Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Journal of Medical Ethics logoLink to Journal of Medical Ethics
. 2001 Oct;27(5):347–351. doi: 10.1136/jme.27.5.347

Ethical approval for research involving geographically dispersed subjects: unsuitability of the UK MREC/LREC system and relevance to uncommon genetic disorders

J C Lewis 1, S Tomkins 1, J R Sampson 1
PMCID: PMC1733461  PMID: 11579194

Abstract

Objectives—To assess the process involved in obtaining ethical approval for a single-centre study involving geographically dispersed subjects with an uncommon genetic disorder.

Design—Observational data of the application process to 53 local research ethics committees (LRECs) throughout Wales, England and Scotland. The Multicentre Research Ethics Committee (MREC) for Wales had already granted approval.

Results—Application to the 53 LRECs required 24,552 sheets of paper and took two months of the researcher's time. The median time taken for approval was 39 days with only seven (13%) of committees responding within the recommended 21 days. In at least nineteen cases (36%) a subcommittee considered the application. Thirty-three committees (62%) accepted the proposal without amendments but, of the remainder, four (8%) requested changes outside of the remit of LRECs.

Discussion—Difficulties still exist with the system for obtaining ethical approval for studies involving a single centre but with patients at multiple sites, as is often required for genetic observational research. As such studies differ from true multicentre studies, it may be advantageous to develop a separate and specific process of application to ensure that resources are not unnecessarily expended in the quest for ethical approval.

Key Words: Research ethics • MREC • LREC

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (83.8 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Ah-See K. W., MacKenzie J., Thakker N. S., Maran A. G. Local research ethics committee approval for a national study in Scotland. J R Coll Surg Edinb. 1998 Oct;43(5):303–305. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Ahmed A. H., Nicholson K. G. Delays and diversity in the practice of local research ethics committees. J Med Ethics. 1996 Oct;22(5):263–266. doi: 10.1136/jme.22.5.263. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Alberti K. G. Multicentre research ethics committees: has the cure been worse than the disease? No, but idiosyncracies and obstructions to good research must be removed. BMJ. 2000 Apr 29;320(7243):1157–1158. doi: 10.1136/bmj.320.7243.1157. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Alexander J. I. Multicentre research ethics committees. J R Soc Med. 1999 Dec;92(12):662–662. doi: 10.1177/014107689909201223. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Busby A., Dolk H. Local research ethics committees' approval in a national population study. J R Coll Physicians Lond. 1998 Mar-Apr;32(2):142–145. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Foster C. Why do research ethics committees disagree with each other? J R Coll Physicians Lond. 1995 Jul-Aug;29(4):315–318. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Gilder S. World Medical Association Meets in Helsinki. Br Med J. 1964 Aug 1;2(5404):299–300. doi: 10.1136/bmj.2.5404.299. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Holley S., Foster C. Ethical review of multi-centre research: a survey of local research ethics committees in the south Thames region. J R Coll Physicians Lond. 1998 May-Jun;32(3):238–241. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Jones A. C., Shyamsundar M. M., Thomas M. W., Maynard J., Idziaszczyk S., Tomkins S., Sampson J. R., Cheadle J. P. Comprehensive mutation analysis of TSC1 and TSC2-and phenotypic correlations in 150 families with tuberous sclerosis. Am J Hum Genet. 1999 May;64(5):1305–1315. doi: 10.1086/302381. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Kent G. The views of members of Local Research Ethics Committees, researchers and members of the public towards the roles and functions of LRECs. J Med Ethics. 1997 Jun;23(3):186–190. doi: 10.1136/jme.23.3.186. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Larcombe I., Mott M. Multicentre research ethics committees: have they helped? J R Soc Med. 1999 Oct;92(10):500–501. doi: 10.1177/014107689909201002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Lux A. L., Edwards S. W., Osborne J. P. Responses of local research ethics committees to a study with approval from a multicentre research ethics committee. BMJ. 2000 Apr 29;320(7243):1182–1183. doi: 10.1136/bmj.320.7243.1182. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Meade T. W. The trouble with ethics committees. J R Coll Physicians Lond. 1994 Mar-Apr;28(2):102–104. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Redshaw M. E., Harris A., Baum J. D. Research ethics committee audit: differences between committees. J Med Ethics. 1996 Apr;22(2):78–82. doi: 10.1136/jme.22.2.78. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Stacey T. E. Ethical review of research in the NHS: the need for change. J R Coll Physicians Lond. 1998 May-Jun;32(3):190–192. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Tully J., Ninis N., Booy R., Viner R. The new system of review by multicentre research ethics committees: prospective study. BMJ. 2000 Apr 29;320(7243):1179–1182. doi: 10.1136/bmj.320.7243.1179. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. While A. E. Research ethics committees at work: the experience of one multi-location study. J Med Ethics. 1996 Dec;22(6):352–355. doi: 10.1136/jme.22.6.352. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. al-Shahi R., Warlow C. P. Ethical review of a multicentre study in Scotland: a weighty problem. J R Coll Physicians Lond. 1999 Nov-Dec;33(6):549–552. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Medical Ethics are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES