- Susan Kerrison, assistant director (research governance) (susan.kerrison@uclh.nhs.uk)1,
- Nick McNally, assistant director of research and development1,
- Allyson M Pollock, director of research and development1
- 1University College London Hospitals NHS Trust, London NW1 2LT
- Correspondence to: S Kerrison
The new research governance strategy marks a radical overhaul of the arrangements for medical research in the NHS and academic institutions with far reaching implications for all those taking part in research. The days of registrars and consultants singlehandedly doing research projects are over
As part of the reforms to NHS research and development strategy announced in 2000, the Department of Health published a research governance strategy for England.1 The basic framework governing research in England had remained unchanged since the 1960s. It is based on measures introduced after the second world war to protect research subjects, such as international convention law,2 international codes of conduct for the medical profession,3 and legal regulation of the pharmaceutical industry. However, the introduction of greater commercial interests into the NHS through research networks involving both public and private interests challenge these protective arrangements. We consider whether the new Research Governance Framework for Health and Social Care1 and the new arrangements for research ethics committees will provide counterbalance to these interests.
Commercial potential
In our previous paper we discussed the many partnerships and networks springing up with the commercial sector, the lack of clear accountability arrangements, and the potential for conflicts of interest introduced by the reforms of NHS research and development.4 The involvement of commercial interests was also promoted in the Health and Social Care Act 2001. This encourages NHS institutions to exploit the intellectual property derived from research on patient data and tissues for commercial gain. The head of research for GlaxoSmithKline described the NHS as one of the most underexploited resources of genetic data and tissue in the world,5 which illustrates the large potential for conflicts of interest. The risks posed by maximising the economic potential of research on human subjects have been partly ameliorated by enhanced …
Sign in
Article access
Article access for 1 day
Purchase this article for £20 $30 €32*
The PDF version can be downloaded as your personal record







CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mendeley
Reddit
Technorati
Twitter
Stumbleupon
Rapid responses
Latest Responses
Re: Ventilator associated pneumonia
Published 30 May 2012
Re: Restless legs syndrome
Published 30 May 2012
Author's reply
Published 30 May 2012
Re: Full access to trial data holds many benefits and a few pitfalls, conference hears
Published 30 May 2012
Restless Legs Syndrome: Fact or Fiction
Published 30 May 2012
Most responses
Venous thrombosis in users of non-oral hormonal contraception: follow-up study, Denmark 2001-10 (12 responses)
Published 10 May 2012 - 23:32
The psychiatric oligarchs who medicalise normality (9 responses)
Published 2 May 2012 - 15:42
Are doctors justified in taking industrial action in defence of their pensions? No (8 responses)
Published 8 May 2012 - 12:21
Are doctors justified in taking industrial action in defence of their pensions? Yes (8 responses)
Published 8 May 2012 - 12:21
The hardest thing: admitting error (7 responses)
Published 2 May 2012 - 12:27