The Erasmus+ capacity building project “Responsible Conduct of Research – Research Integrity and Ethics in Georgian Universities” (ETHICS) is coming to its end. Within the project, nine Georgian universities aimed to strengthen research quality by promoting research integrity, ethical standards, and excellence through systemic reforms. The project has been focusing on updating doctoral accreditation policies, developing training modules and MOOCs, and building institutional capacity through researcher training and support systems. Additionally, the project established governance structures, integrity policies, and science communication strategies to foster a trustworthy, ethical, and transparent research environment. Within the project, all Georgian project partners established their Research Ethics Committees (RECs). The RECs were supposed to be fully operating by July 2025. Therefore, at the time of the conference, it will have been more than 1 year in full operation, handling cases.
The goal of the workshop is to share the experience of REC members and provide practical insights into how to address tricky questions that REC may face: a large number of cases, non-standard requests, and pressure from management.
This workshop does not aim to provide correct answers, but to explore decision-making under ethical uncertainty. Participants will strengthen their ability to address complex, real-world challenges faced by Research Ethics Committees, including overload, mandate ambiguity, and institutional pressure, through peer discussion and scenario-based analysis.
After participating in this workshop, participants will be able to:
Identify and analyse complex, non-standard challenges faced by Research Ethics Committees (RECs), including case overload, unclear mandates, and institutional pressures.
Apply ethical principles and procedural reasoning to ambiguous, real-world cases, where rules are incomplete, competing values are present, or time pressure is high.
Compare institutional practices and governance models for handling difficult REC cases across different national and organisational contexts.
Reflect on the role of RECs within a broader research ethics and integrity ecosystem, and identify gaps where institutional structures, policies, or support mechanisms may be missing.
Recent research highlights that the challenges addressed in this workshop reflect broader issues in contemporary research ethics review practice. Studies show that Research Ethics Committees (RECs) often face inconsistency in decision-making and interpretation of guidelines, which can affect fairness and efficiency (Trace & Kolstoe, 2017). At the same time, REC members emphasise that high-quality review depends on proportionality, clear communication, and adequate training, while identifying workload pressures and lack of standardisation as persistent concerns (Sidaway et al., 2023). Other work underscores the need for RECs to balance participant protection with respect for autonomy, avoiding excessive paternalism while carefully assessing risks and benefits (Garrard & Dawson, 2005). Practical experience from REC operations further shows that committees play a crucial role not only in safeguarding participants but also in improving the scientific and ethical quality of research proposals (Martín-Arribas et al., 2012). Finally, recent discussions point to the importance of making ethics review processes more inclusive and responsive, particularly in avoiding barriers that may limit research addressing underserved populations (Parsons et al., 2024), and to strengthening shared accountability among researchers, editors, and RECs in upholding ethical standards (Bain, 2017).
Outline of the workshop (presuming 20-30 participants).
Brief introduction: Purpose of REC, main principles of operation (10 minutes)
Introduction of participants (5 minutes)
Working in 5 small groups (4-6 people). Discussions about tricky questions (60 minutes). Four questions, 15 minutes each (5 minutes discussion in small groups, 5 minutes sharing, 5 minutes follow-up discussion in the whole group). Proposed questions (see detailed descriptions below):
A large number of cases
An irrelevant request
Pressure from the management
A question from the audience
Questions, answers and comments (10 minutes)
Wrap-up and conclusion (5 minutes)
The core of the workshop will be working in small groups. We prefer to discuss issues raised by participants based on their own experience. We will use our questions in case there are not enough cases from participants. In case the discussion after some cases becomes longer and more engaging, we will not use all the proposed scenarios.
Question A: A large number of cases
A national funding agency announced a call that attracted many research groups within our university. The agency requires REC approval at the time of the project application submission. Your REC normally meets once a month to discuss 1-2 applications. Suddenly, you received 10 applications, and you have to decide on all of them at the next meeting.
Question B: An irrelevant request
A non-profit organisation wants to realise a campaign on the university campus. The campaign includes posters, distributing leaflets, social media posts, panel discussions, etc. The topic is being highly discussed in your country (imagine, e.g. sexual harassment, support of a country attacked by another country, pressing environmental issue). The university’s academic senate supports this idea, but the Rector’s advisory board opposed it because of its controversy. The rector asks the REC for a statement on this matter.
Question C: Pressure from the management
You are a member of your university’s REC. The REC is composed of the representatives of each department. You represent your department. The committee received a controversial pharmaceutical project that you believe should not be approved. At your department`s Christmas party, the head of the department discusses potential cooperation with a pharmaceutical company that could bring significant funding to your department. The head is very enthusiastic about the cooperation, because the department would be able to buy new equipment that would significantly increase the quality of your research, and there would be funding for several PhD students. Later, you realise that this bright future depends on the REC approval of the controversial project you are about to vote on at your next meeting…
Question D: A controversial research project
A research group dealing with academic integrity wants to collect real data on the extent of contract cheating at your university. As self-reported data is unreliable, they plan to set up a fake contract cheating website and collect students’ orders. They plan to advertise the website via social media. In fact, no personal data will be collected, and students will be redirected to a debriefing website immediately after submitting an order. The debriefing website informs them that the order won’t be processed, no personal data was saved, and they will learn about the support options at your university. Would you approve such a project?
References
Bain, L. E. (2017). Ethics approval: Responsibilities of journal editors, authors and research ethics committees. Pan African Medical Journal, 28, 200. https://doi.org/10.11604/pamj.2017.28.200.14170
Garrard, E., & Dawson, A. (2005). What is the role of the research ethics committee? Paternalism, inducements, and harm in research ethics. Journal of Medical Ethics, 31(7), 419–423. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2004.010447
Martín-Arribas, M. C., Rodríguez-Lozano, I., & Arias-Díaz, J. (2012). Ethical review of research protocols: Experience of a research ethics committee. Revista Española de Cardiología (English Edition), 65(6), 525–529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.recesp.2011.12.017
Parsons, M., Ratcliff, J., Egan, B., Hassanin, H., & Ala, A. (2024). The UK research ethics committee: Making the case for better serving the underserved—Can we do better? Clinical Medicine, 24(1), 100012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinme.2023.100012
Sidaway, M., Collett, C., & Kolstoe, S. E. (2023). Evidence from UK Research Ethics Committee members on what makes a good research ethics review, and what can be improved. PLOS ONE, 18(7), e0288083. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288083
Trace, S., & Kolstoe, S. E. (2017). Measuring inconsistency in research ethics committee review. BMC Medical Ethics, 18(1), 65. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-017-0224-7