Consistency of Ethics Review

Abstract

One would expect the ethical review of research proposals to be rather consistent from case to case—in the same way that one expects the courts to consistently interpret the law. In this contribution, I report on the nightmarish situation where two nearly identical and in fact complementary action research studies to be conducted in parallel were evaluated quite differently. I conclude that someone, possibly the chair of a research ethics board, has to be accountable for the fair and consistent application of research ethics regulations. URN: urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs050153