Natural justice and human research ethics committees: an Australia-wide survey

Gabrielle L Van Essen, David A Story, Stephanie J Poustie, Max M J Griffiths and Cynthia L Marwood
Med J Aust 2004; 180 (2): 63-66.


Objective: To determine how familiar human research ethics committees (HRECs) are with the principles of natural justice and whether they apply these principles.

Design and setting: A postal survey conducted between April and September 2002 of the Chairs of all HRECs registered with the Australian Health Ethics Committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) in 2001.

Main outcome measures: HRECs’ reported familiarity with, and application of, three principles of natural justice: (1) the hearing rule, requiring a decision maker to allow a person affected by a decision to present his or her case; (2) the rule against bias, requiring a decision maker to be unbiased in the matter to be decided; and (3) the evidence rule, requiring that a decision be based on the evidence provided, and not irrelevant issues.

Results: From 201 Chairs of HRECs Australia-wide, we received 110 completed questionnaires (55% response rate). About 33% of respondents were very familiar with the principles of natural justice, and 25% completely unfamiliar. Most respondents felt that natural justice should be, and usually is, applied by HRECs. In cases of possible positive bias of an HREC member towards a research proposal, 70% of respondents said they would exclude the member from decision making. In cases of possible negative bias, 43% said they would exclude the HREC member.

Conclusion: The degree of familiarity with principles of natural justice varies widely among Chairs of HRECs. While many respondents felt that HRECs usually apply natural justice, responses to questions about bias suggest that HRECs do not always exclude members with possible bias, contrary to NHMRC guidelines.

Please login with your free MJA account to view this article in full

  • Gabrielle L Van Essen1
  • David A Story2
  • Stephanie J Poustie3
  • Max M J Griffiths4
  • Cynthia L Marwood5

  • 1 Austin Health, Austin Hospital, Heidelberg, VIC.
  • 2 Kew, VIC.



Our study was funded by the Research Fund of the Department of Anaesthesia, Austin Health.

Competing interests:

None identified.

  • 1. Allars M. Introduction to Australian administrative law. Sydney: Butterworths, 1994.
  • 2. Forbes J. Justice in tribunals. Sydney: Federation Press, 2002.
  • 3. National Health and Medical Research Council. National statement on ethical conduct in research involving humans. Canberra: NHMRC, 1999.
  • 4. Chalmers D, Pettit P, on behalf of the Australian Health Ethics Committee. Towards a consensual culture in the ethical review of research. Med J Aust 1998; 168: 79-82.
  • 5. Jamrozik K, Kolybaba M. Are ethics committees retarding the improvement of health services in Australia? Med J Aust 1999; 170: 26-28.
  • 6. Robertson D. The penguin dictionary of politics. 2nd ed. London: Penguin Books, 1993.
  • 7. Alreck P, Settle R. The survey research handbook. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1995.
  • 8. National Health and Medical Research Council. Human research ethics handbook. Commentary on the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Research Involving Humans. Canberra: NHMRC, 2002.
  • 9. McNeill PM, Berglund CA, Webster IW. Reviewing the reviewers: a survey of institutional ethics committees in Australia. Med J Aust 1990; 152: 289-296.
  • 10. McNeill P. The ethics and politics of human experimentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.
  • 11. Kioa v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Kioa v West). (1985) 159 CLR 550 at 584.


remove_circle_outline Delete Author
add_circle_outline Add Author

Do you have any competing interests to declare? *

I/we agree to assign copyright to the Medical Journal of Australia and agree to the Conditions of publication *
I/we agree to the Terms of use of the Medical Journal of Australia *
Email me when people comment on this article

Responses are now closed for this article.