Responses

Download PDFPDF
Consistency in decision making by research ethics committees: a controlled comparison
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed
  • Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. Removal or editing of responses is at BMJ's absolute discretion
  • If patients could recognise themselves, or anyone else could recognise a patient from your description, please obtain the patient's written consent to publication and send them to the editorial office before submitting your response [Patient consent forms]
  • By submitting this response you are agreeing to our full [Response terms and requirements]

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    Statistical analysis of decision making by research ethics committees

    Dear Editor,

    Angell et al conclude on the basis of the data that they present that the level of agreement between the ethics committees studied “may be described as slight” although it is “probably better than chance”. They do include the caveat that “polarised response categories…make the interpretation of κ statistics difficult”. There is no point in using a statistical test to make a judgement about the probability of...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Researchers' appreciation of ethics

    Dear Editor,

    Angell et al found that in 'only' 11/18 research applications did three research ethics committees agree entirely. I note that in 4/7 cases of disagreement, this was due to a mix of provisional and unfavourable opinions which I suggest reflects the willingness of many committees to offer a (very) provisional opinion to inadequately prepared researchers to help them to salvage their proposal and avoid th...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.

Other content recommended for you