NHS Ethics: Shoe-bombers and why ‘less needs to be more’

Jansari, Ashok S.; Cocchini, Gianna; Jenkinson, Paul; Bajo, Ana and Ietswaart, Magdalena. 2015. NHS Ethics: Shoe-bombers and why ‘less needs to be more’. Cortex, 71, pp. 409-411. ISSN 0010-9452 [Article]

[img] Text
Jansari,Cocchini,Ietswaart,Bajo,Jenkinson_Ethics_22May2015.docx - Accepted Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives.

Download (29kB)

Abstract or Description

Neuropsychological research poses several challenges. Some of these, such as developing new ideas and conducting innovative studies, are approached with great enthusiasm, and are an integral and motivating part of academic research. By contrast, other challenges feel like gruelling, near-impossible tasks, designed to test the will of would-be researchers. For many, the process of obtaining UK National Health Service (NHS) ethics approval is the archetypal example of such a task. Baron (this issue) highlights several of the difficulties concerning the ethical review of research involving human subjects, identifying flaws in the current system, and their negative impact on the research process. In this commentary we further reflect on the current system for gaining ethics approval to work with brain-injured patients in the UK, and its implications for neuropsychology research in the UK and beyond.

Item Type:


Identification Number (DOI):



Research ethics; Declaration of Helsinki

Departments, Centres and Research Units:

Psychology > Cognitive Neuroscience Unit


October 2015Published

Item ID:


Date Deposited:

27 Jan 2016 12:05

Last Modified:

30 Jun 2017 16:07

Peer Reviewed:

Yes, this version has been peer-reviewed.



View statistics for this item...

Edit Record Edit Record (login required)