Abstract

This study appeared in full in the last issue of Research Ethics Review (2010; 6 (1): 22). JM's research focuses on chronic pain and the evidence to support the effectiveness of current interventions. His current proposal has two dimensions in which mixed quantitative and qualitative methods will be used. One examines professionals' beliefs and the evidence on which they draw to support these. The other focusses on patients' experiences of the interventions and their views about what is most helpful in achieving pain relief. JM is an experienced researcher. He has used a similar design in previous work. Before submitting his application he consulted with the key professionals and patient representatives in the pain team and elsewhere. Everyone has supported the study and senior colleagues are of the opinion that it is well designed and appropriate. JM attended the REC meeting and found it an uncomfortable experience. No one was introduced. Questioning was hostile and some of the questions raised seemed to suggest that the application had not been read very carefully, if at all. He has now received a letter stating that a favourable opinion cannot be issued. A completely different methodology is put forward as essential. The REC advises that ‘the study would be more successful if it were conducted in a different type of setting, eg out-patients, and based on a questionnaire alone’. JM is very angry about this.