Should ethics committees seek to be consistent?

This blog is closed to new posts due to inactivity. The post remains here as part of the network’s archive of useful research information. We hope you'll join the conversation by posting to an open topic or starting a new one.
 
There are a number of examples in the literature of researchers raising concerns about how best to respond to multiple review committees’ varying, and sometimes incompatible, requirements when seeking approval for multi-site studies (see http://globalhealthreviewers.tghn.org/resources/articles-and-reports/articles/).
Variations in decision-making, in addition to the significant administrative burden that variations in application processes for differing committees can pose, has led to the formation of multi-site and/or national review committees in many jurisdictions. Such committees have the authority to approve research taking place at a number of sites within their jurisdiction. In some cases local review will be required in additional to centralised review, and in such cases the local review may be limited to reviewing issues of particular relevance to the local context, such as the design of appropriate recruitment processes. Concerns have also been raised, however, about the consistency of decision-making even within committees, including decisions by a single committee about the same research protocol at regular intervals.
Should committees seek to be consistent in terms of their decision-making? Should a research protocol receive similar responses from differing committees or the same committee over time?  There are a number of arguments in favour of consistency. A rigorous and transparent process of review should give consistent results when applied to individual protocols. Committees have obligations to conduct fair and appropriate review and, even with differences between members of individual committees and in the design of specific protocols, ethical issues and appropriate responses to these should be able to be consistently identified.
If consistent review is not possible, it is harder to argue that ethical review of research is a valuable process which protects research participants. If two committees review the same protocol and reach differing views about which issues are of significance and how they should be responded to, how can researchers have confidence in the decisions? Arguably the views of review committees should only be substantially different if there are morally significant differences between studies to justify such differences. Researchers should be able to rely on consistent review to inform the design and conduct of appropriate protections for research participants.
In contrast, a number of concerns can be raised about any attempts to require committees to make consistent decisions. Whereas it may be relatively easy to identify consensus at the level of broad statements in international guidance and regulation, such as the need for consent to be informed and voluntary, in practice, no two research protocols or committees are the same. Research is highly contextual: the same study at two different sites may have differences in the research contexts with ethical implications that review committees must be able to identify and respond to. Review committees are often established locally precisely so that they are able to identify and evaluate issues arising in the local context. Different individuals on committees will have different training and experience that they bring to decision-making. Just as no two studies are exactly the same in practice, no two reviews will be the same, and this is appropriate for the variation that exists on a case-by-case basis when conducting research.
What are your views? Is it more important for committees to strive for consistency or for responsiveness to the local research context? Should we seek consistency in some areas of ethical review and embrace diversity in others?