Better Mechanisms Are Needed to Oversee HREC Reviews

Lisa Eckstein; Rebekah McWhirter; Cameron Stewart

doi:10.1093/phe/phac010

Better Mechanisms Are Needed to Oversee HREC Reviews

Public Health Ethics. 2022 Sep 2;15(2):200-203. doi: 10.1093/phe/phac010. eCollection 2022 Jul.

Authors

Lisa Eckstein^{1

2}, Rebekah McWhirter³, Cameron Stewart⁴

Affiliations

¹ Faculty of Law, College of Arts, Law and Education, University of Tasmania, Australia.
² Bellberry Ltd, Eastwood SA, Australia.
³ School of Medicine, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Australia.
⁴ Sydney Health Law, Sydney Law School, University of Sydney, Australia.

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.