Supplement 1: 

Excerpted text (p 11-22) from: 

The National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (2007) which was 

issued by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. 

The complete text can be found at: 

http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/synopses/e72syn.htm
Developed jointly by

National Health and Medical Research Council

Australian Research Council

Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee

National Statement on Ethical 

Conduct in Human Research
Section 1: Values and Principles of ethical conduct

national statement on ethical conduct in human research | 11

Section 1: Values and Principles

of Ethical Conduct

Introduction

The relationship between researchers and 

research participants is the ground on which 

human research is conducted. The values set 

out in this section – respect for human beings, 

research merit and integrity, justice, and 

beneficence – help to shape that relationship as 

one of trust, mutual responsibility and ethical 

equality. For this reason, the National Statement 

speaks of research ‘participants’ rather than 

‘subjects’. 

While these values have a long history, they 

are not the only values that could inform a 

document of this kind. Others include altruism, 

contributing to societal or community goals, 

and respect for cultural diversity, along with the 

values that inform Values and Ethics: Guidelines 

for Ethical Conduct in Aboriginal and Torres 

Strait Islander Health Research (NHMRC 2003). 

However, the values of respect, research merit 

and integrity, justice, and beneficence have 

become prominent in the ethics of human 

research in the past six decades, and they 

provide a substantial and flexible framework 

for principles to guide the design, review 

and conduct of such research. This National 

Statement is organised around these values, and 

the principles set out in paragraphs 1.1 to 1.13 

give them practical expression. 

Among these values, respect is central. It 

involves recognising that each human being 

has value in himself or herself, and that this 

value must inform all interaction between 

people. Such respect includes recognising the 

value of human autonomy – the capacity to 

determine one’s own life and make one’s own 

decisions. But respect goes further than this. 

It also involves providing for the protection 

of those with diminished or no autonomy, as 

well as empowering them where possible and 

protecting and helping people wherever it 

would be wrong not to do so. 

Reference to these values throughout the 

National Statement serves as a constant reminder 

that, at all stages, human research requires 

ethical reflection that is informed by them. The 

order in which they are considered reflects the 

order in which ethical considerations commonly 

arise in human research.

Research merit and integrity are discussed first. 

Unless proposed research has merit, and the 

researchers who are to carry out the research 

have integrity, the involvement of human 

participants in the research cannot be ethically 

justifiable. 

At a profound level, justice involves a regard 

for the human sameness that each person 

shares with every other. Human beings have 

a deep need to be treated in accordance with 

such justice, which includes distributive justice 

and procedural justice. In the research context, 

distributive justice will be expressed in the 

fair distribution of the benefits and burdens 

of research, and procedural justice in ‘fair 

treatment’ in the recruitment of participants 

and the review of research. While benefit to 

humankind is an important result of research, 

it also matters that benefits of research are 

achieved through just means, are distributed 

fairly, and involve no unjust burdens. 

Researchers exercise beneficence in several 

ways: in assessing and taking account of 

the risks of harm and the potential benefits 

of research to participants and to the wider 

community; in being sensitive to the welfare and 

interests of people involved in their research; 

and in reflecting on the social and cultural 

implications of their work. 
Section 1: Values and Principles of ethical conduct

12 | national statement on ethical conduct in human research

Respect for human beings is the common thread 

through all the discussions of ethical values. 

Turning to it as the final value is a reminder that 

it draws together all of the ethical deliberation 

that has preceded it.

The design, review and conduct of research 

must reflect each of these values. 

Guidelines

Research merit and integrity 

1.1 Research that has merit is: 

(a) justifiable by its potential benefit, 

which may include its contribution 

to knowledge and understanding, 

to improved social welfare and 

individual wellbeing, and to the 

skill and expertise of researchers. 

What constitutes potential benefit 

and whether it justifies research may 

sometimes require consultation with 

the relevant communities; 

(b) designed or developed using 

methods appropriate for achieving 

the aims of the proposal;

(c) based on a thorough study of the 

current literature, as well as previous 

studies. This does not exclude the 

possibility of novel research for 

which there is little or no literature 

available, or research requiring a 

quick response to an unforeseen 

situation;

(d) designed to ensure that respect for 

the participants is not compromised 

by the aims of the research, by 

the way it is carried out, or by the 

results; 

(e) conducted or supervised by 

persons or teams with experience, 

qualifications and competence that 

are appropriate for the research; and 

(f) conducted using facilities and 

resources appropriate for the 

research.

