In March 2026, we invited people working in human research ethics across Victoria to share their experiences of the current ethics system. This survey was undertaken as part of the Strategic Ethics Reform Project.
We received responses from 268 Human Research Ethics Committee members and chairs, ethics advisors and coordinators, clinician researchers, clinical trials units, industry partners, consumer and community representatives, and research leadership.
We thank everyone who responded. The strength of engagement, including 45% of respondents indicating willingness to participate further, reflects genuine investment in this work from across the sector.
What we heard
The strongest signal from the survey was not a single theme. It was a pattern.
We found that people experience the Victorian human research ethics system very differently depending on their roles, including those:
- delivering research described process burden, unpredictable timelines and variation that is difficult to plan around
- operating the system described genuine complexity and increasing demand on teams working within varied resourcing environments
- sitting on ethics committees described work that requires significant professional judgement and responsibility, and that is frequently underestimated by those outside it.
These are not contradictions. They are different experiences of the same system. Understanding them together has been the purpose of the next phase of engagement.
Within that pattern, several themes appeared consistently across role groups.
- Variation across organisations and committees was the most widely cited source of difficulty, particularly for those coordinating research across multiple sites. This was cited by respondents in every role group and by more than four in five industry and sponsor respondents.
- Administrative burden and duplication were also raised frequently. Respondents generally directed these concerns toward process design and supporting infrastructure rather than the principle of ethical oversight itself, which was consistently recognised as essential to safe and trustworthy research.
- The interface between ethics review and governance processes emerged as a significant source of operational difficulty. Many respondents, particularly in research delivery and leadership roles, described the boundary between ethics approval and subsequent governance processes as a point where duplication, delay, and unclear accountability commonly arose.
- The operational workload of those supporting the ethics system emerged as a significant theme. Ethics and Governance advisors and coordinators described the sustained demands of supporting ethical review. This included working across multiple systems and processes, bridging gaps between them, and guiding and training researchers through requirements that were not always well understood. These roles operate at the interface between regulatory frameworks, committee judgement and research practice, and their professional expertise and system insight was an important part of the next phase of engagement.
- The work of ethics committees was frequently described as underestimated. Human Research Ethics Committees play a central role in protecting research participants and maintaining confidence in the research system. Committee members carry real responsibility for participant safety and ethical integrity, and their decisions involve complex balancing of scientific merit, participant welfare and public trust. In many cases this work is undertaken alongside clinical or research responsibilities.
- The research workforce also featured in a number of responses, particularly the cumulative impact of process complexity on clinician researchers and early-career investigators conducting research alongside clinical responsibilities. Resourcing pressures were noted across the sector, with regional services facing particular challenges due to limited infrastructure, smaller teams and reduced access to specialist support.
What comes next
The survey was a starting point. The themes above are now being explored in greater depth through regional round tables, role-based online focus groups, and written submissions.
We will also conduct a financial and resourcing survey to build an evidence base for what a well-resourced system would require. The survey will not audit how resources have been allocated and will not compare organisations with each other.
We have ensured that perspectives underrepresented in the survey were meaningfully present in conversations with:
- consumer and community voices
- HREC Chairs
- research governance professionals
- ethics professionals who support committees and researchers across the system.
A further summary of insights from the round tables, role-based focus groups and written submissions will be shared with the sector.
Find out how to participate via written submission.