Those who saw this banner headline on the front page of The Independent on Monday, May 8, 2000, 1 Laurance J Parents were misled over hospital trials that killed premature babies. Independent (London). May 8, 2000; : 1 Google Scholar could be forgiven for thinking that something had gone seriously wrong with clinical research in the UK, and with the oversight of neonatal research in particular. The story was triggered by a Government inquiry into clinical research done in Stoke-on-Trent. 2 NHS Executive West Midlands Regional OfficeReport of a review of the research framework in North Staffordshire Hospital NHS Trust. Leeds: NHS Executive. http://www.dh.gov.uk/assetRoot/04/01/45/42/04014542.pdfDate: 2000 Google Scholar Richard Smith, Editor of the BMJ, was in no doubt at the time that “yet another NHS [UK National Health Service] scandal” had been uncovered. 3 Smith R Babies and consent: yet another NHS scandal. BMJ. 2000; 320: 1285-1286 Crossref PubMed Scopus (19) Google Scholar “At best”, he wrote, “the episode will lead to an overdue improvement in research practice throughout the NHS. At worst, it will further undermine public confidence in the NHS and doctors, and lead to a proliferation of bureaucracy that will increase the difficulties of doing research.” Southall's CNEP trial more than stands up to scrutinyIn the late 1990s, the UK Department of Health asked Rod Griffiths to investigate whether David Southall, Martin Samuels, and their colleagues had done a clinical trial in newborn infants with respiratory distress syndrome according to best practice. Some parents had alleged that the trial was poorly supervised and that they had not given informed consent for their children to be enrolled in the study, which compared continuous negative extrathoracic-pressure ventilation (CNEP) with standard treatment. Full-Text PDF CNEP needs to returnWe welcome the findings of the study by Katherine Telford and colleagues1 in today's Lancet about the absence of evidence of harm to the long-term neurodevelopmental outcome of preterm infants treated with continuous negative extrathoracic pressure (CNEP) in our randomised trial. Support for babies and young children with respiratory failure is usually achieved by intubation and positive pressure ventilation. However, this approach can damage the immature lung, increases the risk for secondary infection, and needs analgesia or sedation. Full-Text PDF Southall and colleagues vindicated once moreThe pioneering research of David Southall and colleagues1–4 has been subjected to unprecedented scrutiny. Southall's work has often been at the cutting edge of knowledge and he has ventured into areas that are inherently controversial. He has made many important contributions to the published literature and many lives have undoubtedly been saved by his research. Full-Text PDF CNEP and research governanceRepeated headlines about baby deaths associated with experimental treatment—continuous negative extrathoracic pressure (CNEP)—attracted the attention of Members of Parliament. Their pressure on Ministers led to the question, “Could there be a problem with the system?” and this led to the review1 I chaired. Matters were further complicated when groups of parents insisted on child protection issues being considered, but they have no place here. Full-Text PDF Outcome after neonatal continuous negative-pressure ventilation: follow-up assessmentWe saw no evidence of poorer long-term outcome after neonatal CNEP whether analysis was by original pairing or by unpaired comparisons, despite small differences in adverse neonatal outcomes. The experience of our study indicates that future studies of neonatal interventions with the potential to influence later morbidity should be designed with longer-term outcomes in mind. Full-Text PDF