Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (3)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Martyn, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Martyn, C.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Q J Med 2003; 96: 323-324
© 2003 Association of Physicians

Editorial

The ethical bureaucracy

Christopher Martyn

The first 10% of the full text of this article appears below.

Hands up those who think that research ethics committees are doing a good job. Do not expect to see Drs Maskell, Jones and Davies waving. Last month in the QJM, they reported what happened while they were setting up a multicentre study of intrapleural streptokinase.1 They reckoned that the local investigators spent 62 hours photocopying to produce the 25 296 pieces of paper needed to satisfy the 51 local research ethics committees (LRECs) involved. Others have written about similar experiences.2

The present system of research ethics committees in the UK was established in 1997 by the Department of Health. Twelve multicentre research ethics committees (MRECs) were appointed to deal with applications for studies and trials involving patients recruited from within five or . . . [Full Text of this Article]


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?