BACKGROUND: The primary objective of this study was to conduct a comprehensive questionnaire survey on the practices of research ethics committees reviewing academic research projects in Czechia. The study aims to provide an unbiased and objective assessment of the current practices of research ethics committees, namely to obtain the missing data on their functioning in the context of academic research, to identify difficulties and shortages that threaten the responsible functioning of research ethics committees in the country and to investigate the implementation of Additional Protocol on Biomedical Research CETS No. 195 in their practice. Such research has never been conducted in Czechia. METHODS: This was a mixed-methods study, in which the online survey with closed and open-ended questions was chosen to explore the situation regarding ethics assessment of research involving human participants. We developed a questionnaire containing 18 questions concerning several aspects of the functioning of research ethics committees. The questionnaire was in Czech language and was administered through the Qualtrics platform anonymously. The target group of 61 research ethics committees at research institutions was approached by emails and we received 43 completely filled questionnaires, i.e., response rate of 67%. RESULTS: We obtained valuable data on the functioning of research ethics committees in Czechia in three main domains: the mandate and composition of the committee; the scope of its agenda; the process of evaluation including the voting procedure. In addition, the final set of open-ended questions provided an in-depth look at the problems faced by research ethics committees in Czechia. From the results is evident that the responsible assessment of the ethics of research involving human subjects is still not satisfactorily addressed and established for routine practice in the country. CONCLUSIONS: The outcomes of our study revealed that the main problem of research ethics in Czechia is the lack of national legislation on research ethics governance. To address this problem, the country requires a legislative framework accompanied by supportive measures aimed at educating, guiding and advising research ethics committees, especially in the Czech academic environment. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Not applicable.

Bioethics Consulting Brno Czechia Czechia

Department of Experimental Biology Faculty of Science Masaryk University Brno Czechia Czechia

Department of Psychology Faculty of Social Sciences Masaryk University Brno Czechia Czechia

Zobrazit více v PubMed

Additional protocol to the convention on human rights and biomedicine, concerning biomedical research (CETS No. 195). Council of Europe. 2005. https://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/195.htm. Accessed 1 Dec 2024.

Convention for the protection of human rights and dignity of the human being with regard to the application of biology and medicine. Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine (ETS No. 164). Council of Europe. 1997. https://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/164.htm. Accessed 1 Dec 2024.

Zákon č. Aug. 378/2007 Sb., o léčivech a o změnách některých souvisejících zákonů (zákon o léčivech), ve znění pozdějších předpisů. https://www.e-sbirka.cz/sb/2007/378. Accessed 21 2024.

Zákon č. 375/2022 Sb. o zdravotnických prostředcích a diagnostických zdravotnických prostředcích in vitro. https://www.e-sbirka.cz/sb/2022/375. Accessed 21 Aug 2024.

Buedo P, Waligora M. We need to eliminate ethics-washing. Journal of Medical Ethics Blog, posted on 16 Jun 2022. https://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2022/06/16/we-need-to-eliminate-ethics-washing/ Accessed 1 Dec 2024.

Cave E, Holm S. New governance arrangements for research ethics committees: is facilitating research achieved at the cost of participants’ interest. J Med Ethics. 2002;28(5):318–21. 10.1136/jme.28.5.318. PubMed PMC

Wainwright P, Saunders J. What are local issues? The problem of the local review of research. J Med Ethics. 2004;30(3):313–7. 10.1136/jme.2003.004051. PubMed PMC

Kerrison S, Pollock AM. The reform of UK research ethics committees: throwing the baby out with the bath water? J Med Ethics. 2005;31(8):487–9. 10.1136/jme.2004.010546. PubMed PMC

Graf HP. Are the votes of ethics committees in Germany for the protection of clinical study trial subjects sovereign acts? Sci Eng Ethics. 2013;19(2):341–54. 10.1007/s11948-011-9299-6. PubMed

Melville R. Human research ethics committees and ethical review: the changing research culture for social workers. Aust Soc Work. 2005;58(4):370–83. 10.1111/j.1447-0748.2005.00233.x.

Sheehan M, Marti V, Roberts T. Ethical review of research on human subjects at Unilever: reflections on governance. Bioethics. 2014;28(6):284–92. 10.1111/bioe.12040. PubMed

Decullier E, Lhéritier V, Chapuis F. The activity of French research ethics committees and characteristics of biomedical research protocols involving humans: a retrospective cohort study. BMC Med Ethics. 2005;6:E9. 10.1186/1472-6939-6-9. PubMed PMC

De Vries R, Forsberg CP. Who decides? A look at ethics committee membership. HEC Forum. 2002;14(3):252–8. 10.1023/a:1020581131605. PubMed

Guillemin M, Gillam L, Rosenthal D, Bolitho A. Human research ethics committees: examining their roles and practices. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2012;7(3):38–49. 10.1525/jer.2012.7.3.38. PubMed

Iijima Y, Ogasawara K, Toda S, Takano T. An overview of ethical review committees in Japan: examining the certification applications of ethical review committees. Nagoya J Med Sci. 2019;81(3):501–9. 10.18999/nagjms.81.3.501. PubMed PMC

UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). United Nations 1948. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights. Accessed 27 Oct 2023.

WMA declaration of Helsinki – ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. World Medical Association. 1964/2024. https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki/. Accessed 1 Dec 2024. PubMed

International Ethical Guidelines for Health-related Research Involving Humans, Fourth Edition. Geneva. Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS). 2016. https://cioms.ch/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/WEB-CIOMS-EthicalGuidelines.pdf Accessed 27 Oct 2023.

Dyck M, Allen G. Is mandatory research ethics reviewing ethical? J Med Ethics. 2013;39(8):517–20. 10.1136/medethics-2011-100274. PubMed

Israel M. Rolling back the bureaucracies of ethics review. J Med Ethics. 2013;39(8):525–6. 10.1136/medethics-2012-100942. PubMed

Hunter D. How not to argue against mandatory ethics review. J Med Ethics. 2013;39(8):521–4. 10.1136/medethics-2012-101074. PubMed

Dunn M. Getting the justification for research ethics review right. J Med Ethics. 2013;39(8):527–8. 10.1136/medethics-2012-100943. PubMed

Teixeira da Silva JA. Ethical perspectives and ramifications of the Paolo Macchiarini case. Indian J Med Ethics. 2017;2(4):270–5. 10.20529/IJME.2017.048. PubMed

Kleiderman E, Ogbogu U. Realigning gene editing with clinical research ethics: What the CRISPR Twins debacle means for Chinese and international research ethics governance. Acc Res. 2019;26(4):257–64. 10.1080/08989621.2019.1617138. PubMed

Ma Y, Zhang L, Qin C. The first genetically gene-edited babies: It’s irresponsible and too early. Anim Model Exp Med. 2019;2(1):1–4. 10.1002/ame2.12052. PubMed PMC