Passing the Buck: How the Academy of Medical Sciences's ‘New Pathway for the Regulation and Governance of Health Research’ Shifts the Regulatory Burden but Fails to Improve the Quality of Research Governance
Free accessResearch articleFirst published online September, 2011
Passing the Buck: How the Academy of Medical Sciences's ‘New Pathway for the Regulation and Governance of Health Research’ Shifts the Regulatory Burden but Fails to Improve the Quality of Research Governance
In this paper the author argues that the Academy of Medical Sciences's ‘Review of the regulation and governance of medical research’ has produced a set of muddled recommendations that could increase complexity and uncertainty in research governance rather than reduce it. Issues discussed in the paper include the additional legal burden placed upon the newly proposed Health Research Agency by the plan for a National Research Governance Service and its system of centralized permissions, the consequences that this may have for the research ethics committees in the discharge of their legal duty, and the unanswered questions surrounding the TGN1412 incident.
New pathway for the regulation and governance of health research (Report) paragraph 9.3. http://www.acmedsci.ac.uk/p99.html. Accessed: 7th July 2011.
6.
Report paragraph 9.3.
7.
Report paragraph 4.5.1.
8.
Report paragraph 4.5.1.
9.
Report paragraph 4.5.1.
10.
Report paragraph 4.5.2.
11.
Report paragraph 5.5.4.
12.
Report paragraph 9.5.2.
13.
Report Sub-Heading 4.4 and content.
14.
Report paragraph 4.5.3.
15.
Roy-TooleC.Illegality in the research protocol: the duty of research ethics committees under the 2001 Clinical Trials Directive. Res Ethics Rev2008; 4(3): 111–116.; Marc Taylor C, Saunders J, Davies H. Research ethics committees and legal opinion (letter). Res Ethics Rev 2008; 4(4): 165–166; 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 C. The New Governance Arrangements for Research ethics committees: policy-shift and equivocation on matters of illegal research. Research Ethics Review 2009; 5(4): 160–161.
16.
Roy-TooleC.Re-branding RECs as NRES Committees: a case of the emperor's new clothes?(letter)Research Ethics Review2010; 6(3): 106–107.
Council of International Organisations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) in collaboration with the World Health Organisation (WHO) International ethical guidelines for biomedical research involving human subjects. Geneva 2002. http://www.cioms.ch/publications/layout_guide2002.pdf at page 25. Accessed: 7th July 2011; see too Article 3 paragraph 2(a) and Article 2 paragraph 2(k) of the Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC.
23.
Governance Arrangements for research ethics committees Final Edition (2011) at paragraph 5.4.2 (a).
24.
Professor Adam Hedgecoe (Cardiff University). The TGN1412 clinical trial: a “normal” accident. A lecture delivered in London on 12th November 2009 as part of the conference RECs: Help or Hindrance? The conference was hosted by University College London.
(Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations 2004) Memorandum of understanding between MHRA, COREC and GTAC Final version 1 (dated 23 October 2006); First time in man (FTIM) and other clinical trials subject to assessment by the Expert Advisory Group and Commission on Human Medicine. A Letter from the Director of NRES to Chairs of RECs dated 14th August 2007.
