This is exactly what the Ethics Review Committee (ERC) members did during the Orientation on Ethics Review for CRHRDC members at UP Baguio, Sarmiento Hall, Baguio City last February 17, 2015.  No less than the members of ERC who served as resource persons - Dr. Eleonor Cuarte (Baguio General Hospital and Medical Center)- The Chair,  Dr. Robert Tolentino (Saint Louis University),  Dr. Lloyd Orduna  (University of Baguio) and Dr. Nicolas Gordo (formerly of the Department of Health-Cordillera).

The orientation has two objectives.  One is to ensure common understanding among the participants who are members of the consortium.  Dr. Cuarte defined key concepts and the Basic Ethical Principles, differentiated research vs. therapy,  and shared classical research Ethics practices (e.g. Tuskegee Trial on Syphilis, Nazi experiments) as well as personal experiences (i.e. implementation challenges, unique ERC membership compared to other committees, rigid training qualifications).   

The other objective is to increase their level of awareness so they can help institution members establish their own Institutional Ethics Review Committee (IERC) based on a joint memorandum circular between and among the Department of Science and Technology, Department of Health, Commission on Higher Education, and University of the Philippines- National Institute of Health.  

From Dr. Cuarte’s lecture, there are seven principles the Ethics reviewer has to consider in evaluating research proposals.  These are, the research proposal:  

• should have a social or scientific value to existing body of knowledge;
• is scientifically valid indicated by research methods employed, among others ;
• observes fair subject selection;
• demonstrates favorable risk-benefit ratio;
• goes through an independent review;
• secures informed consent assuring participants’ (the respondents)  willingness to participate in the study; and
• gives due respect to human subjects’ objection to participate at any stage of the study.

Ethics review in research reduces the possibility of exploitation of human resources (particularly in clinical research), promotes social welfare and contextualizes local settings.  “Because a lot of knowledge is from western countries so we need to know its applicability and appropriateness in the locality,” she explained.

Since all institutions are doing research, it is imperative that these institutions have their own IERCs.  “As of now, it is only the ERC of CRHRDC who is reviewing researches including those coming from other institutions,” Dr. Robert Tolentino reported. “But in the long run as indicated by Philippine Health Research Ethics Board (PHREB), all regional ERC will no longer be an ERC but becomes an Ethics Review Board, whose function will be policy-making and oversight in the region, ” Dr. Nick Gordo elaborated.

“There are three levels of accreditation for the IERCs- Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3.  It so happens that the Baguio General Hospital and Medical Center (BGMC) is a hospital thus it is classified as Level 3.  The BGHMC was recently granted accreditation to do Ethics review. But for IERCS, we can only be Level 1 and Level 2, not Level 3 because we are not conducting clinical trials, ” Dr. Lloyd Orduna assured the higher education institutions present during the orientation on might be the negative effect of the process to them. 

So what needs to be done?  Dr. Cuarte advised for members to go for accreditation by PHREB. “Get the training, identify the members and form yourself a committee, draw up your manual of operations, then sit down and review,” she simply put forward. 

The orientation was able to meet its objectives of levelling off and enlightenment. To some participants, it is not really that mystical.  It is a matter of knowing the lines drawn  between an Ethical and technical review. Based on the seven principles, there are items the Research Management Committee has been using for their technical review.  They will just have to be conscious of the dimensions of Ethics review.   

Dr. Nick Gordo also pointed out in conclusion, “all that the technical reviewers do is a documentation of the activity and has taken preparation of the research and that the ERC should be part of the deliberation.”