The editor of this journal, in common with other journals, requires that, where appropriate, studies published should have been approved by the relevant ethics committee. In some cases researchers have reported to the editor that they have found no committee willing to accept competence, or that different committees are taking different lines on which studies require approval.
As an example of the first case, a British university uses the local NHS ethics board. As far as the board is concerned, if the study does not involve NHS patients or staff it is not within their remit. What should researchers do if, as often happens in this field, subjects are involved who are not NHS patients or staff?
As an example of the second, some ethics boards consider that non-invasive biomonitoring, such as salivary cotinine monitoring, requires approval, and some do not.
What should the journal require?
Researchers who have found no ethics committee willing to accept competence for their study should complain to the NHS. There is a process by which this can occur through the NHS regulatory bodies. The advice was to consult the main ethics website. There is also a list of managers in the contact section. The standard operating procedure document may be helpful (http://www.nres.npsa.nhs.uk/). Also, the editor should consult Governance arrangements which details the remit of an NHS ethics committee http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics /Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_4005727).
On a broader note, members of the Forum cautioned that editors should consider IRB approval as only one indication of the ethical content of a study. It is not sufficient in itself. This is particularly relevant when considering studies performed in third world countries.