Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
We write in response to the letter published 29 June 2010 from
Surinder Singh et Al on Failing Research in the NHS.
As members of a Research Ethics Committee in Leeds for nine years, we
are extremely mindful of the difficulties encountered by students on short
term courses. It would appear reasonable to streamline the process in
these cases and we are sure that some compromise on the difficult and
lengthy process can be achieved.
The attitude of the REC that reduced two students to tears, is
totally unacceptable and if the incident as reported by Surinder Singh et
al, happened as described, then a full and wholesome apology should be
offered by that committee. We would add that it is always a daunting
prospect for a student to attend a meeting where there are often 15
members (many of whom are senior in their field) + two administrators
However, from the REC members’ side there are substantial problems.
Our biggest is either poor input from students’ supervisors or, even
worse, the supervisors not attending the committee with the students and
effectively leaving them to hang out to dry. Students can not be expected
to be aware of all the ethical and legal requirements for clinical
research but their supervisors should.
We accept that much research is qualitative but that does not mean
that it is not intrusive and could be applied to vulnerable subjects. It
is imperative therefore that student research work is scrutinised and
passed fit for purpose. Incidentally, on many occasions the vast
experience of the diverse members of the committee, has been able to make
suggestions to the students on ways of modifying the research in order to
not only make it ethical but more scientifically robust.
We write on our own behalf and not as representatives of the REC we
serve on.
Student research ethics applications
Dear Sir
Re: BMJ 2010:340:c3448
We write in response to the letter published 29 June 2010 from
Surinder Singh et Al on Failing Research in the NHS.
As members of a Research Ethics Committee in Leeds for nine years, we
are extremely mindful of the difficulties encountered by students on short
term courses. It would appear reasonable to streamline the process in
these cases and we are sure that some compromise on the difficult and
lengthy process can be achieved.
The attitude of the REC that reduced two students to tears, is
totally unacceptable and if the incident as reported by Surinder Singh et
al, happened as described, then a full and wholesome apology should be
offered by that committee. We would add that it is always a daunting
prospect for a student to attend a meeting where there are often 15
members (many of whom are senior in their field) + two administrators
However, from the REC members’ side there are substantial problems.
Our biggest is either poor input from students’ supervisors or, even
worse, the supervisors not attending the committee with the students and
effectively leaving them to hang out to dry. Students can not be expected
to be aware of all the ethical and legal requirements for clinical
research but their supervisors should.
We accept that much research is qualitative but that does not mean
that it is not intrusive and could be applied to vulnerable subjects. It
is imperative therefore that student research work is scrutinised and
passed fit for purpose. Incidentally, on many occasions the vast
experience of the diverse members of the committee, has been able to make
suggestions to the students on ways of modifying the research in order to
not only make it ethical but more scientifically robust.
We write on our own behalf and not as representatives of the REC we
serve on.
Dr Michael M. Rivlin
Vice Chair and Lay Member
Dr Kenneth Shenderey
Expert Member
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests