Introduction
The University has taken the view that it should be a formal requirement that all research involving human participants should be subject to ethical review. It has for some years been a requirement that research involving NHS patients, facilities, and staff should be subject to such review. The University does not wish to duplicate the machinery that already exists for review of such research and will accept as properly sanctioned all research that has received approval from the National Research Ethics Service (advice on applying for NRES ethical review is available from the University's Clinical Trials and Research Governance team). The University has, however, established machinery to deal with other research involving human participants and details of that machinery, with relevant documentation, are available on this website. The formal requirement applied from 1 April 2005 (not retrospective) so that all new research projects starting after that date have been subject to ethical review. The date of effect for undergraduates and taught masters projects was 1 October 2005.
A step-by-step guide to the approval process can be found here.
It is now the expectation – and in some cases formal requirement – of funding bodies that all research involving human participants is subject to an ethical review process. Moreover, researchers, and indeed participants themselves, are now recognising the importance of ethical scrutiny. Most other universities are following a similar course, and it is important that this University is committed to ensuring that its research activities involving human participants are conducted in a way which respects the dignity, rights, and welfare of participants, and which minimises risk to participants, researchers, third parties, and to the University itself.
The documentation on this website has been drafted by the Central University Research Ethics Committee (CUREC).
CUREC’s aim has been to draw up documents so that the ethical review process reflects the level of risk associated with the particular research project. Thus the first stage is the completion of a checklist. In many cases that is all that is required – other than reading the background information to help interpret the terminology set out in the checklist. Only in a limited number of cases is it necessary for researchers to complete the full application form.
The checklists and application forms are handled by bodies set up under CUREC, namely the two Interdisciplinary Research Ethics Committees (IDRECs). One is centred on the Social Sciences Division and the other on the Medical Sciences Division, as much of the research involving human participants carried on in this University falls within those two divisions. However, some relevant research is carried out in other divisions, most of which is likely to be best handled by the SSD IDREC. Some relevant research carried out in the MPLS division, for example in bioengineering areas, and therefore research involving human participants in that division is likely to be best handled within the Medical Sciences IDREC. However, it is a case of deciding best fit at the time of application and those in any doubt about the most relevant IDREC for their own research should seek advice by emailing curec@admin.ox.ac.uk.
Attention is drawn to OXTREC which deals with medical research outside the EU. In general, the machinery set up under CUREC does not deal with medical research because that is handled by the NHS Research Ethics Committees, but clearly such committees do not cover research outside the EU. OXTREC now comes within the ambit of the CUREC machinery even though the kind of research for which it is providing ethical review is rather different from that which is handled through the two IDRECs.
Those seeking further guidance are asked to do so by emailing curec@admin.ox.ac.uk in the first instance. Every attempt has been made to design the forms so that they are as easy to use as possible. However, it is recognised that there will need to be a review and update of the documentation in the light of experience. Comments on the forms are welcomed and will be taken into account when the policies and procedures are reviewed.