Correspondence

Humphreys S . Case study 18.: discussion. Res Ethics Rev 2010; 6(2): 62–64.

McGee P . Case study 18. Dealing with complaints to the REC. Res Ethics Rev 2010; 6(1): 22.

McCrae N Murray J . The problem of proliferation. Res Ethics Rev 2010; 6(2): 69.

Aldridge J Medina J Ralphs R . The problem of proliferation: guidelines for improving the security of qualitative data in a digital age. Res Ethics Rev 2010; 6(1): 3–9.

In the United States, researchers may apply for a ‘Certificate of Confidentiality’ from the National Institutes of Health to protect them from being compelled to disclose identifying information about their research participants, thus minimizing the risks to research participants and to themselves.

Review of arm's length bodies to cut bureaucracy. Press release, 26th July 2010 at http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/MediaCentre/Pressreleases/DH-117844.

The Academy of Medical Sciences. Current projects: Review of the regulation and governance of medical research at http://www.acmedsci.ac.uk/p47prid80.html.

ibid.

The Medicines for Human Use [Clinical Trials] Regulations 2004, regulation 5.

NRES Letter to REC members, dated 1st July 2010.

Directive 2001/20/EC, Article 2(k).

Roy-Toole CL . Illegality in the research protocol: the duty of research ethics committees under the 2001 Clinical Trials Directive. Res Ethics Rev 2008; 4(3): 111–116. Roy-Toole C. Research ethics committees and the legality of the protocol: a rejoinder and a challenge to the Department of Health. Res Ethics Rev 2009; 5(1): 34–37.

Roy-Toole CL . The ‘New Governance Arrangements for Research Ethics Committees’: policy-shift and equivocation on matters of illegal research. Res Ethics Rev 2009; 5(4): 160–161.