Research bureaucracy in the United Kingdom

Editor—Jamrozik discusses the lost plot of research ethics paperwork in the issue of 31 July highlighting that ethics committees are out of control and discouraging research.¹ NHS research ethics committees comprise volunteers who give up their time freely to mediate society's desire to protect potential research participants.

If anything can be learnt from recent high profile cases, such as those surrounding retention of organs for research, it is that society does not restrict its understanding of “harm” to purely physical damage. The focus of research ethics committees on information sheets for patients is driven not by a desire for “editorial control” but to ensure that potential participants are free to make fully informed decisions. Obscure and jargonistic text is not informative. Some frankly misleading information sheets that we review are apparently designed more to facilitate recruitment than inform the patient.

We agree that scope remains for improving the ethical review process, including the application forms. However, much of the difficulty experienced by researchers while completing the forms seems to derive from an incomplete understanding of the ethical issues around their research and often unclear boundaries between the research and its clinical setting. Patients have a right to know whether what they are subjected to in clinical practice (treatments or questionnaires) is for their clinical benefit or for research, or both.

It would be helpful to look beyond dissatisfaction with the current ethical review process expressed in the 31 July issue to a broader understanding of the purpose and value of ethical review to society. Research ethics committees work hard to facilitate not to obstruct research. We hope that the BMJ will publish a special issue in the near future dedicated to positive aspects of ethical review and research governance.