Ethical issues and resources

Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART)

Assisted reproductive technology (ART) is the application of laboratory or clinical technology to gametes (human egg or sperm) and/or embryos for the purposes of reproduction. All reproductive medicine units offering ART services should comply with the Ethical guidelines on the use of assisted reproductive technology in clinical practice and research, 2017 (updated 2023) (ART guidelines).

• More information about ART and the ART guidelines

Clinical Ethics

AHEC has developed a Consensus Statement on Clinical Ethics and a resource manual for use by healthcare organisations considering developing a clinical ethics service.

• AHEC Consensus Statement on Clinical Ethics
• Clinical Ethics Capacity Building Resource Manual

COVID-19 Pandemic – Ethics Framework

Decision-making for pandemics: an ethics framework was developed by the Australian Health Ethics Committee of the NHMRC. It is designed to support ethical health and medical related decision making and ethical policy development during a pandemic.

• More information or to access the Framework.

Ethical guidelines for research involving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples

Information on Ethical conduct in research with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples and communities: Guidelines for researchers and stakeholders and Keeping research on track II.

• Ethical guidelines for research involving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples

Our role in the health privacy framework

The primary focus of the NHMRC with respect to privacy is in relation to research, balancing the need for the protection of personal privacy in data, and the need to facilitate access to data for research purposes.

• More information on health research privacy framework

Organ and tissue donation and transplantation

NHMRC has released revised guidelines on cell, tissue and organ donation and transplantation. Information on the Ethical guidelines for cell, tissue and organ donation and transplantation in Australia, published in May 2025, is available on the NHMRC website.

Payment of participants in research

NHMRC has developed advice that is designed to provide information for researchers and reviewers of research to assist in decision-making about when payment of participants in research is ethically acceptable.

This advice does not replace or override guidance provided in the National Statement and provides additional information to assist those designing and reviewing human research.

• Payment of participants in research: information for researchers, HRECs and other ethics review bodies

Peer review and ethical review

NHMRC has provided clarification of the relationship between peer review conducted by NHMRC and ethical review conducted by an institutional ethics committee, and the expectations of NHMRC with respect to NHMRC funded research.

• Relationship between NHMRC peer review and ethical review by institutional ethics committees (see Downloads section below).

Embryo research, stem cells and human cloning

In 2002 the Australian Parliament passed two Acts to legislate on issues around human cloning and research involving human embryos.

• Information about embryo research and the prohibition of human cloning for reproduction
• Information about the Embryo Research Licensing Committee

Quality assurance and evaluation activities

Quality assurance (QA) and evaluation are important to ensure effective work and the best outcomes. However, confusion may arise about whether an activity is research, evaluation or QA, as each may use similar methods of data collection and/or analysis, and those conducting any of these activities may wish to publish their results or findings.

NHMRC has developed advice to assist organisations in developing policy and appropriate oversight of these activities.
•    Ethical considerations in quality assurance and evaluation activities 

Additional resources

Standardised participant information and consent forms (PICFs)

In 2023, The InFORMed Project template was published by CT:IQ, supported by the Australian Research Data Commons (ARDC). The form was developed to support a participant-centred, simplified, national PICF and underwent an extensive multi-year consultation process. In December 2025, the Australian jurisdictional health departments, under the National Mutual Acceptance (NMA) program, endorsed the use of the form for research approved under the NMA. 

NHMRC has agreed to place a link to the InFORMed template and accompanying user guide on this web page and endorses the use of the form for human research conducted in Australia or involving Australian participants.

The InFORMed template, user guide and supporting information can be found on the InFORMed website. 

NHMRC PICF templates

In 2012, NHMRC, in collaboration with the Australian States and Territories, developed templates to serve as a starting point for the development of written PICFs for research conducted in Australia. These templates are out-of-date and have been removed from this web page. For historical reference or other appropriate use, the templates can be found on the Australian Web Archive Trove at the bottom of that page. 

Use of templates

Please note that just as the use of the NHMRC templates has never been required by NHMRC, use of the InFORMed template is also not an NHMRC requirement. PICF templates are designed as tools to assist researchers in developing PICFs by suggesting standard structure and wording suitable to a wide range of projects and to conform to some jurisdictional requirements. However, as templates, they are not intended to be rigid and unchanging and information can be added and removed as required. The appropriateness of any changes in language or structure in a PICF that is proposed for an individual project is subject to the discretion of the researcher and/or the reviewer during the drafting and review processes.

NHMRC recognises that individual jurisdictions or institutions may introduce a requirement that use of a PICF template is mandatory. While this is their prerogative, this decision should not be interpreted as its use being mandated by the NHMRC.