Who should foot the bill for continuing review of research?

I would like to thank Jack Mendelson and Franca Cantini for giving me the opportunity to clarify an important point. They quite rightly state that “the burden of the cost for continuing monitoring should not rest with the research ethics board, but rather with the institution itself.” In a previous article in CMAJ my colleagues and I wrote that “local institutions, through their research ethics boards (REBs), are obligated to ensure appropriate monitoring of research involving human subjects. … Continuing review requires institutions to commit substantial financial resources and personnel to the process.”¹ I still believe this to be the case and erred in not making this point more clearly in my recent commentary.²

Signature

Charles Weijer
Department of Bioethics Dalhousie University Halifax, NS