Journal
PUBLIC HEALTH ETHICS
Volume 15, Issue 2, Pages 200-203Publisher
OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/phe/phac010
Keywords
-
Funding
- Australian Research Council [DP180101262]
Ask authors/readers for more resources
Hawe et al. express concerns about the risk-averse and litigation-sensitive approach of Human Research Ethics Committees (HRECs) in ethical review of research proposals, suggesting the need for improvements in the regulatory system to enhance transparency and accountability.
Hawe et al. raise concerns about Human Research Ethics Committees (HRECs) taking a risk-averse and litigation-sensitive approach to ethical review of research proposals. HRECs are tasked with reviewing proposals for compliance with the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research for the purpose of promoting the welfare of participants. While these guidelines intentionally include a significant degree of discretion in HREC decision making, there is also evidence that HRECs sometimes request changes that go beyond the guidance provided by the National Statement. When HRECs request changes outside their remit, inconsistencies between individual HRECs become more common, contributing to delays in ethical review and reducing the quality of HREC decision making. Improvements to the HREC regulatory system are needed to promote transparency and accountability.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available