Student projects in medicine: A lesson in science and ethics

Accountability in Research

Volumn 16, Issue 6, 2009, Pages 285-306

  Edwards, Sarah J L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Ethic committees; Medical students; Research ethics; Student projects

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONFLICT OF INTEREST; ETHICS; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MEDICAL EDUCATION; RESEARCH ETHICS; STANDARD;

CONFLICT OF INTEREST; EDUCATION, MEDICAL, UNDERGRADUATE; ETHICS, RESEARCH; HUMAN EXPERIMENTATION; HUMANS;

EID: 70449083316     PISSN: 08989621     EISSN: 15455815     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/08989620903328451     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Academy of Medical Sciences Report. (2003). Strengthening Clinical Research. A report from the Academy of Medical Sciences, ISBN No.: 1-903401-05-4, Last accessed October 1, 2009. Retrieved from www.acmedsci.ac.uk/p_scr.pdf.
2. Ashcroft, R., and Parker, M. (2003). The ethical review of student research in the context of the governance arrangements for research ethics committees. In: Manual for Research Ethics Committees. Eckstein, S. (ed.). Centre of Medical Law and Ethics, King's College London: Cambridge University Press.
3. Eason, G. (2002). Research 'lacked ethical scrutiny'. News report for British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). Last accessed October 1, 2009. Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/1973301.stm.
4. Bortolotti, L., and Heinrichs, B. (2007). Delimiting the concept of research: An ethical perspective. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 28(3): 157-179.
5. Clarkeburn, H. (2002). The aims and practice of ethics education in an under- graduate curriculum: Reasons for choosing a skills approach. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 26(4): 307-315.
6. Coldicott, Y., Pope, C., Roberts, C., Britt-Ingjerd Nesheim, and MacDougall, J. (2003). The ethics of intimate examinations teaching tomorrow's doctors. BMJ, 326: 97-101.
7. Cribb, A. (2003). Approaching qualitative research. In: Manual for Research Ethics Committees. Eckstein, S. (ed.). Centre of Medical Law and Ethics, King's College London: Cambridge University Press.
8. Dawson, A. J., and Yentis, S. M. (2007). Contesting the science/ethics distinction in the review of clinical research. Journal of Medical Ethics, 33: 165-167.
9. Department of Health. (2001). Governance Arrangements for NHS Research Ethics Committees. Published by Department of Health. Last accessed October 1, 2009. Retrieved from http://www.doh.gov.uk/research/documents/gafrec.doc.
10. Doyal, L. (2001). Closing the gap between professional teaching and practice. BMJ, 322: 685-686.
11. Edwards, S. J., Lilford, R. J., Braunholtz, D., and Jackson, J. (1997). Why "under- powered" trials are not necessarily unethical. Lancet, 350(9080): 804-807.
12. Edwards, S. J. L., Ashcroft, R. A., and Kirchin, S. (2004). Are discrepancies between research ethics committees always morally problematic? Bioethics, 18(4): 408-427.
13. Edwards, S. J. L., and Omar, R. (2008). Ethics review of research: In pursuit of proportionality. Journal of Medical Ethics, 34: 568-572.
14. Elliott, L., and Hunter, D. (2008). The experiences of ethics committee members: Contradictions between individuals and committees. Journal of Medical Ethics, 34: 489-494.
15. General Medical Council. (2003). Tomorrow's Doctors. Published by Authority reg- ulating doctors in the UK. Last accessed October 1, 2009. Retrieved from http://www.gmc-uk.org/med_ed/tomdoc.pdf.
16. Glasziou, P., Vandenbroucke, J., and Chalmers, I. (2004). Assessing the quality of research. BMJ, 328: 39-41.
17. Goodyear, M. (2006). Learning from TGN1412. BMJ, 332: 677-678.
18. Tinker, A., and Coomber, V. (2004). University Research Ethics Committees: Their Role, Remit, and Conduct. Kings College London. Commissioned by the Nuffield Foundation. Last accessed October 1, 2009. Retrieved from http://www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/ppro/reports/URECreport.pdf.
19. Khan, M., and Robson, M. (1997). Medical Negligence. London: Cavendish.
20. Khan, M., Robson, R., and Swift, K. (2002). Clinical negligence. 2nd edition, Cauendish Publishing, London, p. 160.
21. National Research Ethics Service. (2005). NRES Guidance on Simultaneous Participation. Guidance from the UK National Research Ethics Service. Last accessed October 1, 2009. Retrieved from http://www.corec.org.uk/recs/training/docs/Is_and_As_Simultaneous_Participation.doc.
22. Lilford, R. J., Braunholtz, D. A., Greenhalgh, R. and Edwards, S. J. L. (2000). How to evaluate fast-changing technologies: The case for tracker studies. BMJ, 320: 42-46.
23. Wilkinson, M. (2008). Ethical review of undergraduate student research in the NHS: Evolution of the system could benefit us all. Journal of Medical Ethics, 34: 1-2.
24. Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority. [1986] 3 ALL ER 801, [1987] 2 WLR 425 Cited in Khan, M., Robson, R., Swift, K. Clinical negligence. 2nd edition. Cav- endish Publishing, London, 2002 p. 158.
25. NRES Working Group on student projects. (2004). National Research Ethics Service. Report from working group of UK National Research Ethics Service. Last accessed October 1, 2009. Retrieved from http://www.corec.org.uk/recs/docs/SPECs_proposal_DRAFT.doc.