Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Regulation and the social licence for medical research

  • Scientific Contribution
  • Published:
Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Regulation and governance of medical research is frequently criticised by researchers. In this paper, we draw on Everett Hughes’ concepts of professional licence and professional mandate, and on contemporary sociological theory on risk regulation, to explain the emergence of research governance and the kinds of criticism it receives. We offer explanations for researcher criticism of the rules and practices of research governance, suggesting that these are perceived as interference in their mandate. We argue that, in spite of their complaints, researchers benefit from the institutions of governance and regulation, in particular by the ways in which regulation secures the social licence for research. While it is difficult to answer questions such as: “Is medical research over-regulated?” and “Does the regulation of medical research successfully protect patients or promote ethical conduct?”, a close analysis of the social functions of research governance and its relationship to risk, trust, and confidence permits us to pose these questions in a more illuminating way.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abraham, J. 2002. Making regulation responsive to commercial interests. BMJ 325: 1164–1169.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Abraham, J., and G. Lewis. 1999. Harmonising and competing for medicines regulation: How healthy are the European union’s systems of drug approval? Social Science and Medicine 48: 1655–1667.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Adut, A. 2004. Scandal as Norm Entrepreneurship Strategy: Corruption and the French Investigating Magistrates. Theory and Society 33: 529–578.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adut, A. 2005. A theory of scandal: Victorians, homosexuality, and the fall of Oscar Wilde. American Journal of Sociology 111: 213–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, L. 1949. Medical science under dictatorship. New England Journal of Medicine 241: 39–47.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Al-Shahi Salman, R., T.M. Brock, M.S. Dennis, P.A. Sandercock, P.M. White, and C. Warlow. 2007. Research governance impediments to clinical trials: A retrospective survey. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 100: 101–104.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ashcroft, R. 2003. The ethics and governance of medical research: What does regulation have to do with morality? New Review of Bioethics 1: 47–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beecher, H.K. 1966. Ethics and clinical research. New England Journal of Medicine 274: 1354–1360.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Boshier, A., S.A. Shakir, P. Telfer, E. Behr, T. Pakrashi, and A.J. Camm. 2005. The negative effect of red tape on research. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety 14: 373–376.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bosk, C. 1979. Forgive and remember: Managing medical failure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Checkland, K., M. Marshall, and S. Harrison. 2004. Re-thinking accountability: Trust versus confidence in medical practice. Quality and Safety in Health Care 13: 130–135.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, M., G. Cook, P. Hodgson, J. Reed, C. Clarke, and P. Inglis. 2007. The impact of research governance in the United Kingdom on research involving a national survey. Journal of Health Organization and Management 21: 59–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Department of Health. 1991. Local research ethics committees. London: Department of Health.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Health. 2000. Report of a review of the research framework in North Staffordshire hospital NHS trust. London: Department of Health.

  • Department of Health. 2005. Research governance framework for health and social care, 2nd edn. http://www.dh.gov.uk/assetRoot/04/12/24/27/04122427.pdf. London: Department of Health.

  • Dingwall, R. 2006. An exercise in fatuity: Research governance and the emasculation of HSR. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy 11: 193–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dixon-Woods, M., E.L. Angell, R.E. Ashcroft, and A. Bryman. 2007. Written work: The social functions of research ethics committees. Social Science and Medicine 65: 792–802.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Doyal, L. 2001. Introduction to Beecher’s “ethics and clinical research”. In Informed consent in medical research, ed. L. Doyal, and J. Tobias. London: BMJ Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ducharme, L.J., and G.A. Fine. 1995. The construction of nonpersonhood and demonization: Commemorating the traitorous reputation of Benedict Arnold. Social Forces 73: 1309–1331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dumville, J.C., J. Watson, P. Raynor, and D.J. Torgerson. 2004. Research governance: A barrier to ethical research? QJM: An International Journal of Medicine 97: 113–114.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, S.J., T. Stone, and T. Swift. 2007. Differences between research ethics committees. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 23: 17–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Elwyn, G., A. Seagrove, K. Thorne, and W.Y. Cheung. 2005. Ethics and research governance in a multicentre study: add 150 days to your study protocol. British Medical Journal 330: 847

    Google Scholar 

  • Fombrum, C.J. 1995. Reputation: Realizing value from the corporate image. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galbraith, N., C. Hawley, and V. De-Souza. 2006. Research governance—research governance approval is putting people off research. British Medical Journal 332: 238

    Google Scholar 

  • Garfinkel, H. 1956. Conditions of successful degradation ceremonies. American Journal of Sociology 61: 420–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garfinkel, H. 1984. Studies in ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gawande, A. 2002. Complications. London: Profile Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. 1990. The consequences of modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gieryn, T. 1999. Cultural boundaries of science: Credibility on the line. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, E. 1959. The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, E. 1967. Interaction ritual. Chicago: Aldine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grady, C. 2007. Ethical principles in clinical research. In Principles and practice of clinical research, ed. J.I. Gallin, 2nd edn. London: Academic Press.

