Abstract
The review system on research with human participants in the Netherlands is characterised as a decentralised controlled and integrated peer review system. It consists of an independent governmental body, the Central Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (or Central Committee), which regulates the review of research proposals by accredited Medical Research Ethics Committees (MRECs). The legal basis was founded in 1999 with the Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act. The review system is a decentralised arrangement since most research proposal are reviewed by the 30 accredited MRECs in the country. It is a controlled system in which the Central Committee is responsible for the accreditation and oversight of the MRECs and can make legally binding directives for these committees. The assessment of research proposals is an integrated peer review process in which all documents of the research file are reviewed by experts in one committee only. A small number of research proposals are assessed by the Central Committee and not by accredited MRECs. These proposals are on specific research categories such as gene therapy, cell therapy and embryo research. The review of research with surplus human embryos is regulated separately in the Embryos Act. The Central Committee provides support to the accredited MRECs and to researchers and sponsors. It is currently developing an internet portal to reduce the bureaucracy and make the review process more efficient and transparent. The Central Committee stimulates confidence on medical research in society by providing a public trial registry with core data on reviewed research proposals.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Brown, J. M. (2009). The impact of clinical trials legislation on clinical pharmacology: problems and solutions. Br J Clin Pharm, 67, 487–493.
Gunsalus, C. H., Bruner, E. M., Bruburles, N. C., Dash, L., Finkin, M., Goldberg, J. P., et al. (2006). Mission creep in the IRB world. Science, 312, 1441.
Keim, B. (2007). Tied up in red tape, European trials shut down. Nat Med, 13, 110.
Kenter, M. J. H., & Cohen, A. F. (2006). Establishing risk of human experimentation with drugs: lessons from TGN1412. Lancet, 368, 1387–1291.
Kenter, M. J. H. (2008). Legislation and Review of Medical Research with Minors in the Netherlands. Eur J Health Law, 15, 145–151.
Ritter, J. M. (2009). Research governance: the Dutch defence. Br J Clin Pharm, 67, 485–486.
Saunders, J. (2002). Research ethics committees—time for change? Clin Med, 2, 534–538.
Savulescu, J. (2002). Two deaths and two lessons: it is time to review the structure and function of research committees? J Med Ethics, 28, 1–2.
Steinbrook, R. (2005). Gag clauses in clinical-trial agreements. N Eng J Med, 352, 2202–2010.
Stewart, P. M., Stears, A., Tomlinson, J. W., & Brown, M. J. (2008). Regulation—the real threat to clinical research. BMJ, 337, 1085–1087.
Acknowledgements
Thanks to M. Al, J. Dute, and K. Wilson for their critical reading of this manuscript and helpful suggestions.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This paper does reflect his personal observation and opinion
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kenter, M.J.H. Regulating Human Participants Protection in Medical Research and the Accreditation of Medical Research Ethics Committees in the Netherlands. J Acad Ethics 7, 33–43 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-009-9091-2
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-009-9091-2