Rapid Responses to:

LETTERS: Woody Caan Research bureaucracy in the United Kingdom: Good governance is needed BMJ 2004; 329: 623-a [Full text]

Rapid Responses: Submit a response to this article

Rapid Responses published:

Research Governance

Mark H Wilson   (17 September 2004)

Research Governance 17 September 2004
Mark H Wilson, Director of Medical Ethics Health Research Associates, Ottawa, K2B, 6j4 Send response to journal: Re: Research Governance	Letters addressing the issue of research bureaucracy in the UK and what makes for good governance in ethics review have been an interesting read from North America. (1) Concerns about the independence and bureaucratization of research ethics review, transparency and accountability in research governance, and creating a regulatory climate that promotes public trust are active issues in Canada, Australia and the US. (2) They were also key issues in North American reports on national governance arrangements. (3) The issues are strikingly similar and globally connected despite structural differences in national regulatory regimes. Reports on research governance also mirror accountability concerns that are gaining media attention. Public interest in governance is growing due to profiled corporate scandals in the US and Canada. It is just a question of time before the media turns to the research regulatory culture. This is already occurring in North America and will likely happen elsewhere. Against this backdrop, a symposium that explores different countries approach to research governance might be useful. The notion of good research governance is not as straightforward as might be assumed. Stakeholders can hold different views on what constitutes good public governance that are not necessary aligned. (4) An international symposium might offer a forum where we can learn from one another. Medical journals could play a key role in facilitating such a symposium given their recent stewardship on an important international research governance issue. (5) (1) BMJ 2004;329:623, (2) E. Emmanule et al, Oversight of human participants research: identifying problems to evaluate reform proposals. Ann Intern Med. 2004 Aug 17;141(4):282-91. (3) Responsible Research: A systems Approach to Protecting Research Participants, Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine; 2002. The governance of human research involving human subjects. Ottawa, Law Commission of Canada, 2000. (4) M. Wilson, Getting a fix on good governance, J. Med. Ethics, April 1, 2004; 30(2): 232 - 232 (5) R. Drummond, Trial Registration, A Great Idea Switches from Ignored to Irresistible, JAMA 2004;292:1359-1362. Competing interests: None declared