Skip to content

Research approvals iceberg: helping it melt away

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Background: In their paper "Research approvals iceberg: how a 'low-key' study in England needed 89 professionals to approve it and how we can do better" Petrova and Barclay highlight concerns with the health research regulatory environment in the UK.

Discussion: As long-standing chairs of NHS research ethics committees, researchers, and also academics in research ethics, we are also often frustrated with the regulatory process in the UK. However, we think that Petrova and Barclay's analysis is misleading because it conflates research ethics with governance and funding processes, thus failing to adequately distinguish between the national coordinating function of the Health Research Authority, local research governance processes, and interactions with research sponsors and/or the Clinical Research Network.

Original languageEnglish
Article number100
Number of pages4
JournalBMC Medical Ethics
Volume20
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 24 Dec 2019

Documents

Related information

Outputs

Relations Get citation (various referencing formats)

ID: 17597151