Advertisement

Consultation, Deliberation and the Review of the National Statement

  • Eliza Goddard
  • Susan DoddsEmail author
Chapter
Part of the The International Library of Ethics, Law and Technology book series (ELTE, volume 16)

Abstract

In 2007 the National Medical Health and Research Council (NHMRC) released a revised National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research. This was the result of two rounds of public consultation by a working committee of the Australian Health and Ethics Committee (AHEC), a principal committee of the NHMRC. Drawing on the public consultation documentation and publicly available submissions to the review, this chapter assesses the consultation process which accompanied the review and revision of the 1999 National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Research Involving Humans to determine whether the consultation process was effective as a mechanism for encouraging consultation, deliberation and accountability by AHEC, through the working committee responsible for redrafting this National Statement. Drawing on recent literature in deliberative democracy we identify three aspects of the review process for critical evaluation: inclusive participation in policy development, discursive deliberation about policy arguments, and public accountability for policy decision-making.

Keywords

National statement Consultation Research ethics Participation Deliberation Accountability 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was conducted as part of Australian Research Council Discovery Project Grant “Big Picture Bioethics: Policy-making and Liberal Democracy” (DP0556068). We thank Mathew Sammel from NHMRC for his assistance and Christopher Cordner, Chair of the AHEC working committee which reviewed the National Statement, for discussions of the process of the review and its aims, as well as for comments on earlier drafts of this paper.

Competing Interests

Susan Dodds wrote submissions in response to the review of the National Statement (including both consultation drafts) and was a member of the Australian Health Ethics Committee 2012–2015.

References

  1. Anderson, W.P., D.D. Cordner, and K.J. Breen. 2006. Strengthening Australia’s framework for research oversight. The Medical Journal of Australia 184(6): 261–263.Google Scholar
  2. Arnold, L.E., D.M. Stoff, E. Cook, D.J. Cohen, M.J.P. Kreusi, C.B. Wright, J. Hattab, P. Graham, A. Zametkin, and F.X. Castellanos. 1995. Ethical issues in biological psychiatric research with children and adolescents. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 34(7): 929–939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Australian Government. 2005. Legislation review: Prohibition of human cloning act 2002 and research involving human embryos act 2002, reports. Chair J. Lockhart. Canberra: Australian Government.Google Scholar
  4. Australian Law Reform Commission/Australian Health Ethics Commission [ALRC/AHEC]. 2003. Essentially yours: The protection of human genetic information in Australia. Report 96. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. http://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/finalreps.htm. Accessed 26 Jan 2008.
  5. Beauchamp, T.L., and J.F. Childress. 2009. Principles of biomedical ethics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Berghmans, R., D. Dickenson, and R. Ter Meulen. 2004. Editorial: Mental capacity: In search of alternative perspectives. Health Care Analysis 12(4): 251–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chalmers, D. 2001. Research ethics in Australia (Research involving human participation V2). In Ethical and policy issues in research involving human participants, 20–34. Bethesda: National Bioethics Advisory Committee.Google Scholar
  8. Charland L. 2008. Decision-making capacity. Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/decision-capacity/. Accessed 25 Feb 2010.
  9. Cordner, C., and C. Thomson. 2007. No need to go! Workplace studies and the resources of the revised National Statement. Monash Bioethics Review 26(3): 37–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cormick, C. 2003. Perception of risk relation to biotechnology in Australia. International Journal of Biotechnology 5(2): 95–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Critchley, C. 2008. Public opinion and trust in scientists: The role of research context and the perceived motivation of stem cell researchers. Public Understanding of Science 17: 309–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dodds, S. 2000. Human research ethics in Australia: Ethical regulation and public policy. Monash Bioethics Review, Ethics Committee Supp. 19(2):4–21.Google Scholar
  13. Dodds, S. 2002. Is the Australian HREC system sustainable? Monash Bioethics Review, Ethics Committee Supp. 21(3):43–48.Google Scholar
  14. Dodds, S., R.M. Albury, and C. Thomson. 1995. Ethical research and ethics committee review of social and behavioural research proposals. Report to Commonwealth Department of Human Services and Health. Canberra: Department of Human Services and Health.Google Scholar
  15. Grodin, M.A., and L.H. Glantz (eds.). 2004. Children as research subjects: science, ethics & law. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Israel, M. 2004. Ethics and the governance of criminological research in Australia. Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Attorney General’s Department. http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Documents/r55.pdf. Accessed 27 Apr 2009.
  17. National Health and Medical Research Council Act. 1992. (Cwlth). [NHRMC Act] Canberra: Australian Government. http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Series/C2004A04516
  18. National Health and Medical Research Council [NHMRC]. no date. Public consultation – procedures for making submissions. http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/file/publications/synopses/nh16.pdf. Accessed 25 Aug 2009.
  19. National Health and Medical Research Council [NHMRC]. 1999. National statement on ethical conduct in research involving humans. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/synopses/e35syn.htm. Accessed 30 Mar 2009.
  20. National Health and Medical Research Council [NHMRC]. 2005. Review of the national statement on ethical conduct in research involving humans – first consultation draft. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.Google Scholar
  21. National Health and Medical Research Council [NHMRC]. 2006a. Draft of the national statement on ethical conduct in human research – second consultation. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.Google Scholar
  22. National Health and Medical Research Council [NHMRC]. 2006b. An invitation to make a submission. Draft of the national statement on ethical conduct in human research – second consultation.Google Scholar
  23. National Health and Medical Research Council [NHMRC]. 2006c. Letter from Chris Cordner, Chair handbook and national statement working commitee, 1–2.Google Scholar
  24. National Health and Medical Research Council [NHMRC]. 2007a (updated May 2015). National statement on ethical conduct in human research. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/synopses/e72syn.htm. Accessed 25 May 2016.
  25. National Health and Medical Research Council [NHMRC]. 2007b. What is new in the National statement on ethical conduct in human research? Google Scholar
  26. Roberts, L.M., L. Bowyer, C.S. Homer, and M.A. Brown. 2004. Multicentre research: negotiating the ethics approval obstacle course [letter]. The Medical Journal of Australia 180: 139.Google Scholar
  27. Sanci, L.A., S.M. Sawyer, P.J. Weller, L.M. Bond, and G.C. Patton. 2004. Youth health research ethics: time for a mature-minor clause? The Medical Journal of Australia 180: 336–338.Google Scholar
  28. Spriggs, M.P., and L.H. Gillam. 2008. Consent in pediatric research: An evaluation of the guidance provided by the 2007 NHMRC National statement on ethical conduct in human research. The Medical Journal of Australia 188(6): 360–362.Google Scholar
  29. Tobacco Institute of Australia Ltd & Ors. v NHMRC & Ors. 1996. FCA 1150.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of ArtsUniversity of TasmaniaHobartAustralia
  2. 2.Australian Centre of Excellence for Electromaterials Science and Faculty of ArtsUniversity of TasmaniaHobartAustralia
  3. 3.Faculty of Arts and Social SciencesUNSW AustraliaSydneyAustralia
  4. 4.School of HumanitiesUniversity of TasmaniaHobartAustralia

Personalised recommendations