This article is a response to the letter from the Department of Health that was published in the previous edition of the Research Ethics Review upon the matter of the legal duty of the research ethics committees. It also deals briefly with the article published in the current edition of Research Ethics Review by Colin Parker on what appears to be the same topic.

In this paper the author argues that the Academy of Medical Sciences's ‘Review of the regulation and governance of medical research’ has produced a set of muddled recommendations that could increase complexity and uncertainty in research governance rather than reduce it. Issues discussed in the paper include the additional legal burden placed upon the newly proposed Health Research Agency by the plan for a National Research Governance Service and its system of centralized permissions, the consequences that this may have for (...) the research ethics committees in the discharge of their legal duty, and the unanswered questions surrounding the TGN1412 incident. (shrink)

The role of the REC is to aim for a fair and effective trial protocol and to provide to potential trial subjects sufficient information to allow them to make a rational decision on whether to participate in it or not. The members are medical specialists and members of the public together fitted to these tasks. In his paper ‘Illegality in the research protocol: the duty of research ethics committees under the 2001 Clinical Trials Directive’ Roy-Toole has made a number of (...) suggestions on how to improve the function of the RECs, but he has not given persuasive evidence to show that the RECs themselves are the most effective bodies to implement possible legal requirements to improve medical research. (shrink)