Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Secret ethics business?

Lynn Gillam1

  • 1Centre for the Study of Health and Society, University of Melbourne, Australia.

Monash Bioethics Review
|April 30, 2004
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Human Research Ethics Committees (HRECs) deliberations should not be confidential. Opening HREC meetings to the public promotes essential accountability in research ethics review processes.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Shifting sands: How parents engage with the idea of their child's death.

Palliative & supportive care·2026
Same author

Do Reasons Matter? An Empirical Exploration of the Role of Parents' Reasons in Treatment Refusal in Pediatric Oncology.

AJOB empirical bioethics·2026
Same author

Moving toward meaningful shared decision-making in neonatal care: clinical practice and policy implications in Korea.

Clinical and experimental pediatrics·2026
Same author

How Could Parents' Reasons Shift a Refusal of Treatment into the Zone of Parental Discretion?

The American journal of bioethics : AJOB·2025
Same author

The importance of early and accurate service information for young people accessing gender care.

Scientific reports·2025
Same author

How paediatric nurses frame the ethics of non-disclosure directives.

Nursing ethics·2025
Same journal

Autonomy under uncertainty: the structural limits of substituted judgment in clinical practice.

Monash bioethics review·2026
Same journal

Clinical ethical issues in paediatric practice: exploring the awareness and opinions of paediatricians in order to grow paediatric clinical ethics services in a Malaysian teaching hospital.

Monash bioethics review·2026
Same journal

Should Australia implement regulatory changes to include Normothermic Regional Perfusion in organ donation and change our definition of death?

Monash bioethics review·2026
Same journal

The challenge of forming solidarity in Germany as a culturally diverse society during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Monash bioethics review·2026
Same journal

Changing Discourse on In Vitro Gametogenesis: Expectation, Scientific Reality, and the Ethics of Hype.

Monash bioethics review·2026
Same journal

Public engagement and bioethics as natural allies.

Monash bioethics review·2026
See all related articles

Area of Science:

  • Bioethics
  • Research Ethics
  • Public Policy

Background:

  • Human Research Ethics Committees (HRECs) are crucial for safeguarding participants.
  • The extent of confidentiality surrounding HREC operations is often assumed but rarely examined.
  • Stakeholder interests in accessing or restricting information vary throughout the ethics approval process.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To challenge the default assumption of confidentiality in HREC deliberations.
  • To explore the specific issue of whether HREC members should disclose meeting details publicly.
  • To advocate for increased transparency and accountability in research ethics review.

Main Methods:

  • The study employs a two-fold argumentative approach.
  • It presents a negative argument against the applicability of confidentiality to HREC deliberations.
Keywords:
Biomedical and Behavioral Research

Related Experiment Videos

  • It offers a positive argument for public access based on the principle of accountability.

    • Main Results:

    • Confidentiality is argued to be inapplicable to the deliberations of Human Research Ethics Committees.
    • Making HREC meeting details public serves the important public good of accountability.
    • Current assumptions about HREC confidentiality may not be legally or ethically justified.

    Conclusions:

    • The deliberations of Human Research Ethics Committees should not be presumed confidential.
    • Opening HREC meetings to public scrutiny enhances ethical oversight and public trust.
    • Transparency in research ethics review is vital for ensuring accountability and responsible conduct of research.