Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

Dyck and Allen claim that the current model for mandatory ethical review of research involving human participants is unethical once the harms that accrue from the review process are identified. However, the assumptions upon which the authors assert that this model of research ethics governance is justified are false. In this commentary, I aim to correct these assumptions, and provide the right justificatory account of the requirement for research ethics review. This account clarifies why the subsequent arguments that Dyck and Allen make in the paper lack force, and why the 'governance problem' in research ethics that they allude to ought to be explained differently.

Original publication




Journal article


J Med Ethics

Publication Date





527 - 528


Ethics Committees/Consultation, Research Ethics, Beneficence, Biomedical Research, Ethics Committees, Research, Ethics, Research, Human Experimentation, Humans, Personal Autonomy, Research Personnel, Social Justice