Strengthening Australia’s framework for research oversight

Anderson, Warwick P; Cordner, Christopher D; Breen, Kerry J

doi:10.5694/j.1326-5377.2006.tb00232.x

Topics

All stakeholders should contribute to enhancing Australia’s guidelines for ethical research

Health and medical research involving human participants in Australia has been subject to guidelines promulgated by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) since 1966. Currently, the key documents are the National statement on ethical conduct in research involving humans (1999)1 and the Joint NHMRC/AVCC statement and guidelines on research practice (1997).2 The former, better known as the “National Statement”, is endorsed by a number of peak national bodies, including the Australian Research Council (ARC) and the Australian Vice Chancellors’ Committee (AVCC). The “Joint Statement” is issued under the aegis of the NHMRC and the AVCC. The National Statement encompasses the ethical principles to be followed in proposing research involving humans, and advises institutions on the requirements for establishing human research ethics committees (HRECs). The Joint Statement provides guidance on good research practice, including details related to data collection, authorship and publication, supervision and mentoring and like matters, as well as providing the framework by which institutions should handle allegations of research misconduct.

1 School of Physiology, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC.
2 Department of Philosophy, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC.
3 Australian Health Ethics Committee, Melbourne, VIC.

Correspondence:

1. National statement on ethical conduct in research involving humans. Canberra: National Health and Medical Research Council, 1999. Available at: http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/synopses/e35syn.htm (accessed Jan 2006).
2. Joint NHMRC/AVCC statement and guidelines on research practice. Canberra: National Health and Medical Research Council, 1997. Available at: http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/funding/policy/researchprac.htm (accessed Jan 2006).
3. Essentially yours: the protection of human genetic information in Australia. Canberra: Australian Law Reform Commission and Australian Health Ethics Committee, 2003. (Report ALRC96.) Available at: http://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/finalreps.htm (accessed Jan 2006).
4. Roberts LM, Bowyer L, Homer CS, Brown MA. Multicentre research: negotiating the ethics approval obstacle course [letter]. Med J Aust 2004; 180: 139. <MJA full text>
5. Israel M. Ethics and the governance of criminological research in Australia. Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2004. Available at: http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/bocsar1.nsf/files/r55.pdf/$file/r55.pdf (accessed Jan 2006).
6. Van Der Weyden MB. Managing allegations of scientific misconduct and fraud: lessons from the “Hall affair” [editorial]. Med J Aust 2004; 180: 149-150. <MJA full text>
7. Riis P. Misconduct in clinical research — the Scandinavian experience and actions for prevention. Acta Oncol 1999; 38: 89-92.
8. Walsh MH, McNeil JJ, Breen KJ. Improving the governance of health research. Med J Aust 2005; 182: 468-471. <MJA full text>
9. Improving the system for protecting human subjects: counteracting IRB “mission creep”. The Illinois white paper. Urbana: Center for Advanced Study, University of Illinois, 2005. Available at: http://www.law.uiuc.edu/conferences/whitepaper/ (accessed Dec 2005).
10. Haggerty KD. Ethics creep: governing social science research in the name of ethics. Qual Sociol 2004; 27: 391-414.
11. National statement on ethical conduct in human research — second consultation draft. Canberra; National Health and Medical Research Council, 2006. Available at: http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/ethics/human/ahec/projects/statementsec.htm (accessed Feb 2006).
12. Australian code for conducting research — consultation draft #1. Canberra: National Health and Medical Research Council, 2004. Available at: http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/funding/policy/code.htm (accessed Feb 2006).
13. Breen KJ. Misconduct in medical research: whose responsibility? Intern Med J 2003; 33: 186-191.

Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.