Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC)

The HREC ensures that all Murdoch University research involving human participants complies with relevant standards and is conducted with the highest possible ethical integrity.

An important guiding principle for the HREC is to enhance and maintain Murdoch University's reputation for research excellence.

The committee's responsibilities and functions within the research governance framework are outlined in its Terms of Reference.

View committee meeting dates.

Research quality

The National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research requires the HREC to assess that planned research is of high quality and integrity, including that the methodology is appropriate to carry out the research.

Protection

The HREC's primary role is to ensure the protection of research participants. The Committee also protects the reputation of Murdoch University and Murdoch researchers.

Advice

The HREC provides a resource for researchers by commenting on a project from a variety of perspectives. The HREC often suggests ways in which projects may be modified to improve the research and to prevent possible difficulties.

Complaints resolution

In rare cases there may be a complaint about a research project. Participants, researchers or members of the public who are unhappy with the conduct of a project are encouraged to contact Research Ethics and Integrity.

Composition of the HREC

The HREC consists of a minimum of 8 members comprising:

  • a chairperson, with suitable experience.
  • at least two lay people, one man and one woman, who have no affiliation with Murdoch University, and do not currently engage in medical, scientific, legal or academic work.
  • at least one person with knowledge of, and current experience in, the professional care, counselling or treatment of people
  • at least one person who performs a pastoral care role in a community (e.g. Minster of Religion or Aboriginal Elder).
  • at least one lawyer.
  • at least two people with current research experience that is relevant to research proposals to be considered at the meetings.

To ensure diverse representation of research areas, additional researchers are appointed to the committee. This requires additional members to be appointed in other categories to retain the overall balance of membership (at least one third of members must come from outside the university). Whenever possible there is an Indigenous voice on the Committee, and each of the sub-committees chairs are also on committee.

 

Membership category Member
HREC Chair
Dr Yvonne Haigh
Deputy HREC Chair and Research Representative
Ms Sarah Howe
Professional Care Representative
Mrs Helen Dugmore
Legal Representative
Ms Sarah Howe
Research Representative (Arts)
Dr Arjun Subrahmanyan
Research Representative (Business & Governance)
Dr Megan Paull
Research Representative (Psychology & Exercise Science)
Dr Jon Prince
Research Representative (Arts)
Dr Kathryn Trees
Research Representative (Business & Governance)
Dr Megan Paull
Research Representative (Education)
Nina Rovis-Hermann
Research Representative (Veterinary & Life Sciences)
Dr Michael Hughes
Research Representative (Medical, Molecular & Forensic Sciences)
Dr Andrew Currie
Pastoral Care Representative
Rev. John Shepherd
Community Representative
Mr John Whitehead
Community Representative
Mrs Laurie Best
Community Representative
Mr Mark Pestell
Community Representative
Dr Denis Cherry

Possible Committee decisions

The committee has a number of options when making a decision concerning an application.  The most common decisions are:

This is the most common decision by the committee. Conditions can range from structural, methodological or conceptual issues to practical implementation issues. Conditions may ask a researcher to modify the wording and format of participant information, consent, questionnaires, surveys or other material. Conditions are based on the standards and requirements of the National Statement.

In addition to conditions, the committee may offer advice or suggestions for researchers to consider. The committee’s conditions aim to improve a research project and its delivery. Occasionally a researcher may not agree with a specific condition, a condition may be difficult to implement in practice, or there may be a better way of modifying the research. In such cases it is best to discuss the issues with Research Ethics and Integrity prior to making a formal response to the committee.

To respond to the conditions:

  • 'copy & paste' the committee’s conditions into a letter and explain exactly how each condition will be met and implemented or how the research can be adjusted to meet the condition. Attach updated and revised documents as needed, or
  • update the application and use highlighting (electronic or a highlighter pen) to identify exactly what changes have been made to meet the conditions. This second approach is more common where the issues which need to be addressed are complex or are spread throughout the application. Attach updated and revised documents as needed.

Researchers have a maximum of 4 months from the date of the letter with conditions to respond to to Research Ethics and Integrity. Conditional approval will lapse and a fresh application required beyond this deadline.

All conditions must be addressed in writing and must be formally accepted before participant recruitment and data collection are permitted to commence. Conducting research without formal ethics approval, when this is required, is a breach and can be investigated as misconduct.
In some cases the committee is happy for the project to go ahead, but would prefer some minor changes to be made, or some issues to be thought about, which however are not essential to the ethical approval.
This is the final stage where all issues have been agreed. Approval gives the researcher permission to commence data collection, so long as any other matters outside the HREC’s jurisdiction have also been finalised.

This includes research which is not able to be approved on ethical grounds and submissions which require substantial further work before the committee is able to consider approval.

Sometimes, applications are incomplete, lack sufficient detail for the committee to make a decision, or are submitted without all relevant attachments. In such instances the committee may feel unable to consider the application.  Such applications are ‘not approved’ and applicants are asked to resubmit the application together with relevant documents to a future meeting.

If asked to resubmit an application, the committee will offer its reasoning together with instructions on how to present the reapplication.

In very rare instances the committee is not able to approve proposed research on ethical grounds. The committee’s reasons will be carefully explained to researchers. A substantially revised or re-developed submission which addresses the committee’s concerns may be able to be considered at a later date. 

Standard conditions of approval

In order to simplify the paperwork for researchers, the HREC has a number of standard conditions of approval. These are generally conditions which apply to all projects or which need to be taken into consideration by everyone undertaking similar research. It is important for researchers to familiarise themselves with this part of the approval letter and to ensure compliance with these conditions. Any issues should be discussed with Research Ethics and Integrity as early as possible.


Discover how our research is leaving an indelible mark on the world around us.
Collaborate

Work with us to find new ways of thinking and unlock opportunities for our communities.