In their letter to the Editor in this issue, Kolstoe and Carpenter challenge a core aspect of our recently published case study of research approvals [BMC Medical Ethics 20:7] by arguing that we conflate research ethics with governance and funding processes. Amongst the key concerns of the authors are: 1) that our paper exemplifies a typical conflation of concepts such as governance, integrity and ethics, with significant consequences for claims around the responsibility and accountability of the organisations involved; 2) that, as a consequence of this conflation, we misrepresent the ethics review process, including in fundamental aspects such as the ethics approval-opinion distinction; 3) that it is difficult to see scope for greater integration of processes such as applying for funding, research approvals, Patient and Public Involvement, etc., as suggested by us. Here we present an alternative point of view towards the concerns raised.

中文翻译：

---

对 Kolstoe 及其同事关于我们题为《研究批准冰山：一项在英国进行的“低调”研究如何需要 89 名专业人士批准以及我们如何做得更好》的论文的回复。

在本期致编辑的信中，Kolstoe 和 Carpenter 对我们最近发表的研究审批案例研究 [BMC 医学伦理 20:7] 的核心方面提出了质疑，认为我们将研究伦理与治理和资助流程混为一谈。作者的主要关注点包括：1）我们的论文体现了治理、诚信和道德等概念的典型融合，对有关组织的责任和问责制的主张产生了重大影响；2) 由于这种合并，我们歪曲了道德审查流程，包括在基本方面，例如道德批准与意见的区别；3）很难看到像我们建议的那样，更大程度整合流程的空间，例如申请资金、研究批准、患者和公众参与等。在这里，我们针对所提出的担忧提出另一种观点。