Skip to main content
Log in

Human Research Ethics in Practice

Deliberative Strategies, Processes and Perceptions

  • Article
  • Published:
Monash Bioethics Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald, M; Yule, E. 2004. ‘Open and closed committees’. Monash Bioethics Review 23(2): 35–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillam, Lynn; Guillemin, Marilys; Rosenthal, Doreen. 2006. ‘Obstructive and power-hungry”?: The Australian research ethics review process’. Monash Bioethics Review 25(2): 30–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jamrozik, K; Kolybaba, M. 1999. ‘Are ethics committees retarding the improvement of health services in Australia?’. MJA 170: 26–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joffe, S; Miller, F.G. 2008. ‘Bench to bedside: Mapping the moral terrain of clinical research’. Hastings Center Report 38(2): 30–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNeill, P. et al. 1992. ‘Do Australian researchers accept committee review and conduct ethical research?’ Social Science and Medicine 35: 317–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paul, C. 2000. ‘Health researchers’ views of ethics committee functioning in New Zealand’. New Zealand Medical Journal 113(1111): 210–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pettit, P. 1992. ‘Instituting a research ethic: Chilling and cautionary tales’. Bioethics 6(2): 107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03351308

Keywords

Navigation