1.2 Where prior peer review has judged that 

a project has research merit, the question 

of its research merit is no longer subject 

to the judgement of those ethically 

reviewing the research.

1.3 Research that is conducted with integrity 

is carried out by researchers with a 

commitment to: 

(a) searching for knowledge and 

understanding; 

(b) following recognised principles of 

research conduct; 

(c) conducting research honestly; and 

(d) disseminating and communicating 

results, whether favourable or 

unfavourable, in ways that permit 

scrutiny and contribute to public 

knowledge and understanding.

Justice 

1.4 In research that is just: 

(a) taking into account the scope and 

objectives of the proposed research, 

the selection, exclusion and 

inclusion of categories of research 

participants is fair, and is accurately 

described in the results of the 

research;

(b) the process of recruiting participants 

is fair;

(c) there is no unfair burden of 

participation in research on 

particular groups;

(d) there is fair distribution of the 

benefits of participation in research; 

(e) there is no exploitation of 

participants in the conduct of 

research; and

(f) there is fair access to the benefits of 

research.

1.5 Research outcomes should be made 

accessible to research participants in a 

way that is timely and clear.
Section 1: Values and Principles of ethical conduct

national statement on ethical conduct in human research | 13

Beneficence 

1.6 The likely benefit of the research must 

justify any risks of harm or discomfort to 

participants. The likely benefit may be to 

the participants, to the wider community, 

or to both. 

1.7 Researchers are responsible for: 

(a) designing the research to minimise 

the risks of harm or discomfort to 

participants; 

(b) clarifying for participants the 

potential benefits and risks of the 

research; and 

(c) the welfare of the participants in the 

research context.

1.8 Where there are no likely benefits to 

participants, the risk to participants 

should be lower than would be ethically 

acceptable where there are such likely 

benefits. 

1.9 Where the risks to participants are no 

longer justified by the potential benefits 

of the research, the research must be 

suspended to allow time to consider 

whether it should be discontinued or 

at least modified. This decision may 

require consultation between researchers, 

participants, the relevant ethical review 

body, and the institution. The review 

body must be notified promptly of 

such suspension, and of any decisions 

following it (see paragraphs 5.5.6 to 5.5.9, 

page 91–92).

Respect 

1.10 Respect for human beings is a recognition 

of their intrinsic value. In human 

research, this recognition includes abiding 

by the values of research merit and 

integrity, justice and beneficence. Respect 

also requires having due regard for the 

welfare, beliefs, perceptions, customs 

and cultural heritage, both individual and 

collective, of those involved in research. 

1.11 Researchers and their institutions should 

respect the privacy, confidentiality 

and cultural sensitivities of the 

participants and, where relevant, of their 

communities. Any specific agreements 

made with the participants or the 

community should be fulfilled. 

1.12 Respect for human beings involves giving 

due scope, throughout the research 

process, to the capacity of human beings 

to make their own decisions.

1.13 Where participants are unable to 

make their own decisions or have 

diminished capacity to do so, respect 

for them involves empowering them 

where possible and providing for their 

protection as necessary.

Application of these values and 

principles

Research, like everyday life, often generates 

ethical dilemmas in which it may be impossible 

to find agreement on what is right or wrong. 

In such circumstances, it is important that all 

those involved in research and its review bring 

a heightened ethical awareness to their thinking 

and decision-making. The National Statement 

is intended to contribute to the development of 

such awareness. 

This National Statement does not exhaust the 

ethical discussion of human research. There 

are, for example, many other specialised ethical 

guidelines and codes of practice for specific 

areas of research. Where these are consistent 

with this National Statement, they should be 

used to supplement it when this is necessary for 

the ethical review of a research proposal. 

These ethical guidelines are not simply a 

set of rules. Their application should not be 

mechanical. It always requires, from each 

individual, deliberation on the values and 

principles, exercise of judgement, and an 

appreciation of context.
Section 2: themes in research ethics: risk and benefit, consent

Chapter 2.1 : Risk and Benefit

national statement on ethical conduct in human research | 15

Section 2: Themes in Research

Ethics: Risk and Benefit, Consent

Two themes must always be considered in 

human research: the risks and benefits of 

research, and participants’ consent. For this 

reason, the two themes are brought together in 

chapter 2.1: Risk and benefit

Introduction

this section, before discussion in the following 

sections of ethical considerations specific to 

different research methods and categories of 

participants. 

