Is the tyranny of the ethics committees in health research a reality?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18270/rcb.v16i1.2730Keywords:
Research ethics committees, institutional review boards, scientific research, global bioethics, power, tyrannyAbstract
Purpose/Context. In the present article is made an analysis of the role that the ethics and research committees must fulfill to protect the volunteers who participate in the studies. This without forgetting their functions on research promotion and generation of knowledge as a social responsibility, which over time has been distorted.
Methodology/Approach. I review the evolution of ethics in research, which arises as a response to bad practices that undermined human dignity. That press to rethink the way we investigate, with the emergence of international standards, recommendations and legal regulations that promoted informed consent and the establishment of research ethics committees.
Results/Findings. As part of sequence analysis, shows how these organisms have become important now. In many parts of the planet cannot research without the approval of the committees. This goes in favor of the subjects in the investigation, but with bad handling, and inadequate must generate an exercise of power, with tyranny.
Discussion/Conclusions/Contributions. This analysis and reflection are based on the global bioethics of Henk ten Have. The author works about these and takes into account the responsibility and duty of research as a global and inter-generational responsibility, which we must exercise as citizens of the world.
Downloads
References
Asociación Mundial Médica. 1964. “Declaration of Helsinki. Recommendations guiding doctors in clinical research.” https://www.wma.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/DoH-Jun1964.pdf
Asociación Mundial Médica. 1975. “Declaration of Helsinki. Recommendations guiding medical doctors in biomedical research involving human subjects.” https://www.wma.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/DoH-Oct1975.pdf
Asociación Mundial Médica. 2013. “Declaración de Helsinki de la AMM - Principios éticos para las investigaciones médicas en seres humanos.” https://www.wma.net/es/policies-post/declaracion-de-helsinki-de-la-amm-principios-eticos-para-las-investigaciones-medicas-en-seres-humanos/
Asociación Mundial Médica. 2016. “Declaración de la AMM sobre las consideraciones éticas de las bases de datos de salud y los biobancos.” https://www.wma.net/es/policies-post/declaracion-de-la-amm-sobre-las-consideraciones-eticas-de-las-bases-de-datos-de-salud-y-los-biobancos/
Arango-Bayer, Gloria Lucía. 2013. “Los comités de ética en investigación en las universidades: ¿verdugos, víctimas o aliados de los estudiantes investigadores?” En Retos y dilemas de los comités de ética en investigación, editado por Alberto Vélez Van Meerbeke, Angela María Ruiz Sternberg y Martha Rocio Torres Narvaez, 35-49. Bogotá: Editorial Universidad del Rosario.
Beauchamp, Tom L. y James. F. Childress. 1999. Principios de Ética Biomédica. Barcelona: Masson.
Breault, Joseph L 2006. “Protecting human research subjects: the past defines the future.” Ochsner J 6, no. 1: 15-20. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21765779/
Breckler, Steven. 2005. “A frenzy is building over the behavior of many Institutional Review Boards (IRBs).” https://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2005/11/ed-column
Carey, Malcom. 2019. “The Tyranny of Ethics? Political challenges and tensions when applying ethical governance to qualitative social work research.” Ethics and social welfare 13, no. 2: 150-162. https://doi.org/10.1080/17496535.2018.1548630
Organización Panamericana de la Salud y Consejo de Organizaciones Internacionales de las Ciencias Médica. 2016. Pautas éticas internacionales para la investigación relacionada con la salud con seres humanos. Ginebra: Consejo de Organizaciones Internacionales. https://cioms.ch/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/CIOMS-EthicalGuideline_SP_INTERIOR-FINAL.pdf
Comstock, George W. 2001. “Cohort analysis: W.H. Frost's contributions to the epidemiology of tuberculosis and chronic disease.” Soz Präventivmed 46: 7–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01318793
Coughlin, Steven S., Amyre Barker y Angus Dawson. 2012. “Ethics and Scientific Integrity in Public Health, Epidemiological and Clinical Research.” Public Health Rev 34, no. 1: 71-83. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03391657
Fleischman, Alan R. 2005. “Regulating research with human subjects-is the system broken?” Trans Am Clin Climatol Assoc 116: 91-101. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1473133/
Gall, Thomas, John P. A. Ioannidis y Zacharias Maniadis. 2017. “The credibility crisis in research: Can economics tools help?” PLoS 15: 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2001846
Gasparyan, Armen Yuri, Bekaidar Nurmashev, Marlen Yessirkepov, Elena E. Udovik, Aleksandr A. Baryshnikov y George D. Kitas. 2017. “The Journal Impact Factor: Moving Toward an Alternative and Combined Scientometric Approach.” J Korean Med Sci 32: 73-179. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2017.32.2.173
Gelling, Leslie. 1999. “Role of the research ethics committee.” Nurse Educ Today 7: 564-569. https://doi.org/10.1054/nedt.1999.0349
Ghooi, Ravindra B. 2011. “The Nuremberg Code-A critique.” Perspect Clin Res 2, no. 2: 72-76. https://doi.org/10.4103/2229-3485.80371
Gracia, Diego. 1998. Ética y Vida 4: Profesión médica, investigación y justicia sanitaria. Bogotá: Editorial el Búho.
