Medical Dominance within Research Ethics Committees

Abstract

Qualitative research is reported which explores the perceptions of members of the U.K.’s independent Phase I ethics committees (IECs) about key issues identified following a literature review. Audio-recorded interviews were conducted with ten expert and ten lay members from all IECs except the one to which the lead author was attached. Transcripts were thematically analyzed following a broadly hermeneutical approach. The findings—dealing with such matters as recruitment strategies and length of service; attitudes towards member categories, published ethics guidelines, and the adequacy of insurance; levels of training and views on achieving a recognised level of competence—have an intrinsic interest, but it is when the findings are considered collectively using Freidson’s theory of professional dominance that they reveal the influence the medical profession can have in shaping ethics review.

Keywords:

• medical dominance
• member categories
• member perceptions
• professional dominance
• research ethics committees
• roles

Notes

1. 1. ‘Clinical Trials Directive’ Directive 2001/20/EC of The European Parliament and of The Council.

2. 2. The Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations 2004, S.I. 2004/1031.