Journal of Medical Ethics 33 (1):45-47 (2007)

Abstract
The recently published Report of theAHAG on the Operation of NHS Research Ethics Committees advocates major reforms of the NHS research ethics committees system. The main implications of the proposed changes and their probable effects on the major stakeholders are described.The Ad Hoc Advisory Group on the operation of NHS research ethics committees, set up in November 2004 by Lord Warner on behalf of the Department of Health, submitted its report in June 2005.1 The report advocates major reforms of the research ethics committee system. The primary aim of the report is to streamline the processes around the approval of research projects and to pursue conformity of governance across Europe. Implicit in the report is the contention that failure to achieve this objective would be harmful to everyone with vested interests in improving health and social care. Moreover, it is stated that the reforms will enhance the mechanisms that protect the interests of all parties concerned.1Being mindful of two published critiques of the Warner Report, we suggest that its alleged benefits should not be taken at face value.2,3 In fact, the reformed system will give rise to moral failings akin to those of the existing system, but will differ from the existing system in its effect on the stakeholders. Thus, whereas the outgoing system has given each stakeholder a unique mixture of benefit and harm, the incoming system offers benefit only to sponsors and researchers and nothing but detriment to participants in research and consumers of its products.In the light of this conclusion, we finally suggest that the Warner Report be construed not merely as an ill-considered document, but rather as an ideological reflection of a long-established hegemonic contract fine-tuning itself to contemporary global challenges.To avoid …
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1136/jme.2005.015479
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 56,060
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

The Ghana Experience.Paulina Tindana & Okyere Boateng - 2008 - Journal of Academic Ethics 6 (4):277-281.
Reflections on My Experience in Human Research Ethics.K. G. Davey - 2009 - Journal of Academic Ethics 7 (1-2):27-31.
An Analysis of the Canadian Research and Development System for Agriculture/Food.F. L. McEwen & L. P. Milligan - 1992 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 5 (1):107-109.
The Ethics Committee as Ghost Author.David Shaw - 2011 - Journal of Medical Ethics 37 (12):706-706.
The Pakistan Experience.Sadaf Sheikh - 2008 - Journal of Academic Ethics 6 (4):283-287.
Introduction.Ross E. G. Upshur - 2008 - Journal of Academic Ethics 6 (4):271-275.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2010-08-24

Total views
23 ( #448,845 of 2,403,826 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #550,507 of 2,403,826 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes