ArticleMonash bioethics review2025
The role of HRECs in regulating medical research: from peer review to regulation.
Article in Monash bioethics review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Reinventing biotech systems for patient impact.Nature medicine · 2026Article
- From the ICU Bedside: Applying the Transnational Clinical Academic Doctorate Lens to a Clinically Embedded PhD Journey.Journal of advanced nursing · 2026Review
- Exploring the operational challenges of navigating ethical oversight in the era of artificial intelligence: a qualitative study of health research ethics committees in Tanzania.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In Australia, Human Research Ethics Committees (HRECs) play a ubiquitous role reviewing human subjects research, as do Institutional Review Boards in the US and elsewhere. While HRECs were established as peer review bodies, we argue they should now be characterised a 'devolved regulator' within the broader context of the regulatory state. We evidence HRECs' regulatory role through three examples of current responsibilities. By categorising HRECs as a regulator, we are able to assess their role through a regulatory lens. Drawing on Reeve and Magnusson's 'regulatory scaffolding' approach, we suggest key ways in which the role provided by HRECs could be improved. These include setting clear roles and responsibilities HREC review; ensuring HREC accountability for the substantive aspects of their decision making; and accountability for trial sponsors who seek review of trials under the Clinical Trials Notification Scheme. Deficits in the above must incur a credible expectation of escalation and review.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.