Recognizing that students are fundamentally engaged in a process of learning and self-development, ethical review of sub-doctoral student research should be proportionate to that objective. A student's tutor has the pedagogical role and an ethics committee should not interfere with that relationship other than to seek to avoid harms unforeseen by either the student or tutor. Underpowered or other statistically or methodologically flawed sub-doctoral research should not however, in general, be regarded as ethically concerning. With the proviso that no subject is harmed the student can be allowed to learn such lessons as their mistakes may afford them.
Building on improvement: implementing the recommendations of the report of the ad hoc advisory group on the operation of NHS research ethics committees. London: COREC, August 2006.
4.
The Highway Code. Driving Standards Agency, 2007. p123.
TinkerACoomberV. University Research Ethics Committees: their role, remit and conduct. London: King's College2004.
8.
ElliottLHunterD. The experience of ethics committee members: contradictions between individuals and committees. J Med Ethics2008; 34: 489–94.
9.
Williams-JonesBHolmS. A university wide model for the ethical review of human subjects research. Res Ethics Rev2005; 1(2): 39–44.
10.
HaggertyKD. Ethics creep: governing social science research in the name of ethics. Qualitative Sociology2004; 27(4): 391–414.
11.
AshcroftRParkerM. The ethical review of student research in the context of the governance arrangements for research ethics committees. In EcksteinS (Ed). Manual for Research Ethics Committees. London: King's College2003: pp53–9.
12.
MeadM. Research with human beings: a model derived from anthropological field practice. In FreundPA (Ed.). Experimentation with Human Subjects. New York: George Braziller1970: pp152–77.
