Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Sep 2;15(2):200-203.
doi: 10.1093/phe/phac010. eCollection 2022 Jul.

Better Mechanisms Are Needed to Oversee HREC Reviews

Lisa Eckstein  1   2 , Rebekah McWhirter  3 , Cameron Stewart  4
Affiliations

Better Mechanisms Are Needed to Oversee HREC Reviews

Lisa Eckstein et al. Public Health Ethics. .

Abstract

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Brandenburg, C., Thorning, S., and Ruthenberg, C. (2021). ‘What Are the Most Common Reasons for Return of Ethics Submissions? An Audit of an Australian Health Service Ethics Committee’. Research Ethics, 17, 346–358.
    1. Cane, P. (2010). ‘Judicial Review and Merits Review: Comparing Administrative Adjudication by Courts and Tribunals’. In Rose-Ackerman S. and Lindseth L.P. (eds), Comparative Administrative Law. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 426–448.
    1. Dawson, A., Lignou, S., Siriwardhana, C., and O’Mathúna, D. P. (2019). ‘Why Research Ethics Should Add Retrospective Review’. BMC Medical Ethics, 20, 1–8. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Eckstein, L. (2015). ‘Regulatory Challenges of Synthetic Biology Trials and Other Highly Innovation Investigational Products’. Macquarie Law Journal, 15, 65–81.
    1. Hawe, P., Rowbotham, S., Marks, L. and Casson, J. (2022). ‘The Risk Management Practices of Health Research Ethics Committees May Undermine Citizen Science to Address Basic Human Rights’. Public Health Ethics.