While trust is seen as central to most social relations, most writers, including sociologists of science, assume that modern trust relations – especially those in regulatory relationships – tend towards the impersonal. Drawing on ethnographic material from one kind of scientific oversight body – research ethics committees based in the UK NHS – this paper argues that interpersonal trust is crucial to regulatory decision-making and intimately bound up with the way in which these oversight bodies work, and that as such they build on, rather than challenge, the trust-based nature of the scientific community.
AbrahamJ (2008) The politics and bio-ethics of regulatory trust: Case-studies of pharmaceuticals. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy11: 415–426.
2.
AllenPAWatersWEMcGreenAM (1983) Research ethical committees in 1981. Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of London17(2): 96–98.
3.
AngellEBrymanAAshcroftRDixon-WoodsM (2008) An analysis of decision letters by Research Ethics Committees: The ethics/scientific quality boundary examined. Quality and Safety in Healthcare17: 131–136.
4.
AngellESuttonAJWindridgeKDixon-WoodsM (2006) Consistency in Research Ethics Committee decision-making: A controlled comparison. Journal of Medical Ethics32: 662–664.
5.
Anonymous (1981) Notes and news: Ethical committees. Lancet318(8260): 1432.
6.
BacharachMGambettaD (2001) Trust in signs. In: CookKS (ed.) Trust in Society: Volume II in the Russell Sage Foundation Series in Trust. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 148–184.
7.
BarberBLallyJJMakarushkaJLSullivanD (1973) Research on Human Subjects: Problems of Social Control in Medical Experimentation. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
8.
BellJWhitonJConnellyS (1998) Final Report: Evaluation of NIH Implementation of Section 491 of the Public Health Service Act, Mandating a Program of Protection for Research Subjects. Arlington, VA: James Bell Associates.
9.
Ben-PorathY (1980) The F-connection: Families, friends, and firms and the organization of exchange. Population and Development Review6(1): 1–30.
10.
BigleyGAPearceJL (1998) Straining for shared meaning in organization science: Problems of trust and distrust. Academy of Management Review23(3): 405–421.
11.
BlackMLeeseBGosdenT (1995) Letter: Differences in application process cause problems. British Medical Journal311 (9December): 1572.
12.
BoskCLFraderJ (1998) Institutional ethics committees: Sociological oxymoron, empirical black box. In: DeVriesRSubedisJ (eds) Bioethics and Society: Constructing the Ethical Enterprise. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 94–116.
13.
BratspiesRM (2009) Regulatory trust. Arizona Law Review51: 575–631.
14.
BrownP (2009) The phenomenology of trust: A Schutzian analysis of the social construction of knowledge by gynae-oncology patients. Health, Risk and Society11(5): 391–407.
15.
BrownPCalnanM (2011) The civilizing process of trust: Developing quality mechanisms which are local, professional-led and thus legitimate. Social Policy & Administration45(1): 19–34.
16.
BusbyADolkH (1998) Local research ethics committees’ approval in a national population study. Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of London32(2): 142–145.
17.
CalnanMSanfordE (2004) Public trust in health care: The system or the doctor?Quality and Safety in Health Care13: 92–97.
18.
Central Office for Research Ethics Committees (2004) Standard Operating Procedures for Research Ethics Committees, Version 1: London: Department of Health.
19.
ColemanJ (1988) Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology94 (supplement): S95–S120.
20.
CollinsH (2001) Tacit knowledge, trust and the Q of sapphire. Social Studies of ScienceFebruary31(1): 71–85.
21.
CollinsHEvansR (2007) Rethinking Expertise. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
22.
DaviesHMannionR (2000) Clinical governance: Striking a balance between trust and checking. In: SmithP (ed.) Reforming Markets in Health Care. Buckingham: Open University Press, 246–267.
23.
DavisHLampelJ (1998) Trust in performance indicators?Quality in Health Care7: 159–162.
24.
