John Oates Andrew Rawnsley Birgit Whitman. Plan The background to the Framework The structure of the...
-
Upload
abraham-white -
Category
Documents
-
view
213 -
download
1
Transcript of John Oates Andrew Rawnsley Birgit Whitman. Plan The background to the Framework The structure of the...
A Framework of Policies and Procedures for University Research Ethics Committees
John OatesAndrew Rawnsley
Birgit Whitman
Plan
The background to the Framework
The structure of the Framework
How the Framework might be implemented in institutions
The background to the Framework
John Oates
Open University and AREC Council
The structure of the Framework
Andrew Rawnsley
Research Governance & Training Manager Teesside University
Framework structure Statement of general ethical principles, references
Principles of governance arrangements Independence Competency Facilitation Openness
Governance within the Framework
Implementing the Principles in the ethical review process
Model Standard Operating Procedures
Appendices 1: Standard Operating Procedures Framework
(NRES/OHRP) 2: Self-assessment tool
Principles of governance arrangementsIndependenceEnsuring that conflicts of interest specific to universities are mitigated by sufficient external or impartial scrutiny and/or involvement
CompetenceEnsuring that membership of committees is informed by relevant expertise and decision making is consistent and coherent
FacilitationEnsuring that procedures are administered efficiently and effectively, balancing duties of care with enabling and support of ethical research and innovation
OpennessEnsuring that decisions taken by RECs are open to public scrutiny and responsibilities discharged consistently
Principles of governance arrangementsIndependence ensuring that URECs include members from a wide range of
disciplines;
ensuring that URECs have members from outside the faculty or other academic unit covered by the committee;
providing a constitution which grants each UREC the freedom to make ethics judgements but that also makes it accountable;
including ‘lay’ or external members in URECs;
having an overarching policy committee which may or may not undertake ethics review itself, but which sets consistent standards and has authority to intervene when necessary.
Principles of governance arrangementsCompetenceDoes the UREC have comprehensive standard operating
procedures so that ethics opinions are reached consistently and fairly?
Do ethical review applications require details that provide all the information that a competent REC needs to have in order to make sound and coherent decisions?
Do UREC members get compensation which demonstrate that the university has a sustainable commitment to competent ethics review?
Does the university provide systematic training for UREC members?
Principles of governance arrangements
FacilitationWhat is the degree of devolution for responsibility in making
ethics decision? Are decisions taken at the local or central level?
What checks and balances might be put in place to manage the balance between ethical duties and support of research activity?
How does the UREC and the university ensure that researchers are trained, in ethical issues and in the policies and mechanics of review?
How does the UREC deal with ensuring timely and proportional review? Are different levels of risk handled efficiently? How are delays in response to application minimised?
Principles of governance arrangements
OpennessResearch should be subject to rigorous peer review not normally
open to public scrutiny before the results are published, so how is transparency to be achieved?
A researcher should be allowed to respond to any criticism or ethics review without the threat of having his or her career tarnished by adverse publicity, so how does a UREC ensure that this is avoided?
How can the institution ensure openness whilst preserving intellectual property rights where due?
Are the research governance arrangements for the university clearly available to both internal and external parties?
What reporting lines are in place and with whom does the responsibility for reporting lie?
Governance within the Framework
decisions on individual projects must be respected
no member should be subject to pressure from interested parties
no negative opinion should be overturned, except by another duly appointed UREC
a positive opinion should be overturned only because of an issue outside the purview of the original UREC or facts not brought to the attention of that UREC
there should be an appeals procedure, which allows reference to another UREC
researchers who fail to refer relevant projects for ethics review, who deliberately act against the requirements of a UREC, or who treat those requirements contemptuously should be liable to investigation for research misconduct
Implementing the Principles in the ethical review process
Basic standards (required)Best practice (recommended)
1. Policy document (required) a Terms of Reference for REC (required) b Job descriptions for REC members (recommended)
2. Training and development of REC members (required)
3. Standard Operating Procedures (recommended)
4. Other procedures and guidelines (recommended)
Model Standard Operating Procedures
The role of a Research Ethics Committee
The constitution of a Research Ethics Committee
Applications
Fast-tracking ethics review and devolved review
Monitoring
How the Framework might be implemented
in institutions
Birgit Whitman
Head of Research Governance University of Bristol
Internal implementation plan Pilot phase
Introduce the framework to the Research Ethics Community
- Strategic level- Operational level
Undertake a mapping exercise in one of the Research Ethics Committees (REC)
- identify volunteer for pilot
Identify issues for clarification and training needs
Internal implementation planPrepare template compliance statement for
University wide sections of the framework
Arrange training of Research Ethics Officers and administrators via AREC
Provide hands on support
Roll out to all REC for self-assessment
Internal implementation planEvaluation phase
Collect responses and prepare position paper with gap analysis to identify common themes.
Prepare action plan
Feed into system policy development
Consider independent review with colleagues from the AREC community
Redo self-assessment every 3 years
Go for it!