This article is part of the Iris Ethics Knowledge Base; you can find a directory of all articles here.
Overview
Chapter 4.8 of the National Statement addresses research undertaken during or following natural disasters, public health emergencies, public unrest, armed conflict, or other crises. Crisis research can protect the public and help manage the current or a future crisis, but it must not pose undue risk to participants, take priority over participant safety and recovery, or impede coordinated crisis response. The chapter applies alongside the rest of the National Statement, including where the crisis research is conducted overseas (NS 4.6).
Ethical challenges in crisis research
Crisis contexts magnify existing ethical challenges. Participants may be acutely vulnerable, raising the risk that distress during participation becomes harm. Research can carry the potential for re-traumatisation, exploitation, or stigmatisation of people experiencing or responding to the crisis, and it can expose researchers themselves to physical or psychological harm. In some cases, research is more effective, and more ethical, if it is delayed to allow relief efforts and the first stages of recovery to proceed unimpeded.
What researchers must do
Researchers should consider whether and how their research should be conducted, taking into account timing, available resources, the physical and psychological condition of potential participants, and whether the research will hinder the crisis response (NS 4.8.1). They should be able to demonstrate that the research is responsive to a genuine crisis and can only be conducted during that crisis (NS 4.8.2), and should coordinate with humanitarian organisations and government agencies responding to the crisis where possible (NS 4.8.3).
The research must be planned, designed, and conducted so that it:
- satisfies merit and integrity requirements while recognising that conditions may be unstable and evolving;
- is responsive to the needs and priorities of affected individuals and communities;
- involves community engagement, including clear communication of the distinction between humanitarian aid and research;
- uses recruitment and consent processes that are respectful, fair, and tailored to crisis conditions;
- distributes benefits, burdens, and risks equitably; and
- includes provision for sharing data, results, and outcomes with affected communities unless this is explicitly justified otherwise (NS 4.8.4).
The urgency of the crisis, or the duress experienced by those affected, must never be used to justify a failure to communicate effectively with participants or to obtain their consent (NS 4.8.5).
Rapid and proportionate review
Reviewers and institutions have a defined role in facilitating ethical crisis research rather than obstructing it. This includes:
- developing processes for rapid review, such as preparedness plans, pre-review of standard operational plans or generic protocols, triage strategies, on-call review arrangements, and other forms of proportionate, accelerated review;
- developing policies on when lower risk review is suitable;
- carefully assessing the justification offered for the research's timing, resourcing, and coordination with crisis response;
- requiring researchers to describe how participants and researchers will be supported; and
- ensuring monitoring is proportionate to the research (NS 4.8.6).
Researchers, reviewers, and institutions should also collaborate on timely decisions about what level of oversight applies to needs assessments, monitoring or surveillance activities, and program evaluations connected to a crisis, and which body is responsible for that oversight (NS 4.8.7). Expedited or streamlined review is available where these conditions are met, but it means a faster process, not a lower standard: the full ethical requirements of the National Statement still apply.
Post-crisis obligations
The provision for sharing data and outcomes with affected communities (NS 4.8.4(f)) means researchers who conduct crisis research should ensure findings reach those responsible for the crisis response, as well as affected communities, in a timely way. The urgency that may justify accelerated review also creates an obligation to share findings promptly so that they can inform the response.
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.