Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
BMJ 2004;329:623 (11 September), doi:10.1136/bmj.329.7466.623-a
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
EDITORTransparent ethical scrutiny should come sufficiently early in the "life" of a research project that the design can incorporate the management of any risks to the public. A feeding frenzy for funding opportunities can make it difficult to organise such early scrutiny. The BMJ shows examples of a new problem: the paralysis of research by bureaucracy associated with ethics committees.1 Even committee members seem helplessly entangled in the new procedures.2 Hopefully, your readers will help to loose the Gordian knot created by these central "COREC" procedures.
However, research governance goes far beyond the inefficiency of a particular committee and is unfairly caricatured by the "face" published here.3 At the heart of governance is accountability.4 The scientific community owes this accountability to the patients and wider public who support research activities. Without their trust and goodwill, academic medical research would dieor else, possibly, degenerate into the coercive horror of
Woody Caan, professor of public health
APU, Chelmsford, Essex CM1 1SQ awc1@jess.che.apu.ac.uk
Read all Rapid Responses