NHS ethics: Shoe-bombers and why ‘less needs to be more'

Ashok Jansari, Gianna Cocchini, Paul Jenkinson, Ana Bajo, Magdalena Ietswaart

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debatepeer-review

3 Citations (Scopus)
71 Downloads (Pure)


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
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)409-411
Early online date2 Jul 2015
Publication statusPublished - Oct 2015


Dive into the research topics of 'NHS ethics: Shoe-bombers and why ‘less needs to be more''. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this