Abstract
In theory, HREC members should use the ethical guidelines in the National Statement on the Ethical Conduct of Research Involving Humans as the basis for their decisions, and researchers should design their research in accordance with these guidelines However, very little is known about what researchers and HREC members actually do in practice. In this paper, we report some of the key findings of the study “Human Research Ethics in Practice”, a qualitative interview-based study of health researchers and HREC members in Victoria. The findings shed light on how researchers and HREC members conceptualise ethics, how they use the National Statement, and what deliberative strategies they employ to assess the ethical appropriateness of research studies. The findings also reveal differences and similarities between health researchers’ and HREC members’ perceptions of the roles of HRECs, and point to some sources of misunderstanding and tension. We examine the implications of some of these findings for the ways in which HRECs carry out their task, and research institutions support and promote ethical conduct in research amongst their staff and students. The focus of this study is on health research, but we suggest that the findings are highly relevant to all other research areas where human participants are involved.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Chalmers, D; Pettit, P. 1998. ‘Towards a consensual culture in the ethical review of research’. Medical Journal of Australia 169: 79–82.
Fitzgerald, M; Yule, E. 2004. ‘Open and closed committees’. Monash Bioethics Review 23(2): 35–49.
Gillam, Lynn; Guillemin, Marilys; Rosenthal, Doreen. 2006. ‘Obstructive and power-hungry”?: The Australian research ethics review process’. Monash Bioethics Review 25(2): 30–38.
Jamrozik, K; Kolybaba, M. 1999. ‘Are ethics committees retarding the improvement of health services in Australia?’. MJA 170: 26–28.
Joffe, S; Miller, F.G. 2008. ‘Bench to bedside: Mapping the moral terrain of clinical research’. Hastings Center Report 38(2): 30–42.
McNeill, P. et al. 1992. ‘Do Australian researchers accept committee review and conduct ethical research?’ Social Science and Medicine 35: 317–322.
McNeill, P. et al. 1994. ‘How much influence do various members have within research ethics committees?’ Cambridge Quarterly of Health Ethics 3(4): 522–532.
Paul, C. 2000. ‘Health researchers’ views of ethics committee functioning in New Zealand’. New Zealand Medical Journal 113(1111): 210–214.
Pettit, P. 1992. ‘Instituting a research ethic: Chilling and cautionary tales’. Bioethics 6(2): 107.
Van Essen, G; Story, D; Poustie, S. et al. 2004. ‘Natural justice and human research ethics committees: an Australia-wide survey’. Medical Journal of Australia 180: 63–66.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gillam, L., Guillemin, M., Bolitho, A. et al. Human Research Ethics in Practice. Monash Bioethics Review 28, 34–50 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03351308
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03351308