Research Ethics Governance

The European Situation
  • Mihalis KritikosEmail author
Living reference work entry


The chapter analyzes the gradual emergence of ethics and integrity as a new object of regulatory attention at the European Union (EU) level, especially in relation to research activities funded by the EU. The chapter first examines the reasons behind the gradual development of an institutional and legal governance framework on research ethics at the EC level. It is argued that those research ethics committees created for the purposes of EU-wide ethical evaluations constitute a sui generis institutional structure that highlights both the opportunities and the limitations that this supranational rule-making platform offers. Their operation seems to constitute a delicate political exercise that is based on a vaguely defined subsidiarity test.

Furthermore, the chapter seeks to answer whether the process for the establishment of an EU-wide institutional framework for the ethical review of research proposals indicates a tendency for the establishment of centralized community ethical standards or instead reflects the need for a multilevel regulatory control of ethical standards and principles beyond the national level. The chapter further analyzes the various legal and sociopolitical features of “ethics” in the EU’s research initiatives and policies and identifies the inherent limitations of the gradual “Europeanization” of the process for the ethical scrutiny of EC-funded research proposals.


Ethics Ethics appraisal EU Framework Programme for Research Proceduralization Subsidiarity Ethical pluralism Europeanization Epistemic power 


  1. Dingwall R (2008) The ethical case against ethical regulation in humanities and social science research. Contemp Soc Sci J Acad Soc Sci 3:1–12Google Scholar
  2. Haggerty KD (2004) Ethics creep: governing social science research in the name of ethics. Qual Sociol 27(4):391–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Hermerén G (2009) Accountability, democracy and ethics committee. Law Innov Technol 1(2):153–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Hoeyer K, Dahlager L, Lynöe N (2005) Conflicting notions of research ethics:the mutually challenging traditions of social scientists and medical researchers. Soc Sci Med 61(8):1741–1749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Holland K (2007) The epistemological bias of ethics review. Qual Inq 13:895–913CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Jasanoff S (2005) Designs on nature. Science and democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton University Press, PrincetonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Jasanoff S, Kim S-H (2009) Containing the atom: sociotechnical imaginaries and nuclear power in the United States and South Korea. Minerva 47:119–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Sass H-M (2001) Introduction: European bioethics on a rocky road. J Med Philos 26:215–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Spike J (2005) Putting the “ethics” into “research ethics”. Am J Bioeth 5:51–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Stirling A (2005) Opening up or closing down? Analysis, participation and power in the social appraisal of technology. In: Leach M, Scoones I, Wynne B (eds) Science, citizenship and globalisation. Zed Books, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. von Schomberg R (2011) The quest for the “right” impacts of science and Hellstrom T., 2003, Systemic innovation and risk: technology assessment and the challenge of responsible innovation. Technol Soc 25:369–384Google Scholar
  12. Wolzt M, Druml C, Leitner D, Singer EA (2009) Protocols in expedited review: tackling the workload of ethics committees. Intensive Care Med 35:613–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Zwart H et al (2012) Ethical expertise in policy. In: Chadwick R (ed) Encyclopaedia of applied ethics, 2nd edn. Elsevier, Oxford, pp 157–164. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of European Studies-Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB)BrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations