One of the pressures placed upon researchers is the process of ethics review. This frequently provides considerable conflict. The process of review of student projects of little inherent risk is identical to that of their more senior colleagues. In this article I propose that we should be more tolerant of design problems within student research if the overall risk is minimal in order that the student can learn about the process of carrying out research.The frequency and content of papers discussing (...) research ethics review in specialist,1 professional2 3 and lay4 press suggests that many senior researchers find the process challenging. The opinion most frequently expressed is that research ethics committees work to an imprecise set of rules and represent a barrier to significant pieces of clinical research. In particular, specific criticism has been aimed at the review of student research5–8 and the difficulties that students and their supervisors face.In ethics committees we usually police research very carefully, monitoring the detail of projects, including how participants will be selected, what data will be collected, how it will be handled and how the research is funded in addition to the adequacy of the consent process and information that underlies it. My experience as a member of NHS REC and governance committees and, more particularly, coordinator of student research, is that National Research Ethics Service REC usually apply the same standards to student research with little inherent risk as to complex phase 1 studies with significant risk. Guidance in the standard operating procedures for NHS REC is at best unhelpful and at worst supportive of this view. …. (shrink)

Undergraduate projects may contribute new knowledge, but commonly their main purpose is an exercise in learning and applying simple research methods. They are usually short term and a first step into the research field. Support for undergraduate research experience is simple enough. However, integral to the research process is ethical scrutiny. A high standard of conduct of research is essential. The question of whether undergraduate student projects should be subject to full ethical review, to the same extent as that undertaken (...) for full scale academic work, is a matter of debate. The purpose of this study was to explore the views of academics on the nature and extent of ethical review considered appropriate for undergraduate research projects. This was done in order to identify which side of the above debate was favoured. Participants were undergraduate research project supervisors, drawn from a range of disciplines where research on human subjects is undertaken. A series of focus groups were undertaken, transcribed and subjected to thematic analysis. There was general consensus that some consideration should be given to the ethical issues relating to student projects. However, participants were limited in their explicit identification of such issues, with only extreme examples being specifically described. Some favoured a ‘light touch’ proportional to the size of the project as appropriate, while others considered the level ethical scrutiny not related to the size, duration or outcome of the work. Opinions were divided on where responsibility ultimately lay. Some considered it to belong at departmental, faculty or institutional level, but others held the individual supervisor accountable. The degree of involvement of undergraduate research in ethical review and approval is clearly an issue amongst academics. This study helps raise awareness of these issues and promotes debate on the appropriate level and format of review needed for undergraduate research training. (shrink)

Recognizing that students are fundamentally engaged in a process of learning and self-development, ethical review of sub-doctoral student research should be proportionate to that objective. A student's tutor has the pedagogical role and an ethics committee should not interfere with that relationship other than to seek to avoid harms unforeseen by either the student or tutor. Underpowered or other statistically or methodologically flawed sub-doctoral research should not however, in general, be regarded as ethically concerning. With the proviso that no subject (...) is harmed the student can be allowed to learn such lessons as their mistakes may afford them. (shrink)