United Kingdom research governance strategy

British Medical Journal

Volumn 327, Issue 7414, 2003, Pages 553-556

  Kerrison, Susan ^a   McNally, Nick ^a   Pollock, Allyson M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON HOSPITALS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONSULTATION; DRUG INDUSTRY; HEALTH CARE; IONIZING RADIATION; LEGAL ASPECT; MEDICAL ETHICS; MEDICAL PROFESSION; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; SOCIAL CARE; UNITED KINGDOM; WAR; ARTICLE; BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; ETHICS; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PROFESSIONAL STANDARD;

BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; ETHICS COMMITTEES; ETHICS, MEDICAL; GREAT BRITAIN; HEALTH POLICY; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; STATE MEDICINE;

EID: 0042972783     PISSN: 09598146     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.553     Document Type: Review

References (17)

1. Department of Health. Research governance framework for health and social care. London: DoH, 2001.
2. Geneva Conventions. www.globalissuesgroup.com/geneva/texts.html (accessed 5 August 2003).
3. Declaration of Helsinki. http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/helsinki.php3 (accessed 9 July 2003).
4. McNally N, Kerrison S, Pollock AM. Reforming clinical research and development in England. BMJ 2003;327:550-3.
5. Poste G. In: House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology. Human genetic databases: challenges and opportunities. 4th report. London: Stationery Office, 2001: para 6.2 (HL 57).
6. Department of Health. Ionising radiation (medical exposures) regulations 2000. London: DoH, 2000. www.doh.gov.uk/irmer.htm (accessed 9 July 2003).
7. Jacobson PD. Regulating health care: self regulation to self-regulation? J Health Politics, Policy Law 2001;26:1165-77.
8. Moreno JD. Goodbye to all that: the end of moderate protectionism in human subjects research. Hastings Centre Rep 2001;31:9-17.
9. Department of Health. Governance arrangements for NHS research ethics committees. London: DoH, 2001:para 3.1. www.doh.gov.uk/research/documents/gafrec.pdf (accessed 9 July 2003).
10. Alzheimer's Society. Quality research in dementia. www.qrd.ion.ucl.ac.uk/ (accessed 9 July 2003).
11. Savulescu J. Two deaths and two lessons: is it time to review the structure and funcfon of research ethics committees? J Med Ethics 2002;28:1-2.
12. Ayres I, Braithwaite J. Responsive regulation: transcending the deregulation debate. Oxford: OUP, 1992.
13. Ashcroft R, Pfeffer N. Ethics behind closed doors: do research ethics committees need secrecy? BMJ 2001;322:1294-6.
14. Abraham J, Lewis G. Harmonising and competing for medicines regulation: how healthy are the European Union's systems of drug approval? Soc Sci Med 1999;48:1655-67.
15. Walt G, Brugha R, Haines A. Working with the private sector: the need for institutional guidelines. BMJ 2002;325:432-5.
16. Morin K, Rakatansky H, Riddick FA Jr, Morse LJ, O'Bannon JM 3rd, Goldrich MS, et al. Managing conflicts of interest in the conduct of clinical trials. JAMA 2002;287:78-84.
17. Gelijns A, Thier S. Medical innovation and institutional interdependence: rethinking university-industry connections. JAMA 2002;287:72-7.