Evidence-based ethics committee

Could we evidence our way to a better research ethics system? A bit more formal evaluation has always seemed to me like a very good idea. When I posted the version of this cartoon in 2012, though, I didn't know of any controlled evaluation - despite the critical importance of research ethics and the potential for ethics regulation processes to do harm themselves.

I updated the cartoon when I saw a controlled study related to research ethics for the first time. Mary Dixon-Woods and colleagues studied adding an ethics officer. They wanted to know if that could make the process more efficient and improve the quality of outcomes.

It didn't go exactly according to plan - 31% of the time there was no contact between the ethics officer and the committee before the meeting. There wasn't an appreciable impact on outcomes - and it didn't speed up the process either. Hats off to all concerned: we're a little less ignorant about research ethics committees than we were before.

Dixon-Woods cited a scoping review that showed how thin on the ground solid knowledge about what could make research ethics review more reliably effective. Here's hoping this new study spurs copycats!

Disclosure: I spent years on national research ethics committees in Australia, but don't on any now. I am a member of the human ethics advisory group for PLOS One, and was a member of the BMJ's ethics committee for several years.

Update: 3 September 2016

Comments

Austerity-A Fancy Word for Destitute.

The reason for this post is not for the folks who have been caught in the first wave of personal economic hard reality, but the next wave. Regardless of the optimism espoused by grinning leaders and sycophant press, we are entering the final stage of global economic collapse. It began in 2008 and was forestalled for five years with fudge putty, but the weight of global indebtedness cannot be propped any longer and the final crunch is imminent. Austerity measures herald the final throes. Indications of coming austerity. Austerity measures are the final last ditch effort, futile or not! Back in the day many of us old-timers went through periods of "hard-times". In retrospect I realize there is no comparison to yesteryear hard times and today's version. Back then, expectations were never very high for the working class, there were no sophisticated systems or conveniences anyway. In fact the difference between being "set" or not was about having treats or not. Si...

Terrifying Arctic methane levels

A peak methane level of 3026 ppb was recorded by the MetOp-B satellite at 469 mb on December 11, 2021 am. This follows a peak methane level of 3644 ppb recorded by the MetOp-B satellite at 367 mb on November 21, 2021, pm. A peak methane level of 2716 ppb was recorded by the MetOp-B satellite at 586 mb on December 11, 2021, pm, as above image shows. This image is possibly even more terrifying than the image at the top, as above image shows that at 586 mb, i.e. much closer to sea level, almost all methane shows up over sea, rather than over land, supporting the possibility of large methane eruptions from the seafloor, especially in the Arctic. Also, the image was recorded later than the image at the top with the 3026 ppb peak, indicating that even more methane may be on the way. This appears to be confirmed by the Copernicus forecast for December 12, 2021, 03 UTC, as illustrated by the image below, which shows methane at 500 hPa (equivalent to 500 mb). Furthermore, ...

Women and children overboard

It's the Catch-22 of clinical trials: to protect pregnant women and children from the risks of untested drugs....we don't test drugs adequately for them. In the last few decades , we've been more concerned about the harms of research than of inadequately tested treatments for everyone, in fact. But for "vulnerable populations," like pregnant women and children, the default was to exclude them. And just in case any women might be, or might become, pregnant, it was often easier just to exclude us all from trials. It got so bad, that by the late 1990s, the FDA realized regulations and more for pregnant women - and women generally - had to change. The NIH (National Institutes of Health) took action too. And so few drugs had enough safety and efficacy information for children that, even in official circles, children were being called "therapeutic orphans." Action began on that, too. There is still a long way to go. But this month there was a sign that ...

Humor4u

Search This Blog