Research ethics

Forms and guidelines

• Applications information
  (Submit an electronic version of application PLUS PDF of pages 2 and 14 containing scanned signature to FLM_ERGS@latrobe.edu.au)
• Progress Reports - All progress reports are due by 12 February 2008 covering the 2007 calendar year.
  
• Faculty Human Ethics Committee (FHEC)

What we do

The Human Ethics Committee is comprised of a Chair, a secretary/administrative officer and a number of reviewers, whose job is to review ethics applications to ensure they comply with the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) guidelines and with University requirements. The reviewers are academic staff from the schools. These academics do not get reduced work loads in other areas for the work they do on this committee.

The Chair ensures that the processes and procedures used in the Faculty are compliant with NHMRC and University requirements and gives final approvals to all ethics applications and modifications.

Per year the Faculty receives approximately 65 applications with a peak period around midyear, where two to three applications are received per week.

To ensure that projects are not held up by waiting for ethics approval the FHEC review all applications and approve them out of session. They are eventually ratified in one of the six meetings that occur during the year and then once again by UHEC.

In the end the Faculty Human Ethics Committees are answerable to the University Human Ethics Committee.

Common problems found on ethics applications

• Don’t clearly express the benefits to either participants or to society
• Don’t answer all questions – we feel this comes from not reading the application form or guidelines carefully. Especially if the answer to a question is going to be no – it isn’t answered at all!
• Generally aren’t realistic about the time it will take to conduct and collect data, especially honours students
• How participants are to be contacted – explanations aren’t detailed enough
• Inconsistencies in how data is to be collected ie in the Participant Information Sheet (PIS) may not make mention of recording devices being used or vice versa
• General inconsistencies in the application form especially between the application form and the PIS, Consent form and Withdrawal form.
• No withdrawal of consent period defined
• Need to provide more details with their questionnaires,
• In assessing risk – aren’t fully cognizant that what may not give offence or be a sensitive issue here in Australia, may be in other countries.