Advertisement

Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy

, Volume 11, Issue 4, pp 381–391 | Cite as

Regulation and the social licence for medical research

  • Mary Dixon-Woods
  • Richard E. Ashcroft
Scientific Contribution

Abstract

Regulation and governance of medical research is frequently criticised by researchers. In this paper, we draw on Everett Hughes’ concepts of professional licence and professional mandate, and on contemporary sociological theory on risk regulation, to explain the emergence of research governance and the kinds of criticism it receives. We offer explanations for researcher criticism of the rules and practices of research governance, suggesting that these are perceived as interference in their mandate. We argue that, in spite of their complaints, researchers benefit from the institutions of governance and regulation, in particular by the ways in which regulation secures the social licence for research. While it is difficult to answer questions such as: “Is medical research over-regulated?” and “Does the regulation of medical research successfully protect patients or promote ethical conduct?”, a close analysis of the social functions of research governance and its relationship to risk, trust, and confidence permits us to pose these questions in a more illuminating way.

Keywords

Medical research Bioethics Regulation Social licence Trust Professions 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge the support of the Economic and Social Research Council (grant number RES-000-22-1908). Mary Dixon-Woods’ work on professions is funded by the ESRC’s Public Services Programme (grant RES-153-27-0009). Part of the analysis here draws on a review of the literature on regulation of medical research conducted for the Medical Research Council and the Wellcome Trust. We thank them and our colleagues on this project, Alan Bryman, Roger Brownsword, Karen Yeung and Emma Angell. We are very grateful for the comments of referees on the first draft of this paper, which were influential in its revision.

