Regulation of research

doi:10.1136/bmj.a3140

Published 6 January 2009, doi:10.1136/bmj.a3140
Cite this as: BMJ 2009;338:a3140

Letters

Regulation’s threat to research

Regulation of research

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

In the open season for hunting research ethics committees¹ theletters show how researchers may be their own worst enemies.For example, Parker waited for nearly a year for a responsefrom the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency,which need not have been approached.² He then applied sequentiallyto the ethics committee and research and development departmentwhen he should have done so concurrently at the start. Samuel’sstudy might have been regarded as audit or service development,not requiring ethical approval.³

The process of ethical review cries out for simplification andabbreviation. For example, a distinction could be made betweeninterventional research and the plethora of projects arisingfrom undergraduate and postgraduate studies in pursuit of degrees.

The unacknowledged source of frustration is government. TheHuman Tissue Act 2004, for example, is arguably an over-reactionon the part of government and the chief medical officer (withthe complicity . . . [Full text of this article]

David E B Powell, chairman¹

¹ South East Wales Research Ethics Committee, Peniel, Carmarthen SA32 7HF

david.powell58@btopenworld.com