IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pmed00/0030309.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Should Society Allow Research Ethics Boards to Be Run As For-Profit Enterprises?

Author

Listed:
  • Ezekiel J Emanuel
  • Trudo Lemmens
  • Carl Elliot

Abstract

: An important mechanism for protecting human research participants is the prior approval of a clinical study by a research ethics board, known in the United States as an institutional review board (IRB). Traditionally, IRBs have been run by volunteer committees of scientists and clinicians working in the academic medical centers where the studies they review are being carried out. However, for-profit organizations are increasingly being hired to conduct ethics reviews. Proponents of for-profit IRBs argue that these IRBs are just as capable as academic IRBs at providing high-quality ethics reviews. Critics argue that for-profit IRBs have a conflict of interest because they generate their income from clients who have a direct financial interest in obtaining approval. Emanuel argues that for-profit ethics review boards can provide high quality reviews, but Lemmens and Elliot believe that such boards have a conflict of interest.

Suggested Citation

  • Ezekiel J Emanuel & Trudo Lemmens & Carl Elliot, 2006. "Should Society Allow Research Ethics Boards to Be Run As For-Profit Enterprises?," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 3(7), pages 1-1, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:0030309
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0030309
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0030309
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0030309&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pmed.0030309?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sydney Halpern, 2008. "Hybrid design, systemic rigidity: Institutional dynamics in human research oversight," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2(1), pages 85-102, March.
    2. Simpson, Bob & Khatri, Rekha & Ravindran, Deapica & Udalagama, Tharindi, 2015. "Pharmaceuticalisation and ethical review in South Asia: Issues of scope and authority for practitioners and policy makers," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 247-254.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:0030309. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosmedicine (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.