Committees are now being expected to do everything

Editor–I read Julian Savulescu and colleagues' article on local research ethics committees with a sinking heart.1 The view presented seems to be part of a growing movement towards placing increased responsibility on local research ethics committees, which are now expected to assess the need for each new project (against the background of previous related research), interview researchers, inspect sites, monitor progress, and follow up the reporting of all completed trials.

The desire to improve the quality of medical research is laudable, but it is unreasonable and unrealistic to expect this to be done entirely through the mechanism of review by local research ethics committees, at least as presently set up and funded. Members of local research ethics committees carry out their functions on an amateur basis (though some have professional backgrounds). They would not pretend to be omniscient, only conscientious, sincere, and disinterested. Their review forms only one safeguard in research.

To undertake the additional tasks suggested in the article, local research ethics committees would need a great deal of extra time and …