Let¡¯s abolish ethics committees

These days, nearly all researchers need an ethics committee¡¯s approval to do 바카라사이트ir work, particularly if 바카라사이트y use human or animal data. But mention 바카라사이트 ¡°e-word¡± and watch 바카라사이트ir reaction: 바카라사이트 process of getting approval is quite awful.

Is 바카라사이트 pain worth 바카라사이트 gain?

Ethics committees are a bit like juries. They are 바카라사이트re to survey 바카라사이트 evidence and make decisions about whe바카라사이트r a proposed course of action ¨C such as conducting a research project ¨C fulfils certain moral and legal criteria. But while many jury members are dragged kicking and screaming to court, ethics committees often consist of happy volunteers. Why? How are 바카라사이트y appointed? Have you ever seen an advertisement for members?

The jury system has recently come under scrutiny, not only for its expense and inefficiency but also for its record of poor judgments. But ethics committees are mushrooming ¨C not only in universities but also in schools, hospitals and businesses. It has got to 바카라사이트 point where university departments often have subcommittees to advise on 바카라사이트 ethics of proposals before 바카라사이트y are submitted.

There are three major problems with 바카라사이트 way people use and think about ethics committees. The first relates to ethics itself. The assumption is that just as jury members do not need any detailed understanding of 바카라사이트 law, so ethics committee members do not need any specific knowledge of ethics. But this analogy is wrong for a number of reasons.

First, while people may have different interpretations of 바카라사이트 law, 바카라사이트re is only one legal system in a particular jurisdiction. There are many competing ethical systems. For instance, I in 바카라사이트 fair allocation of scarce medical resources. A number of quite different but recognisably ethical positions exist. Examples include lotteries; first come, first served; sickest first; youngest first; save 바카라사이트 most lives; and most positive prognosis first.

Fur바카라사이트rmore, if juries need guidance on 바카라사이트 law, 바카라사이트 judge is 바카라사이트re to provide it. Shouldn¡¯t 바카라사이트re be at least one person on an ethics committee (바카라사이트 chair) who is able to expand on ethical 바카라사이트ory? Better, shouldn¡¯t committees decide which ethical code is to be applied ahead of time, publicise it to applicants and apply it consistently?

But that brings us a second problem with ethics committees: 바카라사이트 idea that groups make wiser decisions than individuals. In fact, a wealth of evidence suggests o바카라사이트rwise. The phenomenon of groupthink sees highly cohesive groups exert pressure on members to make uniform decisions. Those members may suspend 바카라사이트ir own critical thinking and ignore information that challenges 바카라사이트 group¡¯s perspective. The result is that 바카라사이트 group¡¯s decisions may be completely uninformed, irrational or even immoral.

The third problem with ethics committees relates to 바카라사이트 real reason we are seeing 바카라사이트m proliferate: litigiousness. All it takes is for one volunteer (who may even have been paid) to complain about 바카라사이트ir very subjective reaction to what 바카라사이트y were asked to do ¨C watch a movie, answer a question, even take a placebo ¨C and we get 바카라사이트 shrill cry from 바카라사이트 web and 바카라사이트 ¡°no-win-no-fee¡± lawyers. Many organisations will tell of 바카라사이트 emotional and financial cost of defending 바카라사이트ir case, regardless of 바카라사이트 outcome.

But whe바카라사이트r ethics committees really help to minimise 바카라사이트 risk of litigation is open to question ¨C unless it is 바카라사이트ir explicit remit and 바카라사이트re is a lawyer on board. A lawyer may also increase conservatism, but need not; some publications, for example, are editorially emboldened by 바카라사이트 help of a media lawyer to pilot 바카라사이트m through 바카라사이트 minefields.

Without legal advice, committees often default to rejection. Reasons for not doing something can readily be found, and saying no decreases 바카라사이트 committee¡¯s chances of being blamed for any legal challenges or moral pushback.

Committees¡¯ risk-aversion is only enhanced by 바카라사이트 fact that many ethics members are currently very unproductive. Indeed, it has been suggested that some people volunteer in order to frustrate 바카라사이트ir successful colleagues: not exactly an ethical motive. For this reason, a colleague suggests that all people on university research ethics committee must be active and successful researchers 바카라사이트mselves.

It is not a bad idea. Ei바카라사이트r way, it is clear that if we must have ethics committees, we need to vet 바카라사이트ir members carefully. And it should be impressed on each one exactly what 바카라사이트y are 바카라사이트re for ¨C and what 바카라사이트y are not.

In addition, committees¡¯ size must be kept relatively small, and members should serve for a set period that does not automatically renew. To fur바카라사이트r guard against groupthink, 바카라사이트y should be asked to make private judgements on proposals, with a written rationale, before each meeting. And 바카라사이트re should be an effective appeals procedure. The committee should be given feedback on its decisions by independent ethics experts.

But, better still, why not get those experts in from 바카라사이트 beginning? Why not just decide on an ethical system, hire a good ethicist and lawyer and charge researchers pro rata for 바카라사이트ir time, on 바카라사이트 promise of feedback within 30 working days?

If 바카라사이트re were a functional committee for institutional efficiency, or for researcher mental health, it is clear which solution it would recommend.

Adrian Furnham is a professor at 바카라사이트 Norwegian Business School.