•	 identifying any risks;

•	 gauging their probability and severity;

•	 assessing the extent to which they can be 

minimised; 

•	 determining whether they are justified by 

the potential benefits of the research; and 

•	 determining how they can be managed. 

Assessment of risks engages: 

•	 researchers, who need to identify, gauge, 

minimise and manage any risks involved 

in their project;

•	 institutions, in deciding the appropriate 

level of ethical review for research 

projects; 

•	 Human Research Ethics Committees 

(HRECs) and other ethical review bodies 

(see paragraph 5.1.7, page 78), in 

reviewing research proposals and making 

judgements on whether risks are justified 

by potential benefits; and

•	 participants’ perceptions of risks and 

benefits. These perceptions are a factor 

to be considered by review bodies in 

deciding whether the risks are justified by 

the benefits.

The conduct of research in Australia is 

characterised by high ethical and scientific 

standards, and the dangers to participants have 

been few. The continued promotion of ethically 

good human research – the purpose of this 

National Statement – will help to maintain these 

standards.

Application of the values in Section 1, in 

particular the value of beneficence, requires that 

risks of harm to research participants, and to 

others, be assessed. Research will be ethically 

acceptable only if its potential benefits justify 

those risks. 

While this chapter provides guidance on the 

assessment of risk, such assessment inevitably 

involves the exercise of judgment.

What is risk? 

A risk is a potential for harm, discomfort or 

inconvenience (discussed below). It involves: 

•	 the likelihood that a harm (or discomfort 

or inconvenience) will occur; and 

•	 the severity of the harm, including its 

consequences. 

Assessment of risk

Assessment of risks involves:
Section 2: themes in research ethics: risk and benefit, consent

Chapter 2.1 : Risk and Benefit

16 | national statement on ethical conduct in human research

Harm, discomfort and inconvenience

Research may lead to harms, discomforts and/or 

inconveniences for participants and/or others.

No list of harms can be exhaustive, but one 

helpful classification identifies the following 

kinds of potential harms in research3

: 

•	 physical harms: including injury, illness, 

pain; 

•	 psychological harms: including feelings 

of worthlessness, distress, guilt, anger or 

fear related, for example, to disclosure 

of sensitive or embarrassing information, 

or learning about a genetic possibility of 

developing an untreatable disease; 

•	 devaluation of personal worth: including 

being humiliated, manipulated or in other 

ways treated disrespectfully or unjustly;

•	 social harms: including damage to social 

networks or relationships with others; 

discrimination in access to benefits, 

services, employment or insurance; social 

stigmatisation; and findings of previously 

unknown paternity status; 

•	 economic harms: including the imposition 

of direct or indirect costs on participants;

•	 legal harms: including discovery and 

prosecution of criminal conduct. 

Less serious than harm is discomfort, which can 

involve body and/or mind. Discomforts include, 

for example, minor side-effects of medication, 

the discomforts related to measuring blood 

pressure, and anxiety induced by an interview. 

Where a person’s reactions exceed discomfort 

and become distress, they should be viewed as 

harms. 

Less serious again is inconvenience. Examples 

of inconvenience may include filling in a form, 

participating in a street survey, or giving up time 

to participate in research. 

3 Adapted from National Bioethics Advisory 

Commission, Ethical and Policy Issues in Research 

Involving Human Participants, Bethesda, 2001 

pp.71–72

Examples of risks to non-participants include 

the risk of distress for a participant’s family 

member identified with a serious genetic 

disorder, the possible effects of a biography 

on family or friends, or infectious disease 

risks to the community. Some social research 

may carry wider social or economic risks; for 

example, research in a small community into 

attitudes to specific subpopulations may lead 

to unfair discrimination or have effects on 

social cohesion, property values, or business 

investment. 

Harms that may arise from research misconduct 

or fraud, and harms to members of research 

teams from other forms of misconduct (for 

example, harassment or bullying) are addressed 

primarily in the Australian code for the 

responsible conduct of research. These forms 

of misconduct may, of course, also lead to 

potential harms to participants.

Low risk and negligible risk research

The expression ‘low risk research’ describes 

research in which the only foreseeable risk is 

one of discomfort. Research in which the risk for 

participants is more serious than discomfort is 

not low risk. 

