This article is part of the Iris Ethics Knowledge Base; you can find a directory of all articles here.
Overview
Iris Ethics handles two distinct kinds of complaint: complaints about the conduct of the HREC itself, and complaints about the conduct of an approved project. Both are lodged with the Managing Director and both follow a published process (SOP section 18; complaints policy). The split mirrors the National Statement's distinction between complaints about researchers or the conduct of research (NS 5.7.1 to 5.7.2) and complaints about the conduct of a review body in reviewing research proposals (NS 5.7.3 to 5.7.4), each of which institutions must have an accessible, publicised process to receive and handle. This article covers complaints handling from the operations side; for the applicant-facing and participant-facing process, see Complaints.
Complaints about the conduct of the HREC
Complaints about the HREC's conduct are lodged with the Managing Director, who acknowledges receipt as soon as possible and forwards the complaint to the HREC Chair for review and action. Where the Chair is the subject of the complaint, the Managing Director handles it directly; where both the Managing Director and the Chair are the subject, Iris Ethics seeks external independent advice, consistent with the National Statement's allowance for referral to an assessor independent of the institution and the review body where a complaint cannot be readily resolved (SOP section 18; complaints policy; NS 5.7.4). The investigation may include assessment of existing records and collection of further information from stakeholders. Iris Ethics keeps a record of the outcome, including actions taken, and notifies the complainant as soon as possible.
Complaints about the conduct of an approved project
Concerns or complaints about a project's conduct are also directed to the Managing Director, who notifies the Chair as soon as possible after receipt. The Chair investigates and recommends a course of action. If the complainant is not satisfied with the outcome, they can refer the complaint directly to the Managing Director, or ask the Chair to do so (SOP section 18).
Complaints of this kind may concern participation, recruitment or consent; non-compliance with the approved plan; misuse of data, including use of AI systems in breach of the Iris Ethics AI Policy or the conditions of approval; breaches of privacy or confidentiality; the review and approval process itself; or outputs of AI tools used in the project (complaints policy).
Actions available
Depending on the complaint, Iris Ethics may notify the project team, request further information or evidence of compliance, suspend or revoke the project's approval, impose conditions on continued approval, request research data for secure storage, or advise the NHMRC of the complaint (complaints policy). Suspension and withdrawal follow the process described in Suspension/withdrawal of approval.
Complaints distinguished from appeals
A complaint is not the mechanism for challenging an HREC decision on the merits. Where an applicant disagrees with a rejection, or believes a favourable decision should be revisited on ethical or scientific grounds, the correct route is the appeals process to the Chair and, if unresolved, the Managing Director (see Appeals process).
Confidentiality
Complaints are handled with appropriate discretion, protecting the identity of the complainant where possible. Iris Ethics keeps a record of the outcome of every complaint and the actions taken.
Related resources
This page was last updated on 16 September 2026.
Was this helpful? We'd appreciate your feedback!
This article makes reference to the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research 2025. It is intended as practical guidance and does not constitute legal advice.
AI Disclosure: Resources in this library were prepared using Large Language Models with input from Iris Ethics staff who guided the scope and design. Subsequent revisions and final versions were developed and approved by Iris Ethics staff.