We now live in a digital-led, clickbait world that feeds on fear-mongering and misinformation. With the rapid advancements and employment of artificial intelligence (AI), it is more important than ever to have health, research, and media literacy; to be able to look at a research publication, a news article, a social media post, and critically analyse its contents. To ask the questions: “What is this saying? What do the authors gain from saying this? How did they come to this conclusion?”
As people of science – whether researcher or lover – of the modern world, we are all aware of the damage that bad research and bad research publicity can do. For example, how one terribly conducted ‘study’ can fuel anti-vaxx ideologies and have lasting consequences for public health (1). Or how the late inclusion of women in health research has fostered great mistrust between the public and the healthcare sector, and so on (2). Researchers, of any kind, are the world’s foragers for knowledge. Our unyielding curiosity of: “What? Why? How?” is often scrutinised in terms of how we achieve some answers, and rightly so.
I would like to impart upon you my newfound appreciation for research, having come to see it in a whole new light through a recent internship. Though a dry read, I have come to love and appreciate the frameworks and safeguards that govern clinical research and trials, and how it aims to protect participants, carers, consumers, and researchers from potential ethical wrongdoing.
Research Ethics
Sometimes, our science-loving brains get a little too curious. We become so invested in the answer that we forget to take a step back and ask “Why do I want to know this answer? Does any good come out of it? Am I causing any harm by trying to solve this question?”.
It’s in the name. Research ethics asks whether it is ethical to conduct a research project. It seeks to protect the rights, safety, and wellbeing of research participants, consumers and the wider public. The National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (2025) forms the guidelines and framework for the right way to conduct research (3). It all comes down to four key principles: respect for human beings, research merit and integrity, justice, and beneficence.
Respect: the recognition of a human being’s intrinsic value. It requires having due regard for the welfare, beliefs, perceptions, customs and cultural heritage for those, both individual and collective, involved in research.
Research Merit and Integrity: research that is justifiable by its potential benefit – i.e., does the research contribute to social welfare, individual wellbeing, and knowledge and understanding?
Justice: in that the selection, exclusion and inclusion of research participants are fair and accurately described in the results of the research
Beneficence: the likely benefit of the research must justify any risks of harm or discomfort to participants and to the wider community
Human Research Ethics Committees (HRECs) review and ensure research is conducted in alignment with the aforementioned values. A HREC comprises at least eight members, all with varying backgrounds – law, consumers, research, pastoral care, and healthcare. This brings in various lenses that researchers may miss – are there any legal risks, risks a consumer may feel discomfort with, or ethical issues with medical processes? HRECs will use the National Statement (2025) as guidance to assess whether a research project meets ethical standards and guidelines, and advise on any adjustments to the study design required to achieve this (3).
Some institutions may establish levels of ethical review other than by a HREC through a streamlined, in-house, combined ethics and governance review process for lower risk research projects (3). Eligibility for review through this non-HREC process can differ from institution to institution, but most importantly, the research project brings low or negligible risk to both participants and organisation (no greater than discomfort).
The key question that Research Ethics asks is: “Should we do this research?”
Research Governance
Again, sometimes scientists can get a little too excited with research. Even if their project is ethically sound, they forget to look at the feasibility. Most think of research ethics and governance to be the same, or perhaps have never heard of research governance.
Research governance refers to the processes that are followed to ensure that the research project aligns with strategic intent, is feasible, and satisfies all regulatory requirements, including ethical compliance (4). It asks whether the institution/organisation is capable or has the resources to conduct the research project. The framework and guidance for governing research is based in legislative laws and national research guidelines, including but not limited to the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research (2018), Health Records Act (2001), and the Privacy Act 1988 (119) (5, 6, 7).
The key question that Research Governance asks is: “Can we do this research?”
~
I, myself, had not known that this lens of research existed. I may have heard about research ethics – it was pretty easy to put two and two together. But after completing an internship in a research office, and now working in one, I have found a new appreciation for research and its impact on our community.
With this newfound knowledge, I have gained a new passion for research development, whether improving researcher capability, or increasing research visibility within the larger community.
The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) now describes consumer and community involvement as essential for high quality health and medical research (8). Whereby, effective involvement ensures research aligns with consumer and community priorities, increasing real-world impact (8). I encourage any of you interested in research to be involved - whether a patient, family member, or a keen member of society hoping to give your two cents for how health research can better serve and impact your community.
References
Lindsay P. Books: Long read: The doctor who fooled the world. Andrew Wakefield’s war on vaccines. British Journal of General Practice [Internet]. 2020 Dec 28 [cited 2026 Oct 24];71(702):34–5. Available from: https://bjgp.org/content/bjgp/71/702/34.full.pdf
National Institutes of Health. History of Women’s Participation in Clinical Research | Office of Research on Women’s Health [Internet]. Nih.gov. 2017 [cited 2026 Oct 24]. Available from: https://orwh.od.nih.gov/toolkit/recruitment/history
National Health and Medical Research Council. National statement on ethical conduct in human research 2025 | NHMRC [Internet]. Nhmrc.gov.au. 2025 [cited 2026 Oct 24]. Available from: https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/about-us/publications/national-statement-ethical-conduct-human-research-2025
Northern Health. Research Governance. 2026. [cited 2026 Oct 24] https://www.nh.org.au/research/research-development-and-governance-unit/research-governance/
National Health and Medical Research Council. Australian code for the responsible conduct of research [Internet]. Nhmrc.gov.au. 2018 [cited 2026 Oct 24]. Available from: https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/about-us/publications/australian-code-responsible-conduct-research-2018
Health records act 2001 [Internet]. Vic.gov.au. 2024 [cited 2026 Oct 24]. Available from: https://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/in-force/acts/health-records-act-2001/050
Australian Government. Privacy act 1988 [Internet]. Federal Register of Legislation. Australian Government; 2025 [cited 2026 Oct 24]. Available from: https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A03712/latest/text
Statement on Consumer and Community Involvement in Health and Medical Research | NHMRC [Internet]. Nhmrc.gov.au. 2026 [cited 2026 Oct 24]. Available from: https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/about-us/publications/statement-consumer-and-community-involvement-health-medical-research
Back to
Issue 11
