Abstract
BackgroundEthics committees typically apply the common principles of autonomy, nonmaleficence, beneficence and justice to research proposals but with variable weighting and interpretation. This paper reports a comparison of ethical requirements in an international cross-cultural study and discusses their implications.DiscussionThe study was run concurrently in New Zealand, UK, Israel, Canada and USA and involved testing hypotheses about believability of testimonies regarding alleged child sexual abuse. Ethics committee requirements to conduct this study ranged from nil in Israel to considerable amendments designed to minimise participant harm in New Zealand. Assessment of minimal risk is a complex and unreliable estimation further compounded by insufficient information on probabilities of particular individuals suffering harm. Estimating potential benefits/ risks ratio and protecting participants' autonomy similarly are not straightforward exercises.SummarySafeguarding moral/humane principles should be balanced with promotion of ethical research which does not impede research posing minimal risk to participants. In ensuring that ethical standards are met and research has scientific merit, ethics committees have obligations to participants (to meet their rights and protect them from harm); to society (to ensure good quality research is conducted); and to researchers (to treat their proposals with just consideration and respect). To facilitate meeting all these obligations, the preferable focus should be promotion of ethical research, rather than the prevention of unethical research, which inevitably results in the impediment of researchers from doing their work. How the ethical principles should be applied and balanced requires further consideration.
Highlights
Ethics committees typically apply the common principles of autonomy, nonmaleficence, beneficence and justice to research proposals but with variable weighting and interpretation
Cross-cultural comparison The authors of this paper are researchers participating in an international collaborative study addressing comparisons of the credibility of statements heard in cases involving child sexual abuse (CSA)
The protective function of an ethics committee or Institutional Review Board (IRB) is to ensure that study participation presents a favourable balance of potential benefits and risks and that the rights of participants are treated with respect
Summary
Cross-cultural comparison The authors of this paper are researchers participating in an international collaborative study addressing comparisons of the credibility of statements heard in cases involving child sexual abuse (CSA). Autonomy The principle of autonomy emphasises suitably informed and voluntary participation in research as well as satisfying conditions of confidentiality and privacy.[17] Expedited ethics committee (or IRB) review is recommended provided study methods are considered valid; participation poses no more than minimal risk; and does not involve a vulnerable population.[14] The Auckland committee were anxious to put safe-guards in place to protect students who might suffer psychological harm from reading the summary information contained in the study. In our study, involving the anonymous completion of questionnaires by university students, the risk to participants is overwhelmingly less than in medical research carried out on patients In the latter a much more vulnerable population may be exposed to an experimental clinical intervention with significant potential for harm and a greater degree of review should be required.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
