Sir, Is there a gulf between regulation of science and public confidence (Constant policing of our research makes us look sinister, say scientists, Oct 25)? Our own research shows the opposite. Britain remains at the forefront of medical research, and yet has some of the most probing regulations in the world. The two are not mutually exclusive. Regulation offers reassurance to researchers: that, in turn, helps to build public confidence.

We have conducted a survey of our own stakeholders from licensed establishments. Eighty-four per cent agreed that the Human Tissue Act will ensure that the removal, retention, use and disposal of human tissue will be legal, ethical and respectful.

Not only that. Public confidence is high in regulation in this area: in a recent poll conducted on our behalf by Ipsos MORI, almost 60 per cent said they were certain to or likely to donate tissue for research, organs for transplantation, or bodies for the education and training of tomorrow’s doctors.

People donating their tissue for research want and deserve respect. Medical professionals should be trained in taking informed consent so what they say does not appear “sinister”. Put simply, the process is a two-way exchange. Guidelines in our code of practice on consent recommend generic and enduring consent is sought at the outset wherever possible to avoid the need to repeat the process.

The HTA licences, in total, more than 600 establishments across five diverse sectors. These sectors share our view that regulation of human tissue should be seen in a positive light: it raises standards and can play a part in improving both public health and confidence. In short, despite the rules, scientific confidence in our regulation is clear. The UK is a leader because we have good regulation not despite it.

Adrian McNeil
Chief Executive
Human Tissue Authority

Explore Letters

• Feedback