The expression ‘negligible risk research’ 

describes research in which there is no 

foreseeable risk of harm or discomfort; and any 

foreseeable risk is no more than inconvenience. 

Requirements for the ethical review of low risk 

research and negligible risk research are set out 

in paragraphs 5.1.18 to 5.1.23, page 79.

Gauging risk

Gauging risk involves taking into account:

•	 the kinds of harm, discomfort or 

inconvenience that may occur;

•	 the likelihood of these occurring; and 

•	 the severity of any harm that may occur. 

These judgements should be based on the 

available evidence. The evidence may be 

quantitative or qualitative. In either case, the 

process needs to be transparent and defensible.
Section 2: themes in research ethics: risk and benefit, consent

Chapter 2.1 : Risk and Benefit

national statement on ethical conduct in human research | 17

For those gauging the severity of the harm, 

the choices, experience, perceptions, values 

and vulnerabilities of different populations of 

participants will be relevant.

Minimising risk

In designing a research project, researchers 

have an obligation to minimise the risks 

to participants. Minimising risk involves 

an assessment of the research aims, their 

importance, and the methods by which they can 

be achieved. 

Where a researcher or review body judges that 

the level of risk in a research proposal is not 

justified by the benefits, either the research 

aims or the methods by which they are to be 

achieved, or both, will need to be reconsidered 

if the research is to proceed. 

Do the benefits justify the risks?

Research is ethically acceptable only when its 

potential benefits justify any risks involved in 

the research.

Benefits of research may include, for example, 

gains in knowledge, insight and understanding, 

improved social welfare and individual 

wellbeing, and gains in skill or expertise for 

individual researchers, teams or institutions. 

Some research may offer direct benefits to the 

research participants, their families, or particular 

group/s with whom they identify. Where this is 

the case, participants may be ready to assume a 

higher risk than otherwise. For example, people 

with cancer may be willing to accept research 

risks (such as treatment side-effects) that would 

be unacceptable to well people. Those ethically 

reviewing research should take such willingness 

into account in deciding whether the potential 

benefits of the research justify the risks involved. 

For ethical review bodies, there can be a 

profound tension between the obligation 

on the one hand to give maximum scope to 

participants’ freedom to accept risk, and on the 

other to see that research is conducted in a way 

that is beneficent and minimises harm. 

Managing risks

When risks have been identified, gauged and 

minimised, and the research has been approved, 

the risks must then be managed. This requires 

that: 

•	 researchers include, in their research 

design, mechanisms to deal adequately 

with any harms that occur; and

•	 a monitoring process is in place and 

carried out (see Chapter 5.5: Monitoring 

approved research, page 91–92). 

The greater the risk to participants in any 

research for which ethical approval is given, the 

more certain it must be both that the risks will 

be managed as well as possible, and that the 

participants clearly understand the risks they are 

assuming. 

Guidelines

2.1.1 Institutions that choose to establish levels 

of ethical review other than by HREC for 

research that carries low or negligible risk 

(see paragraphs 5.1.18 to 5.1.23, page 79) 

should use this chapter (i.e. Chapter 2.1) 

to inform their identification of the level 

of risk.

2.1.2 Risks to research participants are ethically 

acceptable only if they are justified by the 

potential benefits of the research.

2.1.3 Steps to arriving at a judgement on 

the ethical acceptability of risks should 

include: 

(a) identifying the risks, if any; 

(b) assessing the likelihood and severity 

of the risks; 

(c) identifying whom (participants and/

or others) the risks may affect;

(d) establishing the means for 

minimising the risks; 

(e) identifying the potential benefits; 

and

(f) identifying to whom benefits are 

likely to accrue. 
Section 2: themes in research ethics: risk and benefit, consent

Chapter 2.1 : Risk and Benefit

18 | national statement on ethical conduct in human research

2.1.4 In determining the existence, likelihood 

and severity of risks, researchers and 

those reviewing the research should 

base their assessments on the available 

evidence, whether qualitative or 

quantitative. They should consider 

whether to seek advice from others 

who have experience with the same 

methodology, population and research 

domain.

2.1.5 In considering whether the potential 

benefits of the research justify the risks 

involved, those reviewing research should 

take into account any willingness by 

participant populations to assume greater 

risks because of the potential benefits to 

them, their families, or groups to which 

they belong. 

