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.
 
Guidance for ethics committees requires both that a variety of expertise is represented, and that members serve finite terms (WHO 2011).  Due to turnover and variations in members expertise, at any given time members will have varying levels of familiarity with relevant ethical and regulatory issues arising when reviewing research. Consequently, there is an ongoing need for training to be available to committee members.Traditionally such training has been provided on a face to face basis with written or electronic resources being made available. Such methods allow for tailoring on training to specific audiences needs, and for discussion of topics to take place as they are addressed in the training. Some courses encourage further interaction between participants and trainers – providing chances to consider and evaluate ethical issues using materials such as case studies, and to discuss issues encountered in research or during the review process to date.Increasingly, online materials are being made available for providing training to reviewers (see our list of eLearning materials for examples). Courses range from providing general and introductory training, to providing advanced training in research ethics and to providing training on specific topics such as good clinical practice, genomic research or social science research. Some courses are designed to accompany face to face training, others include provision for taking part in online discussion groups or moderated forums, and others are stand alone and self-paced courses with no interaction proposed.Reviewing research protocols is frequently complicated. It requires not only a knowledge of national and international norms of research ethics and regulatory requirements, but also the ability to identify specific issues arising in specific protocols and then consider whether applicants have proposed appropriate responses to these. While online training provides a wonderful resource to build knowledge and understanding of relevant issues at little or no cost, it generally provides few opportunities to interact with the material and practice applying it on a case by case basis, and to analyse the results of doing so. For these and other reasons, in some settings certain forms of training, such as introductory GCP courses, must be undertaken in a face-to-face setting.I wonder if online, self-paced training will ever be sufficient as a stand-alone method for building capacity in committee members who review research. Opportunities to discuss and debate cases during training are very valuable, particularly with an expert on hand to contribute. However, perhaps the discussion and debate about real protocols during review committee meetings are equally valuable and sufficient. What do you think?