De VriesRAndersonMSMartinsonBC (2006) Normal misbehavior: Scientists talk about the ethics of research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics1(1): 43–50.
25.
De VriesRDeBruinDAGoodgameA (2004) Ethics review of social, behavioral, and economic research: Where should we go from here?Ethics and Behavior14(4): 351–368.
26.
Department of Health (2001) Governance Arrangements for NHS Research Ethics Committees. London: Department of Health.
27.
DewhurstJK (1992) Local and central research ethics committees. British Medical Journal305 (25July): 257.
28.
Dixon-WoodsMAngellEAshcroftRBrymanA (2007) Written work: The social functions of research ethics committee letters. Social Science and Medicine65: 792–802.
29.
DownerJ (2010) Trust and technology: The social foundations of aviation regulation. British Journal of Sociology61(1): 83–106.
30.
DumouchelP (2005) Trust as action. Archives européennes de sociologieXLVI, No. 3: 417–428.
31.
DyerS (2004) Rationalising public participation in the health service: The case of research ethics committees. Health and Place10: 339–348.
32.
DyerS (2005) Applying bioethics: Local research ethics committees and their ethical regulation of medical research. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, University of London.
33.
EasterbrookPJMatthewsDR (1992) Fate of research studies. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine85: 71–76.
34.
FeldmanJARebholzCM (2009) Anonymous self-evaluation of performance by ethics board members: A pilot study. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics4(1): 63–69.
35.
FitzgeraldMH (2005) Punctuated equilibrium, moral panics and the ethics review process. Journal of Academic Ethics2(4): 1–24.
36.
FitzgeraldMHPhillipsPA (2006) Centralized and non-centralized ethics review: A five nation study. Accountability in Research13: 47–74.
37.
GambettaDHamillH (2005) Streetwise: How Taxi Drivers Establish Customers’ Trustworthiness. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
38.
GeertzC (1973) The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. New York: Basic Books.
39.
General Medical Council (2006) Good Medical Practice. London: General Medical Council.
40.
General Medical Council (2010) Fitness to Practise Panel Hearing the Case of Andrew Wakefield, John Walker-Smith and Simon Murch. London: General Medical Council.
41.
GiddensA (1990) The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
42.
GrayBH (1975) Human Subjects in Medical Experimentation: A Sociological Study of the Conduct and Regulation of Clinical Research. New York: Wiley-Interscience.
43.
GulatiR (1995) Does familiarity breed trust? The implications of repeated ties for contractual choice in alliances. Academy of Management Journal38(1): 85–112.
44.
HazelgroveJ (2002) The old faith and the new science: The Nuremberg Code and human experimentation ethics in Britain, 1946–73. Social History of Medicine15(10): 109–135.
45.
HazelgroveJ (2004) Post-Nuremberg debates: British research ethics after the Second World War. In: RoelckeVMaioG (eds) Twentieth Century Ethics of Human Subjects Research: Historical Perspectives on Values, Practices, and Regulations. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 181–197.
46.
HearnshawH (2004) Comparison of requirements of research ethics committees in 11 European countries for a non-invasive interventional study. British Medical Journal328: 140–141.
47.
HeasmanPPreshawPGrayJ (2008) Does researchers’ attendance at meetings affect the initial opinions of research ethics committees?Research Ethics Review4(2): 56–58.
48.
HedgecoeAM (2009) ‘A form of practical machinery’: The origins of research ethics committees in the UK: 1967–1972. Medical History53: 331–350.
49.
HendrixTR (1977) Editorial: Local institutional review boards. Journal of Medical Education52: 604–606.
50.
HolleySFosterC (1998) Ethical review of multi-centre research: A survey of local research ethics committees in the South Thames region. Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of London32(3): 238–241.
KhodyakovDM (2007) The complexity of trust–control relationships in creative organizations: Insights from a qualitative analysis of a conductorless orchestra. Social Forces86(1): 1–22.
53.
