Research ethics is an integral part of research, especially that involving human subjects. However, concerns have been expressed that research ethics has come to be seen as a procedural concern focused on a few well-established ethical issues that researchers need to address to obtain ethical approval to begin their research. While such prospective review of research is important, we argue that it is not sufficient to address all aspects of research ethics. We propose retrospective review as an important complement to prospective review. We offer two arguments to support our claim that prospective review is insufficient. First, as currently practiced, research ethics has become for some a ‘tick box’ exercise to get over the ‘hurdle’ of ethics approval. This fails to capture much of what is important in ethics and does not promote careful reflection on the ethical issues involved. Second, the current approach tends to be rules-based and we argue that research ethics should go beyond this to develop people’s capacity to be sensitive to the relevant moral features of their research, their ethical decision-making skills and their integrity. Retrospective review of a project’s ethical issues, and how they were addressed, could help to achieve those aims better. We believe that a broad range of stakeholders should be involved in such retrospective review, including representatives of ethics committees, participating communities and those involved in the research. All stakeholders could then learn from others’ perspectives and experiences. An open and transparent assessment of research could help to promote trust and understanding between stakeholders, as well as identifying areas of agreement and disagreement and how these can be built upon or addressed. Retrospective review also has the potential to promote critical reflection on ethics and help to develop ethical sensitivity and integrity within the research team. Demonstrating this would take empirical evidence and we suggest that any such initiatives should be accompanied by research into their effectiveness. Our article concludes with a discussion of some possible objections to our proposal, and an invitation to further debate and discussion.

中文翻译：

---

为什么研究伦理应该增加回顾性审查

研究伦理是研究不可或缺的一部分，特别是涉及人类学科的研究伦理。但是，已经有人担心，研究伦理已被视为程序上的关注点，侧重于一些公认的伦理问题，研究人员需要解决这些伦理问题才能获得伦理学批准才能开始他们的研究。尽管这种对研究的前瞻性审查很重要，但我们认为，仅仅解决研究伦理学的各个方面是不够的。我们建议回顾性审查作为前瞻性审查的重要补充。我们提供两个论点来支持我们的观点，即前瞻性审查不足。首先，按照目前的实践，研究伦理已经成为克服“伦理批准”的“障碍”的“打勾箱”活动。这未能捕捉到许多重要的伦理学内容，也无法促进对所涉及的伦理学问题的认真思考。其次，当前的方法倾向于基于规则，我们认为研究伦理应该超越此范围，以发展人们对研究的相关道德特征，伦理决策技巧和诚信的敏感度。回顾项目的道德问题以及如何解决这些问题，可能有助于更好地实现这些目标。我们认为，广泛的利益相关者应该参与这种回顾性审查，包括伦理委员会，参与社区以及参与研究的人的代表。然后，所有利益相关者都可以从他人的观点和经验中学习。公开透明的研究评估可以帮助增进利益相关者之间的信任和理解，并确定共识和分歧的领域以及如何建立或解决这些领域。回顾性审查还可能促进对伦理学的批判性反思，并有助于在研究团队内部发展伦理学的敏感性和完整性。证明这一点需要经验证据，我们建议任何此类举措都应伴随着对有效性的研究。本文的结尾讨论了一些对我们提案的反对意见，并邀请他们进行进一步的辩论和讨论。回顾性审查还可能促进对伦理学的批判性反思，并有助于在研究团队内部发展伦理学的敏感性和完整性。证明这一点需要经验证据，我们建议任何此类举措都应伴随着对有效性的研究。本文的结尾讨论了一些对我们提案的反对意见，并邀请他们进行进一步的辩论和讨论。回顾性审查还可能促进对伦理学的批判性反思，并有助于在研究团队内部发展伦理学的敏感性和完整性。证明这一点需要经验证据，我们建议任何此类举措都应伴随着对有效性的研究。本文的结尾讨论了一些对我们提案的反对意见，并邀请他们进行进一步的辩论和讨论。