18/08/04

Ethics review procedures for research in developing countries: a basic presumption of guilt

We encourage you to republish this article online and in print, it’s free under our creative commons attribution license, but please follow some simple guidelines:

You have to credit our authors.
You have to credit SciDev.Net — where possible include our logo with a link back to the original article.
You can simply run the first few lines of the article and then add: “Read the full article on SciDev.Net” containing a link back to the original article.
If you want to also take images published in this story you will need to confirm with the original source if you're licensed to use them.
The easiest way to get the article on your site is to embed the code below.

For more information view our media page and republishing guidelines.

The full article is available here as HTML.

Press Ctrl-C to copy

<div class="article-wrap">
<div id="article-introduction">
<h1>Ethics review procedures for research in developing countries: a basic presumption of guilt</h1>
<h4></h4>
</div>
<br />
<br />

<div id="article-body">
<p><P>Based on their experience of 18 years of collaborative research in Peru, Robert Gilman and Hector Garcia argue that efforts to provide ethical review of research in developing countries are often duplicated unnecessarily and frequently hampered by trivial, unnecessary or invalid concerns.</P><br />
<P>Some simple studies may require as many as 40 separate institutional review board approvals or renewals of approval, suggest the authors. In such a system – in which there is no hierarchy and every committee wants the last word – any requirement requested by one committee needs to be reviewed by all the others prior to final review, creating large piles of paperwork. In addition, many members of committees in developed countries may lack knowledge of the local culture and, trusting neither the local institution nor the investigator, may inappropriately amend the consent form or recommend procedures that are not culturally suitable.</P>The authors conclude that thorough and stringent review by one developed and one developing country institution is sufficient to adequately protect research participants and that the review committee in the country hosting the research should be responsible for approving the consent document. <BR><BR><a  href="http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/171/3/248" target="_blank" onclick="pageTracker._trackPageview('/tracking/external/'+this.href);" rel="noopener noreferrer">Link to full <EM>CMAJ</EM> article</A><BR><BR>Reference: CMAJ 2004; 171, 248-249. </p>

</div>
<div class="quick-links-wrapper">
<h3>You might also like</h3>
[related-articles]
</div>
<p>This article was originally published on <a href="https://www.scidev.net" target="_blank">SciDev.Net</a>. Read the <a href="https://www.scidev.net/global/opinions/ethics-review-procedures-for-research-in-developin/" target="_blank">original article</a>.</p>
<script type="text/javascript">
(function(e,t,n,r,i,s,o){e["GoogleAnalyticsObject"]=i;e[i]=e[i]||function(){(e[i].q=e[i].q||[]).push(arguments)},e[i].l=1*new Date;s=t.createElement(n),o=t.getElementsByTagName(n)[0];s.async=1;s.src=r;o.parentNode.insertBefore(s,o)})(window,document,"script","//www.google-analytics.com/ga.js","ga");var _gaq=_gaq||[];var _gaq=_gaq||[];_gaq.push(["_setAccount","UA-3223906-8"],["_trackEvent","article interaction","republished","https://www.scidev.net/global/opinions/ethics-review-procedures-for-research-in-developin/",null,true])
</script>
</div>

Based on their experience of 18 years of collaborative research in Peru, Robert Gilman and Hector Garcia argue that efforts to provide ethical review of research in developing countries are often duplicated unnecessarily and frequently hampered by trivial, unnecessary or invalid concerns.

Some simple studies may require as many as 40 separate institutional review board approvals or renewals of approval, suggest the authors. In such a system – in which there is no hierarchy and every committee wants the last word – any requirement requested by one committee needs to be reviewed by all the others prior to final review, creating large piles of paperwork. In addition, many members of committees in developed countries may lack knowledge of the local culture and, trusting neither the local institution nor the investigator, may inappropriately amend the consent form or recommend procedures that are not culturally suitable.

The authors conclude that thorough and stringent review by one developed and one developing country institution is sufficient to adequately protect research participants and that the review committee in the country hosting the research should be responsible for approving the consent document.

Link to full CMAJ article

Reference: CMAJ 2004; 171, 248-249.