Connect
MJA
MJA

The ethics approval process for multisite research studies in Australia: changes sought by the Australian Genomics initiative

Matilda A Haas, Tiffany F Boughtwood and Michael CJ Quinn, on behalf of Australian Genomics
Med J Aust 2019; 211 (10): . || doi: 10.5694/mja2.50397
Published online: 18 November 2019

Australian Genomics is calling for a change in research ethics and governance frameworks

Australian Genomics is a national initiative building evidence to ensure the effective implementation of genomic medicine into Australian health care (www.australiangenomics.org.au). The research program is embedded in clinical practice, with 5000 patients with rare diseases and cancers being prospectively recruited for genomic testing into clinical flagship projects through 31 hospitals across Australia (Box 1). Achieving national recruitment will ensure that the clinical, diagnostic and research pathways are developed through the infrastructure and workforce in each jurisdiction. We initiated the research ethics and governance approval process for our multisite human research project, which was eligible for single ethical review by one Human Research Ethics Committee under the Australian National Mutual Acceptance (NMA) framework (Box 2), and recorded details relating to our experience in navigating the research ethics and governance system. This included any site‐specific assessment (SSA) requirements, review time, personnel costs, and causes of delay.


  • 1 Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC
  • 2 Australian Genomics Health Alliance, Melbourne, VIC
  • 3 Genetic Health Queensland, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, QLD



Acknowledgements: 

The Australian Genomics Health Alliance is funded by a National Health and Medical Research Council grant (Grant Reference No. 1113531) and the Australian Government's Medical Research Future Fund. Members of the Australian Genomics Health Alliance who also supported and contributed to the publication of this work: Andrea M Belcher, Peta Phillips, Zornitza Stark, Adam Jaffe, Christopher Barnett, Julie McGaughran, Christopher Semsarian, Richard J Leventer, Katherine Howell, Andrew J Mallett, Aron Chakera, Chirag Patel, Cathy Quinlan, Amali Mallawaarachchi, Tony Roscioli, Kristi Jones, Matthew Cook, David R Thorburn, Paul J Lockhart, Cas Simons, Sebastian Lunke, Denise Howting, Clara Gaff, Deborah White, Marcel Dinger, Stephen Fox, Nigel Laing, Jozef Gecz, Ingrid E Scheffer, John Christodoulou, Andrew Sinclair and Kathryn N North. We thank Nikolajs Zeps and Craig Willers for their insightful comments on the manuscript.

Competing interests:

No relevant disclosures.

  • 1. De Smit E, Kearns LS, Clarke L, et al. Heterogeneity of Human Research Ethics Committees and Research Governance Offices across Australia: an observational study. Australas Med J 2016; 9: 33–39.
  • 2. Dove ES, Knoppers BM, Zawati MH. Towards an ethics safe harbor for global biomedical research. J Law Biosci 2014; 1: 3–51.
  • 3. Townend D, Dove ES, Nicol D, et al. Streamlining ethical review of data intensive research. BMJ 2016; 354: i4181.
  • 4. Tully J, Ninis N, Booy R, Viner R. The new system of review by multicentre research ethics committees: prospective study. BMJ 2000; 320: 1179–1182.
  • 5. Adebamowo SN, Francis V, Tambo E, et al. Implementation of genomics research in Africa: challenges and recommendations. Glob Health Action 2018; 11: 1419033.
  • 6. Global Alliance for Genomics and Health. Ethics Review Recognition Policy. Global Alliance for Genomics and Health, 2017. https://www.ga4gh.org/wp-content/uploads/GA4GH-Ethics-Review-Recognition-Policy.pdf (viewed Oct 2019).
  • 7. Abbott L, Grady C. A systematic review of the empirical literature evaluating IRBs: what we know and what we still need to learn. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics 2011; 6: 3–19.
  • 8. Clay‐Williams R, Taylor N, Braithwaite J. Potential solutions to improve the governance of multicentre health services research. Med J Aust 2018; 208: 152–154. https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2018/208/4/potential-solutions-improve-governance-multicentre-health-services-research
  • 9. Vajdic CM, Meagher NS, Hicks SC, et al. Governance approval for multisite, non‐interventional research: what can Harmonisation of Multi‐Centre Ethical Review learn from the New South Wales experience? Intern Med J 2012; 42: 127–131.
  • 10. Productivity Commission. Data availability and use [Report No. 82]. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia, 2017. https://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/data-access/report/data-access.pdf (viewed Oct 2019).
  • 11. Aronson SJ, Rehm HL. Building the foundation for genomics in precision medicine. Nature 2015; 526: 336–342.
  • 12. Scollen S, Page A, Wilson J. From the data on many, precision medicine for “one”: the case for widespread genomic data sharing. Biomedicine Hub 2017; 2(Suppl): 104–110.
  • 13. The 1000 Genomes Project Consortium, Auton A, Brooks LD, Durbin RM, et al. A global reference for human genetic variation. Nature 2015; 526: 68–74.
  • 14. Boult M, Fitzpatrick K, Maddern G, Fitridge R. A guide to multi‐centre ethics for surgical research in Australia and New Zealand. ANZ J Surg 2011; 81: 132–136.
  • 15. Foot H, Scott IA, Russell GM, et al. Ethics and site‐specific governance approvals for multi‐centre, inter‐sector health care research. Med J Aust 2018; 209: 175–176. https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2018/209/4/ethics-and-site-specific-governance-approvals-multi-centre-inter-sector-health.

Author

remove_circle_outline Delete Author
add_circle_outline Add Author

Comment
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

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