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 2007;335:6 (7 July), doi:10.1136/bmj.39201.508692.2C
Still need more common sense and less bureaucracy
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
National Health Service research ethics committees exist to ensure that research performed within the NHS complies with recognised ethical standards and to protect the rights, safety, and dignity of all actual or potential participants. In the past decade the operation of research ethics committees has come under, and continues to come under, close scrutiny. Researchers now consider the process of acquiring ethical approval to be so onerous that it is compromising clinical research.1 2 3 Medical educators also think that the process is too unwieldy to allow undergraduate students to acquire research experience,4 an essential learning outcome required by the General Medical Council.5
To understand why such dissatisfaction has arisen we need to go back to the early 2000s, when the Central Office for Research Ethics Committees (COREC) was established and the Department of Health issued the Research Governance Framework for Health and Social Care.6 The implementation in 2001 of the
Louise Robinson, senior lecturer in primary care1, Deborah Murdoch-Eaton, professor of medical education2, Yvonne Carter, dean3
1 Institute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle NE2 4AA, 2 Medical Education Unit, School of Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9NL, 3 Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL
a.l.robinson@ncl.ac.uk
Read all Rapid Responses