When considering submissions ethics committees should be consistent in all aspects of their review. A wide variation in performance is likely to result in the unfair dismissal of good research on the one hand with inadequate ethical review on the other, neither of which is acceptable. The recent annual reports for UK MRECs suggest that the level of unfavourable opinion ranges from 6.9% to 24.2% Although a certain level of inconsistency is inherent in the system of ethical review there is little research to determine how much of that inconsistency in inevitable and how much of it is the result of poor process. The time has come for high quality research to be done to assess the consistency and hence the validity of ethical review.
References
1.
ElwynGSeagroveAThorneKCheungWY. Ethics and research governance in a multicentre study: add 150 days to your study protocol. BMJ2005; 330: 847.
2.
GalbraithNHawleyCDe SouzaV. Research governance: research governance approval is putting people off research. BMJ2006; 332: 238.
3.
JonesAMBamfordB. The other face of research governance. BMJ2004; 329: 280–1.
4.
ThorntonH. Research governance: whose idea is it?BMJ2006; 332: 238.
5.
WarlowC. Clinical research under the cosh again. BMJ2004; 329: 241–2.
6.
EdwardsSJAshcroftRKirchinS. Research ethics committees: differences and moral judgement. Bioethics2004; 18: 408–27.
7.
Annual Reports of Multi-centre Research Ethics Committees. COREC 2006.
8.
SalviM. Conflict of interest in biomedical research: a view from Europe. Sci Engr Ethics2003; 9: 101–8.
