Response to Correspondence from Kolstoe and colleagues concerning our paper entitled, Research approvals iceberg: How a 'low-key' study in England needed 89 professionals to approve it and how we can do better.
MetadataShow full item record
Petrova, M., & Barclay, S. (2019). Response to Correspondence from Kolstoe and colleagues concerning our paper entitled, Research approvals iceberg: How a 'low-key' study in England needed 89 professionals to approve it and how we can do better.. [Other]. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-019-0433-3
In their letter to the Editor in this issue, Kolstoe and Carpenter challenge a core aspect of our recently published case study of research approvals [BMC Medical Ethics 20:7] by arguing that we conflate research ethics with governance and funding processes. Amongst the key concerns of the authors are: 1) that our paper exemplifies a typical conflation of concepts such as governance, integrity and ethics, with significant consequences for claims around the responsibility and accountability of the organisations involved; 2) that, as a consequence of this conflation, we misrepresent the ethics review process, including in fundamental aspects such as the ethics approval-opinion distinction; 3) that it is difficult to see scope for greater integration of processes such as applying for funding, research approvals, Patient and Public Involvement, etc., as suggested by us. Here we present an alternative point of view towards the concerns raised.
Ethics, Biomedical Ethics, Institutional Review Boards, Ethics Committees, Irb, Bioethics [Mesh], Ethical Review [Mesh], Research [Mesh], Comment [Publication Type] [Mesh], Humans, Records, Ethics Committees, Research, Ethics, Medical, Ethics, Research, England
External DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-019-0433-3
This record's DOI: https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.48552
Attribution 4.0 International
Licence URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/