Abstract

The work of research ethics committees examining and approving research proposals has become a widely established way to identify and mitigate risks of harm that are associated with human research participation in the clinical realm. Increasingly, also researchers in diverse fields from anthropology to computer science feel a push for obtaining approvals through such committees by funding bodies and publishers alike. However, the increasing adoption of this tradition in other disciplines has not been without critique. Social scientists, for example, have raised concerns that an anticipatory practice, which is well-suited for addressing the risks in clinical and medical research and aims at protecting participants from (predominantly physical) harm, is less well-suited for addressing risks in typical research settings and methods used in social science research. There is also concern in the research ethics community that ethics review becomes seen as a one-off, box-ticking activity, to pass through and then to forget. In this way, once the review has been completed, little traces of it remain in the research activity itself.

The contribution introduces the concept of the “Pilot Research Ethics Committee” developed and tested at the TU Wien since 2019. The context is that of a large engineering and natural science university in which the exposure to formal research ethics has until recently been relatively limited and the awareness of ethical dimensions related to research relatively low. The committee reviews research involving human participants, which is not required by law but by a commitment to responsible research practices. It relies on peer review, recommendations and reflection and on the fostering of researcher responsibility and empowerment rather than on formal approval and requirements.
The presentation will introduce the concept of the “Pilot Research Ethics Committee”, address challenges and opportunities, experiences of reviewers and researchers, and offer some lessons learned.