Research ethics
Do research rules restore trust?
Open access · cc by · source: Europe PMC
Kerasidou argues that consent and ethics-committee rules make research more reliable, but restoring trust also requires trustworthiness and goodwill toward the vulnerable.
How this study connects
Role on claims
Each row is a claim on a concept or method page where this paper supports, challenges, or qualifies the statement. Roles are hand-checked — not a model guess.
Rules support trust; they cannot replace trustworthiness.
Consent and committee rules make research more reliable, but restoring public trust also requires researchers to be trustworthy and show goodwill toward vulnerable participants.
Evidence for the claim as stated.
Discoveries this paper informs or conflicts with
- Research ethics committees are audited on process, not on whether anyone was protected
This paper informs this development.
Inspect source passages
Do research rules restore trust?
These passages occur verbatim in the stored paper text. They support the points listed below; they do not verify every statement in the explanation.
Why were RECs and IRBs introduced?
research ethics committees (RECs) and Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), are to ensure the protection of future research subjects and, at the same time, r
Consent’s twin job?
Practices such as informed consent and also the introduction of administrative and regulatory oversight of research in the form of research ethics committe
Key findings
Trust is a decisive factor in participation. Reliance predicts behaviour; trust assumes goodwill toward vulnerability. Regulation can even signal untrustworthiness. If institutions want trust back, they need ethics education, dedicated teams, and stakeholder engagement, not only compliance systems.
Methodology
The paper reviews the trust-restoration story after research scandals, O’Neill’s scepticism that ‘loss of trust’ matches behaviour, and Baier-style analyses that separate trust from reliance. It then applies that distinction to biomedical research governance.
Limitations
This is conceptual, not a new survey of participants. O’Neill’s behavioural argument is cited, not retested. It does not specify a metric for trustworthiness.
Related papers in this topic
Same topic cluster — not a recommendation engine.