References

  1. Abraham, J. 2002. Making regulation responsive to commercial interests. BMJ 325: 1164–1169.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abraham, J., and G. Lewis. 1999. Harmonising and competing for medicines regulation: How healthy are the European union’s systems of drug approval? Social Science and Medicine 48: 1655–1667.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Adut, A. 2004. Scandal as Norm Entrepreneurship Strategy: Corruption and the French Investigating Magistrates. Theory and Society 33: 529–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Adut, A. 2005. A theory of scandal: Victorians, homosexuality, and the fall of Oscar Wilde. American Journal of Sociology 111: 213–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Alexander, L. 1949. Medical science under dictatorship. New England Journal of Medicine 241: 39–47.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Al-Shahi Salman, R., T.M. Brock, M.S. Dennis, P.A. Sandercock, P.M. White, and C. Warlow. 2007. Research governance impediments to clinical trials: A retrospective survey. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 100: 101–104.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ashcroft, R. 2003. The ethics and governance of medical research: What does regulation have to do with morality? New Review of Bioethics 1: 47–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Beecher, H.K. 1966. Ethics and clinical research. New England Journal of Medicine 274: 1354–1360.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Boshier, A., S.A. Shakir, P. Telfer, E. Behr, T. Pakrashi, and A.J. Camm. 2005. The negative effect of red tape on research. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety 14: 373–376.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bosk, C. 1979. Forgive and remember: Managing medical failure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  11. Checkland, K., M. Marshall, and S. Harrison. 2004. Re-thinking accountability: Trust versus confidence in medical practice. Quality and Safety in Health Care 13: 130–135.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cook, M., G. Cook, P. Hodgson, J. Reed, C. Clarke, and P. Inglis. 2007. The impact of research governance in the United Kingdom on research involving a national survey. Journal of Health Organization and Management 21: 59–67.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Department of Health. 1991. Local research ethics committees. London: Department of Health.Google Scholar
  14. Department of Health. 2000. Report of a review of the research framework in North Staffordshire hospital NHS trust. London: Department of Health.Google Scholar
  15. Department of Health. 2005. Research governance framework for health and social care, 2nd edn. http://www.dh.gov.uk/assetRoot/04/12/24/27/04122427.pdf. London: Department of Health.
  16. Dingwall, R. 2006. An exercise in fatuity: Research governance and the emasculation of HSR. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy 11: 193–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dixon-Woods, M., E.L. Angell, R.E. Ashcroft, and A. Bryman. 2007. Written work: The social functions of research ethics committees. Social Science and Medicine 65: 792–802.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Doyal, L. 2001. Introduction to Beecher’s “ethics and clinical research”. In Informed consent in medical research, ed. L. Doyal, and J. Tobias. London: BMJ Books.Google Scholar
  19. Ducharme, L.J., and G.A. Fine. 1995. The construction of nonpersonhood and demonization: Commemorating the traitorous reputation of Benedict Arnold. Social Forces 73: 1309–1331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dumville, J.C., J. Watson, P. Raynor, and D.J. Torgerson. 2004. Research governance: A barrier to ethical research? QJM: An International Journal of Medicine 97: 113–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Edwards, S.J., T. Stone, and T. Swift. 2007. Differences between research ethics committees. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 23: 17–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Elwyn, G., A. Seagrove, K. Thorne, and W.Y. Cheung. 2005. Ethics and research governance in a multicentre study: add 150 days to your study protocol. British Medical Journal 330: 847Google Scholar
  23. Fombrum, C.J. 1995. Reputation: Realizing value from the corporate image. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  24. Galbraith, N., C. Hawley, and V. De-Souza. 2006. Research governance—research governance approval is putting people off research. British Medical Journal 332: 238Google Scholar
  25. Garfinkel, H. 1956. Conditions of successful degradation ceremonies. American Journal of Sociology 61: 420–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Garfinkel, H. 1984. Studies in ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  27. Gawande, A. 2002. Complications. London: Profile Books.Google Scholar
  28. Giddens, A. 1990. The consequences of modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  29. Gieryn, T. 1999. Cultural boundaries of science: Credibility on the line. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  30. Goffman, E. 1959. The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  31. Goffman, E. 1967. Interaction ritual. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  32. Grady, C. 2007. Ethical principles in clinical research. In Principles and practice of clinical research, ed. J.I. Gallin, 2nd edn. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  33. Harper Simpson, I. 1972. Continuities in the sociology of Everett C. Hughes. The Sociological Quarterly 13: 547–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Harrison, S., and C. Smith. 2004. Trust and moral motivation: Redundant resources in health and social care? Policy and Politics 32: 371–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hazelgrove, J. 2002. The old faith and the new science: The Nuremberg Code and Human Experimentation Ethics in Britain, 1946–1973. Social History of Medicine 15: 109–135.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hey, E., and I. Chalmers. 2006. Are any of the criticisms of the CNEP trial true? Lancet 367: 1032–1033.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hood, C., and H. Rothstein. 2001. Risk regulation under pressure: Problem solving or blame shifting? Administration and Society 33: 21–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hood, C., H. Rothstein, and R. Baldwin. 2001. The government of risk: Understanding risk regulation regimes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Howarth, M.L., and R. Kneafsey. 2005. The impact of research governance in healthcare and higher education organizations. Journal of Advanced Nursing 49: 675–683.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hughes, E.C. 1958. Men and their work. Illinois: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  41. Kielmann, T., A. Tierney, R. Porteous, G. Huby, A. Sheikh, and H. Pinnock. 2007. The Department of Health’s research governance framework remains an impediment to multi-centre studies: Findings from a national descriptive study. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 100: 234–238.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Leese, B., C. Storey, J. Ford, and F. Cheater. 2005. Researchers’ responses to research management and governance for primary care research in England: Persistent and escalating problems over time. Journal of Health Organisation and Management 19: 494–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lipsky, M. 1980. Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  44. Lull, J., and S. Hinerman, eds. 1997. Media scandals: Morality and desire in the popular culture marketplace. Oxford: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  45. McAdams, R. 2005. Human Guinea-pigs: Maurice Pappworth and the Birth of British Bioethics. A thesis submitted to the University of Manchester for an MSc History of Science, Technology and Medicine in September 2005. Copies are held at the John Rylands Library, University of Manchester and at CHSTM.Google Scholar
  46. Melhado, E.M. 1999. Innovation and public accountability in clinical research. Millbank Quarterly 77: 111–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Meyer, J.W., and B. Rowan. 1977. Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology 83: 340–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Misztal, B.A. 1996. Trust in modern societies: The search for the bases of moral order. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  49. O’Neill, O. 2004. Accountability, trust and informed consent in medical practice and research. Clinical Medicine 4: 269–276.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Pappworth, M.H. 1967. Human guinea pigs: Experimentation on man. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  51. Power, M. 1999. The audit society: Rituals of verification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Robinson, L., S. Drewery, J. Ellershaw, J. Smith, S. Whittle, and D. Murdoch-Eaton. 2007. Research governance: Impeding both research and teaching? A survey of impact on undergraduate research opportunities. Medical Education 41: 729–736.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rothstein, H., M. Huber, and G. Gaskell. 2006. A theory of risk colonization: The spiralling regulatory logics of societal and institutional risk. Economy and Society 35: 91–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Royal College of Physicians of London. 1996. Guidelines on the practice of ethics committees in medical research involving human subjects, 3rd edn. London: Royal College of Physicians of London.Google Scholar
  55. Royal Liverpool Children’s Inquiry. 2001. London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  56. Shaw, S., and G. Barrett. 2006. Research governance: Regulating risk and reducing harm? Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 99: 14–19.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sheard, L., C.N.E. Tompkins, N.M.J. Wright, and C.E. Adams. 2006. Non-commercial clinical trials of a medicinal product: Can they survive the current process of research approvals in the UK? Journal of Medical Ethics 32: 430–434.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Smith, R. 2000. Babies and consent: Yet another NHS scandal, but it should lead to improvements in research governance within the NHS. British Medical Journal (Clinical Research Ed.) 320: 1285–1286.Google Scholar
  59. Starr, P. 1982. The social transformation of American medicine. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  60. Stationery Office. 2001. Report of the public inquiry into children’s heart surgery at the Bristol Royal Infirmary 1984–1995. London: Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  61. Thompson, V.A. 1975. Without sympathy or enthusiasm: The problem of administrative compassion. Alabama: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
  62. Tonkiss, F., and A. Passey. 1999. Trust, confidence and voluntary organisations: Between values and institutions. Sociology 33: 257–274.Google Scholar
  63. Vaughan, D. 2004. Organizational rituals of risk and error. In Organizational encounters with risk, ed. by B. Hutter and M. Power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Watson, D.R. 1978. Categorization, authorization and blame—negotiation in conversation. Sociology 12: 105–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Health SciencesUniversity of LeicesterLeicesterUK
  2. 2.School of LawQueen Mary, University of LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations