This is a really interesting study published in PLOS ONE today. Eessentially it’s a survey of the attitudes of 2300 participants in TwinsUK (a national biobank) to giving their consent to medical research. The full paper can be found here.
The results of the survey would seem to highlight what has been a growing theme in the debate about ‘consent’ over many years now: that participants actually have a more flexible and pragmatic attitude to giving their consent than is assumed in the current regulations and regulatory framework.
They certainly want to know the researchers who want (in this case) their data; but they are happy to consent online, and to give an extended warranty for its multiple use over a good period of time.
You could say this is just one study. But the recent Health Research Authority (HRA) public dialogue exercise that I Chaired and which will be published later this year yet again found that the public are remarkably chilled about the things that exercise policy-makers and campaigners most. Which suggests we probably need to trust our fellow citizens a lot more than we do at the moment.
When I wrote about the latest INVOLVE/NRES study of public involvement in research applications a few weeks ago I was surprised by the response. In the main it was not about which funders were worse at doing public involvement. No, most people vented their frustrations about the attitude of ethics committees to proposals for getting consent, public involvement or public engagement in research applications.
They (both researchers and lay people) reported that often these were sent back with a request that they ‘do it again.’ Even though the public have been involved in their design. And in spite of ethics committees having lay people as members. Which suggests a certain mindset has taken hold in these local fiefdoms. A mindet which is not about ‘right touch’ regulation but about ‘always being right’
I know the HRA is on the case of this issue and has indeed been working hard on educating and training ethics committees members. But iIt’s an area ripe for reform. In the meantime perhaps ethics committees need to chill out more and, at the very least, stop second-guessing the public in whose interest they are supposed to be acting.