ITEM VIEW

Health Research Ethics Committees in South Africa 12 years into democracy

dc.contributor.authorMoodley, Keymanthrien_ZA
dc.contributor.authorMyer, Landonen_ZA
dc.date.accessioned2010-12-14T06:27:44Z
dc.date.available2010-12-14T06:27:44Z
dc.date.issued2007-01
dc.identifier.citationMoodley, K. & Myer, L. 2007. Health Research Ethics Committees in South Africa 12 years into democracy. BMC Medical Ethics, 8(1): 1, doi: 10.1186/1472-6939-8-1
dc.identifier.issn1472-6939 (online)
dc.identifier.issn1472-6939 (print)
dc.identifier.otherdoi: 10.1186/1472-6939-8-1
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10019.1/5078
dc.descriptionCITATION: Moodley, K. & Myer, L. 2007. Health Research Ethics Committees in South Africa 12 years into democracy. BMC Medical Ethics, 8(1): 1, doi: 10.1186/1472-6939-8-1.
dc.descriptionThe original publication is available at http://bmcmusculoskeletdisord.biomedcentral.com
dc.description.abstractBackground: Despite the growth of biomedical research in South Africa, there are few insights into the operation of Research Ethics Committees (RECs) in this setting. We investigated the composition, operations and training needs of health RECs in South Africa against the backdrop of national and international guidelines. Methods: The 12 major health RECs in South Africa were surveyed using semi-structured questionnaires that investigated the composition and functions of each REC as well as the operational issues facing committees. Results: Health RECs in SA have an average of 16 members and REC members are predominantly male and white. Overall, there was a large discrepancy in findings between under-resourced RECs and well resourced RECs. The majority of members (56%) are scientists or clinicians who are typically affiliated to the same institution as the health REC. Community representatives account for only 8% of membership. Training needs for health REC members varied widely. Conclusion: Most major health RECs in South Africa are well organized given the resource constraints that exist in relation to research ethics in developing countries. However, the gender, racial and occupational diversity of most of these RECs is suboptimal, and most RECs are not constituted in accordance with South African guidelines. Variability in the operations and training needs of RECs is a reflection of apartheid-entrenched influences in tertiary education in SA. While legislation now exists to enforce standardization of research ethics review systems, no provision has been made for resources or capacity development, especially to support historically-disadvantaged institutions. Perpetuation of this legacy of apartheid represents a violation of the principles of justice and equity.en_ZA
dc.description.urihttp://bmcmedethics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1472-6939-8-1
dc.format.extent8 pages
dc.language.isoen_ZAen_ZA
dc.publisherBioMed Centralen_ZA
dc.subjectBiomedical researchen_ZA
dc.subjectResearch Ethics Committees (RECs)en_ZA
dc.subject.lcshBiomedical research -- Evaluationen_ZA
dc.titleHealth Research Ethics Committees in South Africa 12 years into democracyen_ZA
dc.typeArticleen_ZA
dc.date.updated2010-11-04T13:25:05Z
dc.description.versionPublisher's version
dc.language.rfc3066en
dc.rights.holderAuthors retain copyrighten_ZA
dc.subject.corpResearch Ethics Committees -- Officials and employees -- Training ofen_ZA


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

ITEM VIEW