Using practical ethics to resolve differences of opinion in review and design of clinical research
Dr Hugh Davies, Paediatrician and chair of Oxford A Research Ethics Committee
Wednesday, 11 April 2018, 11am to 12.30pm
The Wellcome Centre for Ethics and Humanities, Big Data Institute, University of Oxford, Li Ka Shing Centre for Health Information and Discovery, Old Road Campus, Oxford OX3 7LF, Seminar room 0
Hosted by Please email firstname.lastname@example.org if you would like to attend the event.
It’s right that all with a legitimate interest in research contribute to its design, review, conduct and dissemination. Few would argue but, in accepting it, we need a process to allow us to resolve differences. In this talk I’d like to present for discussion a practical and simple approach to help reach agreement and ensure differences are less likely to be sources of friction, rather opportunities to learn, build trust and improve both research and its review.
The model is built on the proposition that deliberations centre around our “early or personal views”. We bring these to any debate, it’s where we start. However they have been drawn up, whatever they rest upon, these should (within reasonable limits) be respected, but as individual views, we must accept they should be open to (respectful) challenge and scrutiny.
If all personal views are in accord, the decision is likely made; little more need be done. If, however, there is disagreement we need to go further. We must explore the foundations of our views and turn to more objective “external referents”:
- Ethical theory
- Expertise and guidance
They are linked all interlinked, none on their own provides a firm base for judgement and it’s likely that resolution of different issues will rest on or emphasize different “Es”.