Monash Bioethics Review

, Volume 29, Issue 4, pp 39–48 | Cite as

Contextualising Merit and Integrity within Human Research

  • Ian PieperEmail author
  • Colin J. H. ThomsonEmail author


The first consideration of any Australian Human Research Ethics Committee should be to satisfy itself that the project before them is worth undertaking. If the project does not add to the body of knowledge, if it does not improve social welfare or individual wellbeing then the use of human participants, their tissue or their data must be questioned. Sometimes, however, committees are criticised for appearing to adopt the role of scientific review committees. The intent of this paper is to provide researchers with an understanding of the ethical importance of demonstrating the merit of their research project and to help them develop protocols that show ethics committees that adequate attention has been paid to this central tenet in dealing ethically with human research participants. Any person proposing human research must be prepared to show that it is worthwhile. This paper will clarify the relationship between research merit and integrity, research ethics and the responsibilities of human research ethics committees.


Human Research National Statement MONASH Bioethic Review Australian Code Integrity Article 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Easterbrook, P.J.; Berlin, J.A. 1991, ‘Publication bias in clinical research’, Lancet, Vol. 337 Issue 8746.Google Scholar
  2. Jonas, H. 1969. ‘Philosophical Reflections on Experimenting with Human Subjects’, Daedalus; Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Spring 1969: 219–247.Google Scholar
  3. NHMRC. 2007a. Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research. Available at:
  4. NHMRC. 2007b. ‘National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research’, Australian Government National Health and Medical Research Council & Australian Vice-Chancellor’s Committee. Canberra.Google Scholar
  5. NHMRC. 2011. Statement of Research Question,
  6. Rhodes, R. 2005. ‘Rethinking Research Ethics’, The American journal of Bioethics, 5(1): 7–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Steneck, N. H. 2000. ‘Assessing the Integrity of Publicly Funded Research’, A background report for the ORI Research Conference on Research Integrity.Google Scholar
  8. Steneck, N. H. 2003. ‘The Role of Professional Societies in Promoting Integrity in Research’, American Journal of Health Behavior, 2003: 27(Suppl 3):239–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Stern, J. M.; Simes, R. J. 1991. ‘Publication bias: evidence of delayed publication in a cohort study of clinical research projects’, British Medical Journal, Vol. 315, No. 7109.Google Scholar
  10. World Medical Organization. 1996. ‘World Medical Organization Declaration of Helsinki’, British Medical Journal. Vol. 313. No. 7070: 1448–1449.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Monash University 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Queensland HealthAustralia
  2. 2.University of WollongongAustralia

Personalised recommendations