The publication of an editorial(1) and opposing commentaries(2,3) underlines the profile OEM believes should be given to debate of the proposal for observational epidemiologic studies and their protocols to be registered in advance(4). I would however express my surprise that none of these 3 offerings make mention of the workforce perspective in their analyses of the issues. The editorial itself(1) and the commentary opposing the protocol(3) do not make mention of workers at all, while the pro-commentary(2) simply includes employees in a list of those involved in collaboration to reduce difficulties in accessing data.

It may be possible to identify both pros and cons for the registration proposal based on workforce issues, but to do so in this letter would detract from its principal purpose in registering the observation that these aspects have not been considered to date. Research is a vital element of Occupational Health. OEM is the adopted official Journal of the Faculty of Occupational Medicine of the Royal College of Physicians (London). The Faculty first introduced a section dealing with research in its ethical guidelines in 1999(5) identifying workers as key customers of research, as well as identifying the need for clear and detailed protocols, as well as worker consultation. As an Occupational Physician, I am convinced that workers are owed a very real duty of care in relation to research, whether there are clinical elements of the study or not. The trauma and distress that research results publication and the media response to such publication can cause a workforce, should not be underestimated.

References 1 Loomis D. Journal Requirements to Register Observational Studies: OEM's Policy. OEM 2011;68:83/4. 2 Rushton L. Should Protocols for Observational Research be Registered? OEM 2011; 68:84-86. 3 Pearce N. Registration of Protocols for Observational Research is Unnecessary and Would Do More Harm Than Good. OEM 2011; 68:86-88. 4 European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals. Workshop Report, number 18: Enhancement of the Scientific Process and Transparency of Observational Studies, 2009. 5 The Faculty of Occupational Medicine Guidance on Ethics for Occupational Physicians, 5th Edition, May 1999.

Conflict of Interest:

None declared