New governance arrangements for research ethics committees: Is facilitating research achieved at the cost of participants' interest

Journal of Medical Ethics

Volumn 28, Issue 5, 2002, Pages 318-321

  Cave, E ^a   Holm, S ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST; EUROPE; GOVERNMENT; MEDICAL RESEARCH; NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE; PROFESSIONAL STANDARD; PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE; UNITED KINGDOM; WELFARE;

BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; LEGAL APPROACH;

DECISION MAKING, ORGANIZATIONAL; ETHICS COMMITTEES, RESEARCH; ETHICS, RESEARCH; GREAT BRITAIN; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; HUMANS; NATIONAL HEALTH PROGRAMS; QUALITY ASSURANCE, HEALTH CARE;

EID: 0036792615     PISSN: 03066800     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/jme.28.5.318     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Directive 2001/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 2001 April 4. On the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the implementation of good clinical practice in the conduct of clinical trials on medicinal products for human use. Official Journal of the European Communities 2001;L121:34-41.
2. Central Office for Research Ethics Committees. Governance arrangements for NHS research ethics committees. London: Department of Health, 2001.
3. Department of Health. Research governance framework for health and social care. London: Department of Health, 2001.
4. Department of Health. Local research ethics committees. London: Department of Health, 1991. (HSG(91)5.)
5. See Penn ZJ, Steer PJ. Local research ethics committees; hindrance or help? British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1995; 102:1-2;
6. Garfield P. Cross district comparison of applications of research ethics committees. British Medical Journal 1995;311:660-1;
7. Meade TW. The trouble with ethics committees. Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of London 1994;28:102-3;
8. Harries UJ, Fentern PH, Tuxworth W, et al. Research ethics committees: widely differing responses to a national postal survey. Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of London 1994;28:150-4.
9. Department of Health. Ethics committee review of multi-centre research. London: Department of Health, 1997. (HSG(97)23.)
10. Tully J, Ninis N, Booy R, et al. The new system of review by multicentre research ethics committees: prospective study. British Medical Journal 2000;320:1179-82.
11. Stacey TE. How should an LREC handle an MREC approved application: interim guidance [circular letter to all LRECs and MRECs]. 1998 Sept 28: 1-3.
12. Alberti KGMM. Multicentre research ethics committees: has the cure been worse than the disease? British Medical Journal 2000;320: 1157-8.
13. Foster C. Why do research ethics committees disagree with each other? Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of London 1995;29:315-18.
14. See While A. Ethics committees: impediments to research or guardians of ethical standards? British Medical Journal 1995;311:661.
15. World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki-ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Adopted by the 18th WMA General Assembly Helsinki, Finland, June 1964 and amended by the 29th WMA General Assembly, Tokyo, Japan, October 1975; 35th WMA General ssembly, Venice, Italy, October 1983; 41st WMA General Assembly, Hong Kong, September 1989; 48th WMA General Assembly, Somerset West, Republic of South Africa, October 1996, and the 52nd WMA General Assembly, Edinburgh, Scotland, October 2000: article 5.
16. See Mossman J. Ethics committees do not understand research methods [letter]. British Medical Journal 2000;317:1217.
17. Freedman B. Multicenter trials and subject eligibility: should local IRBs play a role? IRB: Review of Human Subjects Research 1994;16:1-6.
18. Foster CG, Marshall T, Moodie P. The annual reports of local research ethics committees. Journal of Medical Ethics 1995;21:214-19.
19. Gilbert C, Fulford KWM, Parker C. Diversity of practice of district ethics committees. British Medical Journal 1989;299:1437-9;
20. Alberti KGMM. Local research ethics committees. British Medical Journal 1995;311:639-40;
21. Eichler H-G. Hazards of misguided ethics committees. Lancet 1995;346:1115-16;
22. Savulescu J, Chalmers I, Blunt J. Are research ethics committees behaving ethically? British Medical Journal 1996;313:1390-3;
23. Hotopf M, Wessely S, Norman N. Are ethical committees reliable? Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 1995;88:31-3.
24. International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Regulation of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use. Tripartite guideline for good clinical practice. Geneva: International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association, 1996.
25. See reference 1: article 7. This reads: "For multi-centre clinical trials limited to the territory of a single Member State, Member States shall establish a procedure providing, notwithstanding the number of Ethics Committees, for the adoption of a single opinion for that Member State. In the case of multi-centre clinical trials carried out in more than one Member State simultaneously, a single opinion shall be given for each Member State concerned by the clinical trial".
26. Hart HLA. Positivism and the separation of law and morals. Harvard Law Review 1958;71:606-15.
27. For example, Barber SG. Ethical ethics committees? Journal of Medical Ethics 2000;26:142.