The International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH). 2019. ICH Guidelines. https://www.ich.org/products/guidelines.html
Invima. 2012. “ABC Guía Comité de Ética en Investigación.” https://paginaweb.invima.gov.co/images/pdf/tecnovigilancia/buenas_practicas/ABC%20Comites%20de%20etica.pdf
Kim, Won Oak. 2012. “Institutional review board (IRB) and ethical issues in clinical research.” Korean Journal of Anesthesiology 62, no. 1: 3-12. https://doi.org/10.4097/kjae.2012.62.1.3
Kuhn, Thomas. 2013. La estructura de las revoluciones científicas. México: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Maya Mejía, José M. 2013. “Comités de ética en investigación: generalidades.” En Retos y dilemas de los comités de ética en investigación, editado por Alberto Vélez Van Meerbeke, Angela María Ruiz Sternberg y Martha Rocio Torres Narvaez, 1-10. Bogotá: Editorial Universidad del Rosario.
Méndez, S. 2018. “On this day we claim to celebrate our "freedom" from "tyranny".” Digital Field Methods Institute. https://dfmi.dwrl.utexas.edu/discussion/wednesday-july-4-2018-ethics/on-this-day-we-claim-to-celebrate-our-freedom-from-tyranny/
National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. 1979. “The Belmont Report. Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research.” https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/read-the-belmont-report/index.html
Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS). 2009. Research ethics committees. Basic concepts for capacity-building. Ginebra: OMS.
Organización Panamericana de la Salud (OPS). 2012. Pautas y orientación operativa para la revisión ética de la investigación en salud con seres humanos. Washington: OPS.
Perrin, Andrew. 2012. “IRB nightmares.” Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science. https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2012/10/18/irb-nightmares/
Real Academia Española. 2016. “Tiranía.” En Diccionario panhispánico del español jurídico. Madrid: Real Academia Española. https://dej.rae.es/lema/tiran%C3%ADa
Resnik, David B. 2018. “Research Ethics Timeline (1932-Present).” https://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/resources/bioethics/timeline/index.cfm
Sayers, Gwen M. 2007. “Should research ethics committees be told how to think?” J Med Ethics 33, no. 1: 39-42. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2005.014688
Shuster, Evelyne. 1997. “Fifty Years Later: The Significance of the Nuremberg Code.” New England Journal of Medicine 337, no. 20: 1436-1440. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199711133372006
Steneck, Nicholas H., Tony Mayer, Melissa S. Anderson y Sabine Kleinert. 2018. “The origin, objectives, and evolution of the World Conferences on Research Integrity.” En Scientific Integrity and Ethics in the Geosciences, editado por Linda C. Gundersen, 3-14: Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119067825.ch1
Ten Have, Henk. 2016a. “Sharing the world. Common perspectives.” En Global Bioethics: An Introduction, 113-137. New York: Routledge.
Ten Have, Henk. 2016b. “Global practices and bioethics.” En Global Bioethics: An Introduction, 184-210. New York: Routledge.
Ten Have, Henk. 2016c. “Global Bioethical Discourse.” En Global Bioethics: An Introduction, 211-241. New York: Routledge.
Unesco. 2005. “Guía No 1. Creación de comités de bioética.” https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000139309_spa
Unesco. 2006a. “Declaración Universal sobre Bioética y Derechos Humanos.” http://portal.unesco.org/es/ev.php-URL_ID=31058&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html
Unesco. 2006b. “Guía No. 2. Funcionamiento de los comités de bioética: procedimientos y políticas.” https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000147392_spa
Unesco. 2008. “La ética de la ciencia y tecnología en la Unesco.” https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000160021_spa
Voltaire. 2017a. “Tirano.” Diccionario Filosófico. https://www.e-torredebabel.com/Biblioteca/Voltaire/tirano-Diccionario-Filosofico.htm
Voltaire. 2017b. “Tiranía.” Diccionario Filosófico. https://www.e-torredebabel.com/Biblioteca/Voltaire/tirania-Diccionario-Filosofico.htm
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Revista Colombiana de Bioética
![Creative Commons License](http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by-nc-nd/4.0/88x31.png)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Esta obra está bajo licencia internacional Creative Commons Reconocimiento-NoComercial-SinObrasDerivadas 4.0.