Intended for healthcare professionals

Rapid response to:

Editor's Choice

Fighting for the NHS, and research integrity

BMJ 2011; 342 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d4129 (Published 29 June 2011) Cite this as: BMJ 2011;342:d4129

Rapid Response:

Ethics and bureaucracy

Dear BMJ-editor

*Thank you for again promoting honesty in your editorials. It tempts
me to express a couple of thoughts.

*The argument that e.g. "a statutory body with a mandate and forensic
skills to investigate allegations and to enforce publication of the
outcome" will add to existing bureaucratic burdens to me seems wrong. It
will rather work the other way round: Its existence will stress the main
ethical rules so much that existing bureaucratic burdens lower in the
system might - and probably should be simplified.

*Published results from investigations in frauds - are highly
motivating for readers own proper conduct. Therefore one ought include
some remarks on what concrete preventive actions in the cooperative
context were lacking. One such preventive action is how explicite and
process-friendly the "meeting contract" of the team behind the research
project had been.

Best regards

Truls W. Gedde-Dahl, dr.scient.

Lifelong learning of positive cooperative behavior for all

Competing interests: No competing interests

01 July 2011
Truls W. Gedde-Dahl
retired scientist
Foundation for Local health trials, Hogasveien 68, N-1259 Oslo