Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorHumphreys, Stephen
dc.contributor.authorThomas, Hilary
dc.contributor.authorMartin, Robyn
dc.date.accessioned2016-04-04T11:43:50Z
dc.date.available2016-04-04T11:43:50Z
dc.date.issued2014-12-01
dc.identifier.citationHumphreys , S , Thomas , H & Martin , R 2014 , ' Science review in research ethics committees: Double jeopardy? ' , Research Ethics , vol. 10 , no. 4 , pp. 227-237 . https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016114552340
dc.identifier.otherPURE: 9857187
dc.identifier.otherPURE UUID: 3bc3b1b8-ccd0-40fd-9190-4ec52015b080
dc.identifier.otherScopus: 84988289881
dc.identifier.otherORCID: /0000-0002-2072-7827/work/32371694
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2299/16898
dc.descriptionStephen Humphreys, Hilary Thomas and Robyn Martin, ‘Science review in ethics committees: Double jeopardy?’, Research Ethics, Vol 10(4): 227-237, first published online October 14, 2014. The version of record is available online via doi: 10.1177/1747016114552340 © The Author(s) 2014 Published by SAGE.
dc.description.abstractResearch ethics committees ‘(RECs) members’ perceptions of their role in regard to the science of research proposals are discussed. Our study, which involved the interviewing of 20 participants from amongst the UK’s independent (Phase I) ethics committees, revealed that the members consider that it is the role of the REC to examine and approve the scientific adequacy of the research – and this notwithstanding the fact that a more competent body will already have done this and even when that other body has the legal responsibility for this function. The problematic nature of this situation, tantamount to double jeopardy, is considered: it can delay research and so add to costs whilst offering no countervailing benefits, or the double jeopardy may be just the cost society imposes, through its RECs, on researchers as the price for research on human subjectsen
dc.format.extent11
dc.language.isoeng
dc.relation.ispartofResearch Ethics
dc.subjectdouble jeopardy
dc.subjectethics committee member roles
dc.subjectresearch ethics
dc.subjectscience
dc.titleScience review in research ethics committees: : Double jeopardy?en
dc.contributor.institutionDepartment of Adult Nursing and Primary Care
dc.contributor.institutionCentre for Research in Public Health and Community Care
dc.contributor.institutionNursing, Midwifery and Social Work
dc.contributor.institutionPatient Experience and Public Involvement
dc.contributor.institutionSchool of Health and Social Work
dc.description.statusPeer reviewed
rioxxterms.versionofrecordhttps://doi.org/10.1177/1747016114552340
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Review
herts.preservation.rarelyaccessedtrue


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record