2.1.6 Research is ‘low risk’ where the only 

foreseeable risk is one of discomfort. 

Where the risk, even if unlikely, is more 

serious than discomfort, the research is 

not low risk. 

2.1.7 Research is ‘negligible risk’ where there is 

no foreseeable risk of harm or discomfort; 

and any foreseeable risk is no more than 

inconvenience. Where the risk, even if 

unlikely, is more than inconvenience, the 

research is not negligible risk.

2.1.8 The greater the risks to participants in 

any research for which ethical approval 

is given, the more certain it must be both 

that the risks will be managed as well as 

possible, and that the participants clearly 

understand the risks they are assuming. 
Section 2: themes in research ethics: risk and benefit, consent

Chapter 2.2 : general requirements for consent

national statement on ethical conduct in human research | 19

chapter 2.2: General requirements for 

consent

Introduction

Respect for human beings involves giving due 

scope to people’s capacity to make their own 

decisions. In the research context, this normally 

requires that participation be the result of 

a choice made by participants – commonly 

known as ‘the requirement for consent’. This 

requirement has the following conditions: 

consent should be a voluntary choice, and 

should be based on sufficient information and 

adequate understanding of both the proposed 

research and the implications of participation 

in it.

What is needed to satisfy these conditions 

depends on the nature of the project, and 

may be affected by the requirements of the 

codes, laws, ethics and cultural sensitivities of 

the community in which the research is to be 

conducted. 

Variations of these conditions may be ethically 

justified for some research. Respect for human 

beings must, however, always be shown in any 

alternative arrangements for deciding whether 

potential participants are to enter the research. 

It should be noted that a person’s consent to 

participate in research may not be sufficient to 

justify his or her participation. 

This chapter provides guidelines on the 

requirement for consent. Chapter 2.3: Qualifying 

or waiving conditions for consent then discusses 

and provides guidelines on conditions under 

which the requirement may be qualified or 

waived. 

Guidelines

2.2.1 The guiding principle for researchers is 

that a person’s decision to participate in 

research is to be voluntary, and based 

on sufficient information and adequate 

understanding of both the proposed 

research and the implications of 

participation in it. For qualifications 

of this principle, see Chapter 2.3: 

Qualifying or waiving conditions for 

consent, page 23. 

2.2.2 Participation that is voluntary and based 

on sufficient information requires an 

adequate understanding of the purpose, 

methods, demands, risks and potential 

benefits of the research. 

2.2.3 This information must be presented in 

ways suitable to each participant (see 

paragraph 5.2.16, page 84).

2.2.4 The process of communicating 

information to participants and seeking 

their consent should not be merely a 

matter of satisfying a formal requirement. 

The aim is mutual understanding between 

researchers and participants. This aim 

requires an opportunity for participants 

to ask questions and to discuss the 

information and their decision with others 

if they wish.

2.2.5 Consent may be expressed orally, in 

writing or by some other means (for 

example, return of a survey, or conduct 

implying consent), depending on: 

(a) the nature, complexity and level of 

risk of the research; and 

(b) the participant’s personal and 

cultural circumstances.

2.2.6 Information on the following matters 

should also be communicated to 

participants. Except where the 

information in specific sub-paragraphs 

below is also deemed necessary for a 

person’s voluntary decision to participate, 
Section 2: themes in research ethics: risk and benefit, consent

Chapter 2.2 : general requirements for consent

20 | national statement on ethical conduct in human research

it should be kept distinct from the 

information described in paragraphs 2.2.1 

and 2.2.2:

(a) any alternatives to participation;

(b) how the research will be monitored; 

(c) provision of services to participants 

adversely affected by the research;

(d) contact details of a person to receive 

complaints; 

(e) contact details of the researchers;

(f) how privacy and confidentiality will 

be protected;

(g) the participant’s right to withdraw 

from further participation at any 

stage, along with any implications of 

withdrawal, and whether it will be 

possible to withdraw data; 

(h) the amounts and sources of funding 

for the research;

(i) financial or other relevant 

declarations of interests of 

researchers, sponsors or institutions; 

(j) any payments to participants;

(k) the likelihood and form of 

dissemination of the research results, 

including publication; 

(l) any expected benefits to the wider 

community; 

(m) any other relevant information, 

including research-specific 

information required under other 

chapters of this National Statement. 

