Who should foot the bill for continuing review of research?
===========================================================

* Jack Mendelson
* Franca Cantini

Charles Weijer addressed the important issue of continuing review of research approved by research ethics boards in a recent commentary1 on an article by Jane McCusker and colleagues.2 Resources must be found when already-overburdened research ethics boards are asked to undertake new activities; higher personnel costs are the most important factor. Where, one might ask, should this money come from? 

Weijer suggests that “research ethics boards may choose to pay for continuing review by charging for such activities.” The burden of the cost for continuing monitoring should not rest with the research ethics board, but rather with the institution itself. In fact, the case can easily be made that the research ethics board should not even be involved in the collection of protocol fees because of a possible conflict. What if not enough money is raised from protocol review? Many protocols being reviewed have no budgets. Should personnel be fired and continuing monitoring stopped? Clearly not.

Research ethics boards serve a vital function and must be supported adequately to protect research participants. The public expects this. Contracts from pharmaceutical companies already serve as a source of revenue for institutions' administrations, and protocol review fees provide additional revenue. Research cannot take place without research ethics boards. Institutions must shoulder their responsibilities.

## References

1.  1. Weijer C. Continuing review of research approved by Canadian research ethics boards [editorial]. CMAJ 2001;164(9):1305-6.
    
    [FREE Full Text](http://www.cmaj.ca/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiRlVMTCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NDoiY21haiI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxMDoiMTY0LzkvMTMwNSI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjIzOiIvY21hai8xNjUvOC8xMDA0LjIuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

2.  2. McCusker J, Kruszewski Z, Lacey B, Schiff B. Monitoring clinical research: report of one hospital's experience. CMAJ 2001;164(9):1321-5.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://www.cmaj.ca/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NDoiY21haiI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxMDoiMTY0LzkvMTMyMSI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjIzOiIvY21hai8xNjUvOC8xMDA0LjIuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9)