01

Protection

Safeguarding the dignity, rights, and safety of research participants is the foundational principle of everything we do. Every study we review — regardless of type, size, or commercial context — is evaluated through the lens of participant welfare.

This means assessing the potential for physical or psychological harm, evaluating whether data handling minimises privacy risks, and ensuring that participants' autonomy is genuinely respected throughout the research process.

We pay particular attention to consent clarity, data minimisation, participant burden, and the adequacy of safeguards for any vulnerable populations involved in the research.

02

Impartiality

Our structural independence from study sponsors is not incidental — it is built into our governance. Committee members declare conflicts of interest at the point of application review, and those with relevant conflicts are excluded from decision-making on that application.

Decisions are made on the basis of ethical principles and the evidence provided — not commercial relationships, institutional pressures, or stakeholder interests. This independence is what makes our approval genuinely credible to journals, partners, and regulators.

03

Proportionality

Not all research carries the same level of risk. Our review process is calibrated to the risk profile of each study — providing thorough oversight without creating unnecessary delays for research that presents low or minimal risk to participants.

We focus our scrutiny on the areas that matter most: consent clarity, participant burden, data privacy risks, and the adequacy of safeguards relative to the nature of the study. This proportionate approach is why we are typically able to reach decisions within approximately one month of a complete application being received.

04

Exactness

We hold our own work to the same high standards we apply to the research we review. This means clarity and precision in how we communicate decisions, consistency in how we apply our criteria, and rigour in how we document outcomes.

When we review protocols and consent documentation, we assess them for clarity, scientific accuracy, and whether they would be understandable to a participant without specialist knowledge. Our decision letters set out clearly what was considered, what was approved or queried, and — where changes are required — exactly what is needed and why.

05

Respect

The research landscape has changed significantly. Studies now routinely involve online methodologies, smartphone apps, remote data collection, real-world evidence, and behavioural interventions that sit outside the traditional clinical trial model.

We engage with these contemporary research models with genuine expertise rather than applying frameworks designed for a different era. Respect also extends to applicants: we treat every application — from large commercial sponsors to small charities — with the same care, responsiveness, and professionalism.