Thankyou to Hearnshaw1 ,Glasziou and Chalmers2 for making points I
would have made myself had my time not been taken with writing ethics
applications. I am currently coordinating a qualitative investigation
into the attitudes of Asian families to child and adolescent mental health
problems and services. Because the research involves service users, non-
patient members of the community, children and adults I have been required
to make full submissions to three ethics committees – one University and
two NHS. Despite the fact that the research had received very positive
peer review from one of the top medical sociologists in the UK, each
committee criticised the design or quality of the methodology and required
fairly substantial clarifications and alterations to patient information.
For example, one committee required that I lengthen the children’s
information sheet to bring it into line with COREC guidelines, while
another said it was “too wordy” and required me to shorten it. Meanwhile,
our local Health Board is carrying out a similar focus group study without
need for ethical approval because it is seen as “user involvement”, is not
hypothesis driven and will not be published in the research literature.
While I can see the need for a Research Governance Framework, the
current guidelines seem to have produced a climate of risk aversion
without any weighing of possible benefits to patients. I my area,
research by busy clinicians and by students on time-limited MSc programmes
is all but grinding to a halt because the ethics barrier is seen as
insurmountable. This is yet another example of clinical academia being
strangled at its roots.
1. Hearnshaw, H. (2004) Comparison of requirements of research ethics
committees in 11 European countries for a non-invasive interventional
study. BMJ, 328, 140.
2. Glasziou, P., Chalmers, I., (2004) Ethics review roulette: what can we
learn?
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests:
No competing interests
21 January 2004
Helen J Minnis
Senior Lecturer in Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
Child Psychiatry, Section of Psychological Medicine, University of Glasgow, G3 8SJ
Rapid Response:
Risk aversion in ethics committees
Thankyou to Hearnshaw1 ,Glasziou and Chalmers2 for making points I
would have made myself had my time not been taken with writing ethics
applications. I am currently coordinating a qualitative investigation
into the attitudes of Asian families to child and adolescent mental health
problems and services. Because the research involves service users, non-
patient members of the community, children and adults I have been required
to make full submissions to three ethics committees – one University and
two NHS. Despite the fact that the research had received very positive
peer review from one of the top medical sociologists in the UK, each
committee criticised the design or quality of the methodology and required
fairly substantial clarifications and alterations to patient information.
For example, one committee required that I lengthen the children’s
information sheet to bring it into line with COREC guidelines, while
another said it was “too wordy” and required me to shorten it. Meanwhile,
our local Health Board is carrying out a similar focus group study without
need for ethical approval because it is seen as “user involvement”, is not
hypothesis driven and will not be published in the research literature.
While I can see the need for a Research Governance Framework, the
current guidelines seem to have produced a climate of risk aversion
without any weighing of possible benefits to patients. I my area,
research by busy clinicians and by students on time-limited MSc programmes
is all but grinding to a halt because the ethics barrier is seen as
insurmountable. This is yet another example of clinical academia being
strangled at its roots.
1. Hearnshaw, H. (2004) Comparison of requirements of research ethics
committees in 11 European countries for a non-invasive interventional
study. BMJ, 328, 140.
2. Glasziou, P., Chalmers, I., (2004) Ethics review roulette: what can we
learn?
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests