Research ethics committees: values and power in higher education

The rise of research governance structures in universities has created huge disquiet amongst academic researchers. The unquestioning adoption of a medical model of ethical review based upon positivist methodological assumptions has created for many a mismatch between their own ongoing ethical research practice and the process of obtaining clearance from Research Ethics Committees (REC). This paper examines the issues that have contributed to dissatisfaction with the ethical review model that is prevalent within the modern university. Using examples from the authors’ own experiences, the dynamics of values, interests and power in research governance is examined from multiple perspectives including that of REC member and applicant; lecturer/student supervisor; researcher; and
university administrator. The paper reveals a rift between the values and objectives of the key players in research governance within the modern university and concludes by asking whether differences can be resolved so that a collaborative approach to ethical review may be incorporated into a renewed academic research culture. It is suggested that the alternative is increasing alienation from anything to do with ‘ethics’, with potentially serious consequences for the ethical standards of social research.

Due North? Do American Theories of Legislative Committees Apply to Canada?

Several theories of legislative organisation have been proposed to explain committee selection in American legislatures, but do these theories travel outside the United States? This paper tests whether these theories apply to data from the Canadian House of Commons. It was found that the distributive and partisan models of legislative organisation explain committee composition in Canada. In many cases, committees in the House of Commons are made up of preference outliers. As predicted by partisan models, it was also found that the governing party stacks committees with its members, but this is conditional upon the strength of the governing party.

Departmental Select Committees

The idea of departmental select committees in the House of Commons was floated as long ago as the Haldane Report in 1918 and periodically mooted by figures from both left and right as varied as Amery and Laski in the inter‐war years. It was raised again during the wartime investigations of the Machinery of Government committee, only to be shot down by the then Cabinet Secretary, Sir Edward Bridges, on the grounds that it would constrain the frankness with which the Civil Service could advise ministers. Departmental select committees were not to be introduced until 1979. Ten years ago the Institute of Contemporary British History organised a symposium to review their progress. On 31 January 1996 in committee room 10 at the House of Commons the ICBH, in conjunction with the Hansard Society, held another seminar to re‐examine the development of the departmental select committee system, its successes and failings. It was chaired by George Cunningham (Labour MP 1970–82, SDP MP 1982–83). The principal participants were Sir Peter Kemp (Deputy Secretary, Treasury 1983–88, Next Steps Project Manager, Cabinet Office, 1988–92), Douglas Millar (Clerk of Select Committees, House of Commons since 1994), Dr Ann Robinson (author of Parliament and Public Spending, head of the policy unit at the Institute of Directors [IOD], 1989–95 and Director‐General of the National Association of Pension Funds Ltd since 1995), Robert Sheldon (Labour MP since 1964, Financial Secretary to the Treasury 1974–75, member of the Public Accounts Committee [PAC] 1965–70 and 1975–79 and chairman since 1983, member, Public Expenditure Committee 1972–74, and member of the Treasury and Civil Service Committee [TCSC] 1979–81) and Sandy Walkington (head of corporate affairs at BT [British Telecom] plc), with further contributions from Peter Riddell (assistant editor: politics, The Times, since 1993), Chloe Miller, Sean McDougall, Tim King and Chris Stevens.

Extent of non-publication in cohorts of studies approved by research ethics committees or included in trial registries

BACKGROUND: The synthesis of published research in systematic reviews is essential when providing evidence to inform clinical and health policy decision-making. However, the validity of systematic reviews is threatened if journal publications represent a biased selection of all studies that have been conducted (dissemination bias). To investigate the extent of dissemination bias we conducted a systematic review that determined the proportion of studies published as peer-reviewed journal articles and investigated factors associated with full publication in cohorts of studies (i) approved by research ethics committees (RECs) or (ii) included in trial registries. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Four bibliographic databases were searched for methodological research projects (MRPs) without limitations for publication year, language or study location. The searches were supplemented by handsearching the references of included MRPs. We estimated the proportion of studies published using prediction intervals (PI) and a random effects meta-analysis. Pooled odds ratios (OR) were used to express associations between study characteristics and journal publication. Seventeen MRPs (23 publications) evaluated cohorts of studies approved by RECs; the proportion of published studies had a PI between 22% and 72% and the weighted pooled proportion when combining estimates would be 46.2% (95% CI 40.2%-52.4%, I2 = 94.4%). Twenty-two MRPs (22 publications) evaluated cohorts of studies included in trial registries; the PI of the proportion published ranged from 13% to 90% and the weighted pooled proportion would be 54.2% (95% CI 42.0%-65.9%, I2 = 98.9%). REC-approved studies with statistically significant results (compared with those without statistically significant results) were more likely to be published (pooled OR 2.8; 95% CI 2.2-3.5). Phase-III trials were also more likely to be published than phase II trials (pooled OR 2.0; 95% CI 1.6-2.5). The probability of publication within two years after study completion ranged from 7% to 30%. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial part of the studies approved by RECs or included in trial registries remains unpublished. Due to the large heterogeneity a prediction of the publication probability for a future study is very uncertain. Non-publication of research is not a random process, e.g., it is associated with the direction of study findings. Our findings suggest that the dissemination of research findings is biased.