How not to argue against mandatory ethics review

David Hunter

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

    2 Citations (Scopus)


    There is considerable controversy about the mandatory ethics review of research. This paper engages with the arguments offered by Murray Dyck and Gary Allen against mandatory review, namely, that this regulation fails to reach the standards that research ethics committees apply to research since it is harmful to the ethics of researchers, has little positive evidence base, leads to significant harms (through delaying valuable research) and distorts the nature of research. As these are commonplace arguments offered by researchers against regulation it is useful to assess their strength and the conclusion that they are taken to support, namely, that we ought to move back to a system of trust in researchers without compulsory regulation. Unfortunately, these arguments are at best weak and to some degree come into conflict in terms of supporting the desired conclusion.

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)521-524
    Number of pages4
    JournalJournal of Medical Ethics
    Issue number8
    Publication statusPublished - 2013


    Dive into the research topics of 'How not to argue against mandatory ethics review'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this