Attitude of researchers towards ethics committee at a medical research institute in Coimbatore: a cross sectional study

Subhashini Ganesan, Sujatha Rajaragupathy, Kavitha Subramanian, Jayagowri Karthikeyan


Background: The role of ethics committees has been well defined, but many researchers regard ethical review as a road block to research.

Methods: To assess the attitude of the researchers towards the ethics committee, a cross sectional study was conducted among 80 researchers, which includes both faculty and undergraduate students at a medical research institute.

Results: Our study shows that though most of the researchers agreed that ethics committee is mandatory, they felt that ethics committee review delays research projects, undermined the role of non-medical members in the committee, felt annoyed about the documentation and answering the full board queries and presentations.

Conclusions: Study concludes that though the researchers have understood the critical role of ethics committee, they lack a positive attitude when it comes to the ethics committee functioning. Therefore, training should be conducted for researchers, which addresses these issues, so that the misunderstandings and conflicts are minimized.


Academics and institutes, Attitude, Ethics committee, Research personnel

Full Text:



World Health Organization. Research ethics committees: basic concepts for capacity-building. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2009.

General Assembly of the World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. The J Am Coll Dentists. 2014;81(3):14.

De Vries R, Anderson MS, Martinson BC. Normal Misbehavior: Scientists Talk About the Ethics of Research. J Empirical Res Human Res Eth. JERHRE. 2006;1(1):43-50.

Ibingira B, Ochieng J. Knowledge about the research and ethics committee at Makerere University, Kampala. African Health Sci. 2013;13(4):1041-46.

Edwards SJL, Kirchin S, Huxtable R. Research ethics committees and paternalism. J Med Ethics. 2004;30(1):88-91.

Sayers GM. Should research ethics committees be told how to think? J Medical Ethics. 2007;33(1):39-42.

Asem N, Silverman HJ. Perspectives of faculty at Cairo University towards research ethics and informed consent, in proceedings of the Public Responsibility in Medicine and Research (PRIM and R '06), Nashville, Tenn, USA; 2009.

Elsayed DEM, Kass NE. Assessment of the ethical review process in Sudan. Develop World Bioeth. 2007;7(3):143-8.

Mallela KK, Walia R, Tm CD, Das M, Sepolia S, Knowledge SP. Attitudes and practice about research ethics among dental faculty in the North India. J Int Oral Health. 2015;7(2):52-6.

Indian Council of Medical Research. National ethical guidelines for biomedical and health research involving human participants. New Delhi: Indian Council of Medical Research; 2017.

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical Journals. Updated; 2014. Available at:

Committee on Publication Ethics. Code of conduct and best practice guidelines for Journal editors. 2011. Available at: files/Code_of_conduct_for_journal_editors.pdf.

Al Demour S, Alzoubi KH, Alabsi A, Al Abdallat S, Alzayed A. Knowledge, awareness, and attitudes about research ethics committees and informed consent among resident doctors. Int J General Med. 2019;12:141-5.