UNITED KINGDOM

Overview of UK RECs

In the UK, the ethics review of research is primarily designed to assess health-related studies; however, ethics committees often also review non-medical research. Statutory ethics reviews encompassing both medical and wider research are mandated under several key regulations:

1. Clinical Trials and Medical Devices Regulations – applicable across the UK and coordinated by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and the Health Research Authority (HRA).
2. Mental Capacity Act (and related legislation in the devolved nations) – governs various matters related to individuals who lack the capacity to consent, including provisions for conducting research involving such individuals.
3. Human Tissue Act (and related legislation in the devolved nations) – regulates a range of issues related to the use of human tissue (called relevant material), including its ethical use in research.

Coordination between the devolved nations is provided by the United Kingdom Ethics Committee Authority (UKECA), also referred to as the Four Nations Policy Leads Group. It includes representatives from all four nations – England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland – and provides high-level policy guidance for RECs. UKECA authorizes and oversees around 80 legally recognized RECs. These primarily review research falling under the above acts, although increasingly also review mixed methods research, or research relating to more general aspects of health and social care. They collectively review approximately 5,000 projects each year. Coordination and ways of working for UKECA recognized RECs are laid out in three core documents:

1. UK Policy Framework for Health and Social Care Research – Sets out overarching policy for RECs.
2. Governance Arrangements for RECs (GAfREC) – Provides operational guidance.
3. REC Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) – Specifies practical requirements such as REC composition. A quorate review includes five members encompassing both expert (often medical) and lay experience.

When research does not require statutory ethics review, it is typically assessed by institutional RECs, particularly those established by universities. With around 160 universities in the UK and each having multiple ethics committees, there are likely more than 160 university-based RECs. Based on levels of project/grant funding to institutions it is likely that university RECs review upward of 60,000 projects annually. Non-UKECA RECs use a range of locally produced guidance and policies, although attempts at providing a national framework have been made by the UK Research Integrity Office (UKRIO) working with the Association of Research Managers (ARMA).

In addition to UKECA and university RECs, around 100 research institutes – focusing on areas such as medicine, climate change, and sustainable technologies – also maintain their own RECs. More recently (as of June 2025), local government authorities (councils) have also been encouraged to support research ethics from a public policy perspective. This effort, part of the National Institute for Health’s HDRC programme, remains largely health focused. Around 30 councils are in the process of establishing RECs, expected to review approximately 500 applications per year.

There are also around 10 specialized RECs, including:

• Police RECs (e.g., METREC in London)
• The UK Health Security Agency’s Research Ethics and Governance Group (UKHSA REGG)
• The Ministry of Defence REC (MODREC), which is also UKECA recognized.
• Various RECs/research committees for the prison and probation service.

Additionally, private commercial and industry-based RECs exist, although it is difficult to determine how active they are.

In total, there are approximately 380+ RECs operating in the UK, reviewing a minimum estimate of 70,000 research projects annually.

While the criteria for review required by law (such as clinical trials) is quite clear, criteria for the ethics review of other types of research can vary between organizations. In general projects that involve any of the following may require an ethics review depending on the policy of the research organisation:

• Vulnerable populations (e.g., minors, people lacking capacity, individuals in poverty)
• Potential for distress or anxiety
• New or significantly altered interventions
• Covert observation or deception
• Collection of biological samples

Coordination and networking among RECs vary by field. For instance, UKECA RECs follow coordinated SOPs, but outside that framework, there is no formal coordination as responsibility for ensuring ethical standards rests with research sponsors. However, informal collaboration does occur: RECs share model documents, connect through training events, and professional bodies help coordinate within specific disciplines. For example, the British Psychological Society has an ethics committee that issues guidance, though adoption of this guidance is voluntary.

Report contributor 

Simon Kolstoe