Streamlined research governance: are we there yet?

BMJ 2010; 341 doi: (Published 27 August 2010) Cite this as: BMJ 2010;341:c4625
  1. Nina Fudge, research associate,
  2. Judith Redfern, lecturer in health services research,
  3. Charles Wolfe, professor of public health,
  4. Christopher McKevitt, reader in social science and health
  1. 1King’s College London, Department of Primary Care and Public Health Sciences, 7th Floor Capital House, 42 Weston Street, London SE1 3QD
  1. Correspondence to: N Fudge nina.fudge{at}
  • Accepted 15 July 2010


Despite the promise of a new streamlined process for gaining research ethics and governance approval, Nina Fudge, Judith Redfern, Charles Wolfe, and Christopher McKevitt argue that the process is still dogged by delay and arbitrary decisions


  • Contributors and sources: This article draws on the authors’ experience of applying for research governance approvals for the Stroke Survivor Needs Survey for which JR was the chief investigator, CM and CW were principal investigators, and NF was the study coordinator. NF, CM, and JR prepared the initial draft of this article. CW contributed to the final draft. CM is the guarantor.

  • Funding: The stroke survivor needs survey is funded by the Stroke Association. CW is funded by a National Institute for Health Research Senior Investigator Award and the National Institute for Health Research Comprehensive Biomedical Research Centre, Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, and King’s College London, London.

  • Competing interests: All authors declare that the answer to the questions on the competing interest form are all ‘No’ and therefore have nothing to declare.

  • Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Accepted 15 July 2010
View Full Text

Sign in

Log in through your institution

Free trial

Register for a free trial to to receive unlimited access to all content on for 14 days.
Sign up for a free trial