2.2.7 Whether or not participants will be 

identified, research should be designed so 

that each participant’s voluntary decision 

to participate will be clearly established. 

Renegotiating consent

2.2.8 In some research, consent may need to 

be renegotiated or confirmed from time 

to time, especially where projects are 

complex or long-running, or participants 

are vulnerable. Research participants 

should be told if there are changes to the 

terms to which they originally agreed, 

and given the opportunity to continue 

their participation or withdraw (see 

paragraphs 5.2.16 and 5.2.17, page 84). 

Coercion and pressure

2.2.9 No person should be subject to coercion 

or pressure in deciding whether to 

participate. Even where there is no overt 

coercion or pressure, consent might 

reflect deference to the researcher’s 

perceived position of power, or to 

someone else’s wishes. Here as always, 

a person should be included as a 

participant only if his or her consent is 

voluntary.

Reimbursing participants

2.2.10 It is generally appropriate to reimburse 

the costs to participants of taking part in 

research, including costs such as travel, 

accommodation and parking. Sometimes 

participants may also be paid for time 

involved. However, payment that is 

disproportionate to the time involved, 

or any other inducement that is likely to 

encourage participants to take risks, is 

ethically unacceptable. 

2.2.11 Decisions about payment or 

reimbursement in kind, whether to 

participants or their community, should 

take into account the customs and 

practices of the community in which the 

research is to be conducted.

Where others need to be involved in 

participation decisions

2.2.12 Where a potential participant lacks 

the capacity to consent, a person or 

appropriate statutory body exercising 

lawful authority for the potential 

participant should be provided with 

relevant information and decide whether 

he or she will participate. That decision 

must not be contrary to the person’s 

best interests. Researchers should bear 
Section 2: themes in research ethics: risk and benefit, consent

Chapter 2.2 : general requirements for consent

national statement on ethical conduct in human research | 21

in mind that the capacity to consent may 

fluctuate, and even without that capacity 

people may have some understanding of 

the research and the benefits and burdens 

of their participation. For implications of 

these factors, see Chapter 4.2: Children 

and young people, Chapter 4.4: People 

highly dependent on medical care who 

may be unable to give consent, and 

Chapter 4.5: People with a cognitive 

impairment, an intellectual disability, or 

a mental illness. 

2.2.13 Within some communities, decisions 

about participation in research may 

involve not only individuals but also 

properly interested parties such as 

formally constituted bodies, institutions, 

families or community elders. Researchers 

need to engage with all properly 

interested parties in planning the 

research. 

Consent to future use of data and 

tissue in research

2.2.14 Consent may be:

(a) ‘specific’: limited to the specific 

project under consideration;

(b) ‘extended’: given for the use of data 

or tissue in future research projects 

that are:

(i) an extension of, or closely 

related to, the original project; 

or 

(ii) in the same general area 

of research (for example, 

genealogical, ethnographical, 

epidemiological, or chronic 

illness research);

(c) ‘unspecified’: given for the use of 

data or tissue in any future research. 

 The necessarily limited information 

and understanding about research 

for which extended or unspecified 

consent is given can still be 

sufficient and adequate for the 

purpose of consent (see paragraph 

2.2.2).

2.2.15 Extended or unspecified consent may 

sometimes need to include permission 

to enter the original data or tissue into a 

databank or tissuebank (see paragraph 

3.2.9, page 31). 

2.2.16 When unspecified consent is sought, 

its terms and wide-ranging implications 

should be clearly explained to potential 

participants. When such consent is given, 

its terms should be clearly recorded. 

2.2.17 Subsequent reliance, in a research 

proposal, on existing unspecified 

consent should describe the terms of that 

unspecified consent. 

2.2.18 Data or tissue additional to those covered 

by the original extended or unspecified 

consent will sometimes be needed for 

research. Consent for access to such 

additional data or tissue must be sought 

from potential participants unless the 

need for this consent is waived by an 

ethical review body. 

Declining to consent and withdrawing 

consent

2.2.19 People who elect not to participate in a 

research project need not give any reason 

for their decision. Researchers should 

do what they can to see that people 

who decline to participate will suffer no 

disadvantage as a result of their decision. 

2.2.20 Participants are entitled to withdraw 

from the research at any stage. Before 

consenting to involvement in the 

research, participants should be informed 

about any consequences of such 

withdrawal.