  • Harper Simpson, I. 1972. Continuities in the sociology of Everett C. Hughes. The Sociological Quarterly 13: 547–565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, S., and C. Smith. 2004. Trust and moral motivation: Redundant resources in health and social care? Policy and Politics 32: 371–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hazelgrove, J. 2002. The old faith and the new science: The Nuremberg Code and Human Experimentation Ethics in Britain, 1946–1973. Social History of Medicine 15: 109–135.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hey, E., and I. Chalmers. 2006. Are any of the criticisms of the CNEP trial true? Lancet 367: 1032–1033.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hood, C., and H. Rothstein. 2001. Risk regulation under pressure: Problem solving or blame shifting? Administration and Society 33: 21–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hood, C., H. Rothstein, and R. Baldwin. 2001. The government of risk: Understanding risk regulation regimes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howarth, M.L., and R. Kneafsey. 2005. The impact of research governance in healthcare and higher education organizations. Journal of Advanced Nursing 49: 675–683.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, E.C. 1958. Men and their work. Illinois: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kielmann, T., A. Tierney, R. Porteous, G. Huby, A. Sheikh, and H. Pinnock. 2007. The Department of Health’s research governance framework remains an impediment to multi-centre studies: Findings from a national descriptive study. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 100: 234–238.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Leese, B., C. Storey, J. Ford, and F. Cheater. 2005. Researchers’ responses to research management and governance for primary care research in England: Persistent and escalating problems over time. Journal of Health Organisation and Management 19: 494–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipsky, M. 1980. Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lull, J., and S. Hinerman, eds. 1997. Media scandals: Morality and desire in the popular culture marketplace. Oxford: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McAdams, R. 2005. Human Guinea-pigs: Maurice Pappworth and the Birth of British Bioethics. A thesis submitted to the University of Manchester for an MSc History of Science, Technology and Medicine in September 2005. Copies are held at the John Rylands Library, University of Manchester and at CHSTM.

  • Melhado, E.M. 1999. Innovation and public accountability in clinical research. Millbank Quarterly 77: 111–172.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J.W., and B. Rowan. 1977. Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology 83: 340–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Misztal, B.A. 1996. Trust in modern societies: The search for the bases of moral order. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill, O. 2004. Accountability, trust and informed consent in medical practice and research. Clinical Medicine 4: 269–276.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pappworth, M.H. 1967. Human guinea pigs: Experimentation on man. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Power, M. 1999. The audit society: Rituals of verification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, L., S. Drewery, J. Ellershaw, J. Smith, S. Whittle, and D. Murdoch-Eaton. 2007. Research governance: Impeding both research and teaching? A survey of impact on undergraduate research opportunities. Medical Education 41: 729–736.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rothstein, H., M. Huber, and G. Gaskell. 2006. A theory of risk colonization: The spiralling regulatory logics of societal and institutional risk. Economy and Society 35: 91–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Royal College of Physicians of London. 1996. Guidelines on the practice of ethics committees in medical research involving human subjects, 3rd edn. London: Royal College of Physicians of London.

  • Royal Liverpool Children’s Inquiry. 2001. London: The Stationery Office.

  • Shaw, S., and G. Barrett. 2006. Research governance: Regulating risk and reducing harm? Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 99: 14–19.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sheard, L., C.N.E. Tompkins, N.M.J. Wright, and C.E. Adams. 2006. Non-commercial clinical trials of a medicinal product: Can they survive the current process of research approvals in the UK? Journal of Medical Ethics 32: 430–434.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, R. 2000. Babies and consent: Yet another NHS scandal, but it should lead to improvements in research governance within the NHS. British Medical Journal (Clinical Research Ed.) 320: 1285–1286.

    Google Scholar 

  • Starr, P. 1982. The social transformation of American medicine. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stationery Office. 2001. Report of the public inquiry into children’s heart surgery at the Bristol Royal Infirmary 1984–1995. London: Stationery Office.

  • Thompson, V.A. 1975. Without sympathy or enthusiasm: The problem of administrative compassion. Alabama: University of Alabama Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tonkiss, F., and A. Passey. 1999. Trust, confidence and voluntary organisations: Between values and institutions. Sociology 33: 257–274.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaughan, D. 2004. Organizational rituals of risk and error. In Organizational encounters with risk, ed. by B. Hutter and M. Power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Watson, D.R. 1978. Categorization, authorization and blame—negotiation in conversation. Sociology 12: 105–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge the support of the Economic and Social Research Council (grant number RES-000-22-1908). Mary Dixon-Woods’ work on professions is funded by the ESRC’s Public Services Programme (grant RES-153-27-0009). Part of the analysis here draws on a review of the literature on regulation of medical research conducted for the Medical Research Council and the Wellcome Trust. We thank them and our colleagues on this project, Alan Bryman, Roger Brownsword, Karen Yeung and Emma Angell. We are very grateful for the comments of referees on the first draft of this paper, which were influential in its revision.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, 2nd Floor, Adrian Building, Leicester, LE1 7RH, UK

    Mary Dixon-Woods

  2. School of Law, Queen Mary, University of London, London, UK

    Richard E. Ashcroft

Authors
  1. Mary Dixon-Woods
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Richard E. Ashcroft
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mary Dixon-Woods.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dixon-Woods, M., Ashcroft, R.E. Regulation and the social licence for medical research. Med Health Care and Philos 11, 381–391 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-008-9152-0

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-008-9152-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation