Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
The recently published Report of theAHAG on the Operation of NHS Research Ethics Committees (the Warner Report) advocates major reforms of the NHS research ethics committees system. The main implications of the proposed changes and their probable effects on the major stakeholders are described.
The Ad Hoc Advisory Group (AHAG) on the operation of NHS research ethics committees, set up in November 2004 by Lord Warner on behalf of the Department of Health, submitted its report in June 2005.1 The report advocates major reforms of the research ethics committee (REC) system. The primary aim of the report is to streamline the processes around the approval of research projects and to pursue conformity of governance across Europe. Implicit in the report is the contention that failure to achieve this objective would be harmful to everyone with vested interests in improving health and social care. Moreover, it is stated that the reforms will enhance the mechanisms that protect the interests of all parties concerned.1
Being mindful of two published critiques of the Warner Report, we suggest that its alleged benefits should not be taken at face value.2,3 In fact, the reformed system will give rise to moral failings akin to those of the existing system, but will differ from the existing system in its effect on the stakeholders. Thus, whereas the outgoing system has given each stakeholder a unique mixture of benefit and harm, the incoming system offers benefit only to sponsors and researchers and nothing but detriment to participants in research and consumers of its products.
In the light of this conclusion, we finally suggest that the Warner Report be construed not merely as an ill-considered document, but rather as an ideological reflection of a long-established hegemonic contract fine-tuning itself to contemporary global challenges.
To avoid …
Competing interests: ME and DLW are members of a research ethics committee within the North East London Strategic Health Authority.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- The Ad Hoc Advisory Group’s proposals for research ethics committees: a mixture of the timid, the revolutionary, and the bizarre
- Research ethics committees in Europe: implementing the directive, respecting diversity
- Research ethics committees: the role of ethics in a regulatory authority
- Should research ethics committees be told how to think?
- New governance arrangements for research ethics committees: is facilitating research achieved at the cost of participants’ interest
- What are local issues? The problem of the local review of research
- Should research ethics committees meet in public?
- The shifting sands of research ethics and governance: effect on research in paediatrics
- An analysis of decision letters by research ethics committees: the ethics/scientific quality boundary examined
- Reviewing code consistency is important, but research ethics committees must also make a judgement on scientific justification, methodological approach and competency of the research team