {Benjamin S.} and Capron, {Alexander M.} and Cho, {Mildred K.} and Marion Danis and Hester, {D. Micah} and Limehouse, {Walter E.} and Carson Reider and Sharp, {Richard R.} and Taylor, {Holly A.} and Wilfond, {Benjamin S.} and Yarborough, {Mark A}",
year = "2018",
month = "1",
day = "2",
doi = "10.1080/15265161.2017.1401156",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "18",
pages = "39--45",
journal = "American Journal of Bioethics",
issn = "1526-5161",
publisher = "Routledge",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The Emergence of Clinical Research Ethics Consultation

T2 - Insights From a National Collaborative

AU - on behalf of the Clinical Research Ethics Consultation Collaborative Repository Group

AU - Porter, Kathryn M.

AU - Danis, Marion

AU - Taylor, Holly A.

AU - Cho, Mildred K.

AU - Wilfond, Benjamin S.

AU - Capron, Alexander M.

AU - Cho, Mildred K.

AU - Danis, Marion

AU - Hester, D. Micah

AU - Limehouse, Walter E.

AU - Reider, Carson

AU - Sharp, Richard R.

AU - Taylor, Holly A.

AU - Wilfond, Benjamin S.

AU - Yarborough, Mark A

PY - 2018/1/2

Y1 - 2018/1/2

N2 - The increasing complexity of human subjects research and its oversight has prompted researchers, as well as institutional review boards (IRBs), to have a forum in which to discuss challenging or novel ethical issues not fully addressed by regulations. Research ethics consultation (REC) services provide such a forum. In this article, we rely on the experiences of a national Research Ethics Consultation Collaborative that collected more than 350 research ethics consultations in a repository and published 18 challenging cases with accompanying ethical commentaries to highlight four contexts in which REC can be a valuable resource. REC assists: 1) investigators before and after the regulatory review; 2) investigators, IRBs, and other research administrators facing challenging and novel ethical issues; 3) IRBs and investigators with the increasing challenges of informed consent and risk/benefit analysis; and 4) in providing flexible and collaborative assistance to overcome study hurdles, mediate conflicts within a team, or directly engage with research participants. Institutions that have established, or plan to establish, REC services should work to raise the visibility of their service and engage in open communication with existing clinical ethics consult services as well as the IRB. While the IRB system remains the foundation for the ethical review of research, REC can be a valuable service for investigators, regulators, and research participants aligned with the goal of supporting ethical research.

AB - The increasing complexity of human subjects research and its oversight has prompted researchers, as well as institutional review boards (IRBs), to have a forum in which to discuss challenging or novel ethical issues not fully addressed by regulations. Research ethics consultation (REC) services provide such a forum. In this article, we rely on the experiences of a national Research Ethics Consultation Collaborative that collected more than 350 research ethics consultations in a repository and published 18 challenging cases with accompanying ethical commentaries to highlight four contexts in which REC can be a valuable resource. REC assists: 1) investigators before and after the regulatory review; 2) investigators, IRBs, and other research administrators facing challenging and novel ethical issues; 3) IRBs and investigators with the increasing challenges of informed consent and risk/benefit analysis; and 4) in providing flexible and collaborative assistance to overcome study hurdles, mediate conflicts within a team, or directly engage with research participants. Institutions that have established, or plan to establish, REC services should work to raise the visibility of their service and engage in open communication with existing clinical ethics consult services as well as the IRB. While the IRB system remains the foundation for the ethical review of research, REC can be a valuable service for investigators, regulators, and research participants aligned with the goal of supporting ethical research.

KW - ethics consultation

KW - human subjects research

KW - informed consent

KW - Institutional Review Board (IRB)

KW - research ethics

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85041136963&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85041136963&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/15265161.2017.1401156

DO - 10.1080/15265161.2017.1401156

M3 - Article

VL - 18

SP - 39

EP - 45

JO - American Journal of Bioethics

JF - American Journal of Bioethics

SN - 1526-5161

IS - 1

ER -