[Not Available].

Since the 60s, and particularly after various scandals in the 90s, national research ethics committees in Africa have established themselves as key players in the field of international clinical research. Notably based on the principle of double ethical review, their existence has historically been aimed at preventing a form of ethical dumping, a temptation that still exists today on the part of some research promoters. While the international framework of “soft” law has favored their emergence and legitimacy, a legal and regulatory framework of “hard” law is also necessary at local level for each national research ethics committee, to ensure its proper functioning and the optimal fulfillment of its missions. The aim of this article is to analyze the similarities and differences between three national ethics committees in Africa, specifically the CNERS of Guinea, the CNERS of Benin and the CNESVS of Côte d’Ivoire, in terms of status, missions, legal or regulatory ground and, more generally, autonomy. This analysis will enable us, on the one hand, to take account of common logistical difficulties and, on the other, to go beyond differences in legal status and missions to define what enables this type of committee to fully exercise its role(s). Finally, this article proposes to model the various elements that contribute to the autonomy and resilience of a national research ethics committee, around a notion proposed on this occasion: the “circles of autonomy”.