Jump to content

Richmond Pharmacology

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 217.206.184.76 (talk) at 18:21, 6 August 2015 (Can we agree on these amends: £2000 is not backed by the reference you provided, suggest deletion. Dhaliwal is case law and should be referenced in a balanced way (if the author insists on adding this irrelevant case). Academic research: ref added.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Richmond Pharmacology is a UK-based contract research organization (CRO) that conducts academic research[1] early phase clinical trials on behalf of pharmaceutical firms. It pays volunteers participating in trials, attracting students and backpackers.[2]

In May 2015 it controversially instigated a judicial review to prevent implementation of rules implemented by the UK Health Research Authority (HRA) in April 2015.[3] The new rules mandated that all drug companies and CROs in the UK register all clinical trials before the first participant is recruited, declare who sponsored the study, and publish the outcome of studies, not only for future trials, but for trials already approved and underway; these rules were supported by advocates for more transparency in clinical research, like AllTrials.[4] Richmond's action protested the application of the requirements to trials that were already underway, and the HRA's description of the requirement as being based in law.[5] After Richmond filed suit, the HRA amended the rules to remove the requirement to register trials that were already underway.[5] In August 2015, the High Court ruled that there was no basis in UK or European law for the requirement, and ordered HRA to pay Richmond £75 000 to cover part of Richmond’s legal costs.[5]

In Richmond Pharmacology v. Dhaliwal, a precedent in employment law,[6] Richmond appealed against an employment tribunal ruling over remarks made by a manager to a former employee that were seen as derogatory and based on her ethnicity and gender. Ms. Dhaliwal won the case. "The EAT noted that the size of the award (£1000 for injury to feelings) reflected the borderline nature of the case".[7]

References

  1. ^ https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01642485?term=Richmond+Pharmacology&rank=1
  2. ^ "Is £2,000 enough to be a drug guinea pig?". Metro. April 27, 2012. Retrieved July 8, 2015.
  3. ^ "Drug trials firm to challenge plans for greater transparency over results". The Guardian. May 18, 2015. Retrieved July 8, 2015.
  4. ^ "Pharma firm seeks judicial review against transparency". May 21, 2015. Pharmafile. Retrieved July 8, 2015.
  5. ^ a b c Clare Dyer for BMJ News. 03 August 2015. High Court rules that Health Research Authority acted unlawfully over trial transparency. BMJ 2015;351:h4194
  6. ^ "[2009] ICR 724, [2009] IRLR 336, [2009] UKEAT 0458_08_1202". Bailii. February 12, 2009. Retrieved July 8, 2015.
  7. ^ "Definitely harassment". Thompson's Law. March 26, 2009. Retrieved July 8, 2015.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richmond_Pharmacology&oldid=674874966"