Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Few members of a health prioritised society like the UK would
disagree with Richard Smith's statement that research needs to be carried
out. Much of a medical journal's business is publication of research. This
has been made more open by his Editorship of the BMJ in recent
years. BUT FEW MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC READ MEDICAL JOURNALS. EVEN FEWER ARE
INFORMED ABOUT RESEARCH ACTIVITY LOCALLY OR NATIONALLY.
It is encouraging to see that issues other than just
'confidentiality' (important as it is not to see any erosion/abuse of this
in a civilised society) are being addressed.
Most 'Members of the public' as well as many who work in health
related professions though, have little or no idea of what a LREC is; what
research is being carried out in their name, ie 'for the common good',
using their taxes and their information;no say in what projects are
researched;and as importantly how RECs are run. Who sits on them; how are
they appointed;
THERE IS NO INFORMATION GIVEN BY ANY OF 9 RANDOM LREC's TO INFORM THE
PUBLIC WHERE THEY MAY ACCESS A COPY OF THE ANNUAL REPORT.
THERE IS NO INFORMATION ON COREC's WEBSITE
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO GET A RESPONSE FROM THE PERSON HEADING OREC IN WALES
NO ANNUAL REPORTS ARE NECESSARILY LODGED AT CHCs OR ANYWHERE ELSE IN WALES
THEY ARE ELUSIVE AND HIDDEN FROM VIEW. ARE DIFFICULT TO ACCESS EVEN
IF PEOPLE KNOW OF THEIR EXISTENCE.
Two of the 9 Committees sent a copy of their Annual Report without
query straight away and were helpful with queries.
The rest were defensive-obstructive; defensive but eventually sent one;
naturally curious about the reason for wanting one - the majority stated
that a request for a copy was very unusual. HARDLY SURPRISING when no
effort is made to inform people of their existence or where they may
access them easily.
The best had extensive information on the Committee itself as well as
it's deliberations and comprehensive list of research applications.It also
published a Report on-line. It included for example not just members
interests but the number of committee attendances; the place of work and
rganisation/institution of researchers; - but the status of one of the lay
members as truly lay was dubious.
The least impressive have withheld their reports as yet but of one
received without hesitation, reservations include that since serious
failings were identified with the constituency and activities of one LREC
in the area it has been merged with another - but the 'Lay member/ex
Chair of the disbanded committee is still serving on the merged committee.
There has not been an entirely healthy or open recruitment to the newly
formed committee when so many memebers have simply transferred. There is
no attendance information; no information about the place of
work/organisation/institution of the researchers; the majority of the
committee members are from one specific profesional group with an interest
in deveoping research in fields where the majority of proposals have been
accepted. ie the majority of proposals come from colleagues in the same
geographical area and in the same line of work/research as the majority of
committee members. Whether they step down or not when interests are
obviously compromised it does not engender trust in the process. Whose
needs are being met in such a situation? Researchers or the community
which has a diverse mix and diverse health health problems in need of
research. Memebers of the public, nor the wider workforce have been
canvassed as to their priorities - the agenda is set by the most
influential.
Hopefully the group set up to look into LRECs will consider
problematic issues of this nature. Reservations about the group itself
though include; the few number of people involved in the investigation (4
with one observer from each UK region) - have decisions been made already?
is this just PR?; How truly 'Lay' are the members; the very short time
span to complete the study when none of the group are devoted entirely to
this issue; and how appointments to such groups are made in the first
place.
Competing interests:
A longstanding interest/study of RECs
LREC's need to be more visible
Few members of a health prioritised society like the UK would
disagree with Richard Smith's statement that research needs to be carried
out. Much of a medical journal's business is publication of research. This
has been made more open by his Editorship of the BMJ in recent
years. BUT FEW MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC READ MEDICAL JOURNALS. EVEN FEWER ARE
INFORMED ABOUT RESEARCH ACTIVITY LOCALLY OR NATIONALLY.
It is encouraging to see that issues other than just
'confidentiality' (important as it is not to see any erosion/abuse of this
in a civilised society) are being addressed.
Most 'Members of the public' as well as many who work in health
related professions though, have little or no idea of what a LREC is; what
research is being carried out in their name, ie 'for the common good',
using their taxes and their information;no say in what projects are
researched;and as importantly how RECs are run. Who sits on them; how are
they appointed;
THERE IS NO INFORMATION GIVEN BY ANY OF 9 RANDOM LREC's TO INFORM THE
PUBLIC WHERE THEY MAY ACCESS A COPY OF THE ANNUAL REPORT.
THERE IS NO INFORMATION ON COREC's WEBSITE
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO GET A RESPONSE FROM THE PERSON HEADING OREC IN WALES
NO ANNUAL REPORTS ARE NECESSARILY LODGED AT CHCs OR ANYWHERE ELSE IN WALES
THEY ARE ELUSIVE AND HIDDEN FROM VIEW. ARE DIFFICULT TO ACCESS EVEN
IF PEOPLE KNOW OF THEIR EXISTENCE.
Two of the 9 Committees sent a copy of their Annual Report without
query straight away and were helpful with queries.
The rest were defensive-obstructive; defensive but eventually sent one;
naturally curious about the reason for wanting one - the majority stated
that a request for a copy was very unusual. HARDLY SURPRISING when no
effort is made to inform people of their existence or where they may
access them easily.
The best had extensive information on the Committee itself as well as
it's deliberations and comprehensive list of research applications.It also
published a Report on-line. It included for example not just members
interests but the number of committee attendances; the place of work and
rganisation/institution of researchers; - but the status of one of the lay
members as truly lay was dubious.
The least impressive have withheld their reports as yet but of one
received without hesitation, reservations include that since serious
failings were identified with the constituency and activities of one LREC
in the area it has been merged with another - but the 'Lay member/ex
Chair of the disbanded committee is still serving on the merged committee.
There has not been an entirely healthy or open recruitment to the newly
formed committee when so many memebers have simply transferred. There is
no attendance information; no information about the place of
work/organisation/institution of the researchers; the majority of the
committee members are from one specific profesional group with an interest
in deveoping research in fields where the majority of proposals have been
accepted. ie the majority of proposals come from colleagues in the same
geographical area and in the same line of work/research as the majority of
committee members. Whether they step down or not when interests are
obviously compromised it does not engender trust in the process. Whose
needs are being met in such a situation? Researchers or the community
which has a diverse mix and diverse health health problems in need of
research. Memebers of the public, nor the wider workforce have been
canvassed as to their priorities - the agenda is set by the most
influential.
Hopefully the group set up to look into LRECs will consider
problematic issues of this nature. Reservations about the group itself
though include; the few number of people involved in the investigation (4
with one observer from each UK region) - have decisions been made already?
is this just PR?; How truly 'Lay' are the members; the very short time
span to complete the study when none of the group are devoted entirely to
this issue; and how appointments to such groups are made in the first
place.
Competing interests:
A longstanding interest/study of RECs
Competing interests: No competing interests