The Structure and Function of Research Ethics Committees in Africa: A Case Study

January 2007 | Volume 4 | Issue 1 | e3 According to international guidelines [1,2] and several nations’ laws [3–5], research with humans requires independent ethics committee review. In the United States, committees are called institutional review boards (IRBs) [6]; elsewhere they generally are called research ethics committees (RECs). Committees are designed to: provide third party review, thereby minimizing confl icts of interest; protect the welfare of research participants through attention to risks, benefi ts, and informed consent; and avoid exploitation of vulnerable individuals and populations. Most literature examining RECs comes from wealthier countries. One US study found “serious concerns” with the quality of 14% of IRB reviews [7]. Another found that IRBs focused predominantly on consent documentation, spending less time examining voluntariness, selection of participants, and risk [8]. Many US [9– 15] and international [16–18] studies have found that different research ethics committees reach different conclusions when reviewing the same study. Several scholars and advisory bodies have made recommendations to address challenges facing US IRBs [19–22]. However, there has been little research examining procedures, strengths, and challenges of RECs in developing countries. Two case reports describe disagreements between host and sponsoring country RECs [23,24], and an international survey reports differences in sponsoring and host country reviews [25]. Three articles describe RECs within one country (Turkey [26], Granada [27], and Sudan [28]), and fi ve within a larger region. Rivera described 20 RECs in Latin America, fi nding that only 45% had standard operating procedures and that members had limited training [29]. Coker examined RECs in Central and Eastern Europe [30]. Ten countries had national committees,