淺論國科會推動之人文社會行為科學研究倫理治理架構構

國科會推動人文社會行為科學研究倫理治理架構已邁進第五年，並於第五個年頭正式實施階段性研究倫理審查。由於此項政策之影響，愈來愈多國科會專題計畫申請人擁有台灣研究倫理審查的經驗。有鑑於現象或事件的脈絡可能影響個人經驗之理解、反思、回饋過程，我將於本文描述台灣人文社會行為科學研究倫理治理架構建構的軌跡與當前研究倫理審查制度的現實面，並提出三項於2014年度國科會人文處研究倫理審查政策推波助瀾之下，正在發生的可議現象，包括：依據人體研究相關法規執行審查業務的研究倫理審查組織之討論、學術審查與倫理審查並行之影響、個別申請人自行吸收研究倫理審查費用之討論。透過脈絡的呈現與過往經驗的分享，我試圖邀請人文社會行為科學研究領域的研究人員關切這攸關台灣學術社群發展的關鍵議題，以於符合人文社會行為科學研究學門、方法、研究場域、關切議題之倫理考量的前提之下，協力尋求更為明智的做法與實踐方式。 It has been five years since the National Science Council, Taiwan initiated its policies on research ethics governance framework in 2009. With its new initiative on mandatory ethics review in 2014, more and more NSC researchers in Taiwan have had their research which involves human participants evaluated by a Research Ethics Committee. In this article, I start with a brief introduction of the history of the NSC research ethics policies. I then analyze the impacts of the 2014 initiative within the aforementioned context and present three issues emerging with the 2014 initiative, regarding the regulatory framework of the ethics review committee, the timelines for ethics review and proposal review, and who should cover the costs of ethics oversight. The analysis shows that with a lack of clear regulatory framework, open debates, and discussions in the public sphere, humanities, social and behavioral research might have been evaluated with and required to follow the practices and regulations governing ethical clinical research.

It has been five years since the National Science Council, Taiwan initiated its policies on research ethics governance framework in 2009. With its new initiative on mandatory ethics review in 2014, more and more NSC researchers in Taiwan have had their research which involves human participants evaluated by a Research Ethics Committee. In this article, I start with a brief introduction of the history of the NSC research ethics policies. I then analyze the impacts of the 2014 initiative within the aforementioned context and present three issues emerging with the 2014 initiative, regarding the regulatory framework of the ethics review committee, the timelines for ethics review and proposal review, and who should cover the costs of ethics oversight. The analysis shows that with a lack of clear regulatory framework, open debates, and discussions in the public sphere, humanities, social and behavioral research might have been evaluated with and required to follow the practices and regulations governing ethical clinical research.