LuhmannN (1979) Trust and Power. New York: Wiley.
54.
LuhmannN (1988) Familiarity, confidence, trust: Problems and alternatives. In: GambettaD (ed.) Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 94–107.
55.
LuxALEdwardsSWOsborneJP (2000) Responses of local research ethics committees to a study with approval from a multicentre research ethics committee. British Medical Journal320: 1182–1183.
56.
McCaffreyDPSmithAEMartinez-MoyanoIJ (2007) Then let’s have a dialogue: Interdependence and negotiation in a cohesive regulatory system. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory17(2): 307–334.
57.
McEvilyBPerroneVZaheerA (2003) Trust as an organizing principle. Organization Science14(1): 91–103.
58.
MarshallTMoodieP (1988) Scrutinising research ethics committees. British Medical Journal297: 753
MartynC (2003) The ethical bureaucracy. Quarterly Journal of Medicine96: 323–324.
61.
MorenoJD (1995) Deciding Together: Bioethics and Moral Consensus. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
62.
MurphyEDingwallR (2007) Informed consent, anticipatory regulation and ethnographic practice. Social Science & Medicine65: 2223–2234.
63.
National Patient Safety Authority (2009) National Research Ethics Service: The Year in Review 2008–09. London: NPSA.
64.
PautzMC (2009) Trust between regulators and the regulated: A case study of environmental inspectors and facility personnel in Virginia. Politics & Policy37(5): 1047–1072.
65.
PhillimorePBellP (2005) Trust and risk in a German chemical town. Ethnos70: 311–334.
66.
PowerM (1999) The Audit Society: Rituals of Verification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
67.
ReynoldsTM (2003) Down’s syndrome screening is unethical: Views of today’s research ethics committees. Journal of Clinical Pathology56: 268–270.
68.
RousseauDMSitkinSBurtRCamererC (1998) Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review23(3): 393–404.
69.
Royal College of Physicians of London (1967) Report of the Committee on the Supervision of the Ethics of Clinical Investigations in Institutions. London: Royal College of Physicians.
70.
ShapinS (1994) A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-Century England. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
71.
ShapinS (1995) Trust, honesty and the authority of science. In: BulgerRBobbyEFinebergH (eds) Society’s Choices: Social and Ethical Decision Making in Biomedicine. Washington DC: National Academy Press, 388–408.
72.
StarkLJM (2006) Morality in science: How research is evaluated in the age of human subjects regulation. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, Princeton University.
73.
StarkLJM (2012) Reading trust between the lines: An ethnography of ‘housekeeping work’ on human-subjects review boards. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics (in press).
74.
StewartPMStearsATomlinsonJWBrownMJ (2008) Regulation – the real threat to clinical research. British Medical Journal337: a1732.
75.
StrathernM (2000) Afterword: Accountability… and ethnography. In: StrathernM (ed.) Audit Cultures: Anthropological Studies in Accountability, Ethics and the Academy. London: Routledge, 279–304.
76.
TappinDMCockburnF (1992) Ethics and ethics committees: HIV serosurveillance in Scotland. Journal of Medical Ethics18: 43–46.
77.
TaylorHACurriePKassNE (2008) A study to evaluate the effect of investigator attendance on the efficiency of IRB review. IRB: Ethics and Human Research30(1): 1–5.
78.
ThompsonIEFrenchKMeliaKMBoydKMTempletonAAPotterB (1981) Research ethical committees in Scotland. British Medical Journal28February282: 718–720.
79.
WainwrightPSaundersJ (2004) What are local issues? The problem of the local review of research. Journal of Medical Ethics30: 313–317.
80.
World Medical Association (2008) Declaration of Helsinki Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. Adopted at 59th WMA General Assembly, Seoul, Korea, October 2008. Available at: www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3/ (accessed 22 February 2012).
81.
ZuckermanH (1977) Deviant behavior and social control in science. In: SagarinE (ed.) Deviance and Social Change. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 87–138.
