Conduct risk assessments and consider ethical issues, including the use of animals, plants and humans, in planning a scientific investigation

What this dot point is asking

NESA wants you to assess risks before conducting any scientific investigation and to identify ethical considerations when the investigation involves humans, animals or sensitive sites. Risk and ethics are non-negotiable parts of any school or professional investigation.

The answer

A scientific investigation that puts people, animals or the environment at unacceptable risk is not permitted, regardless of how interesting the question is. Two parallel processes apply.

Risk assessment

A risk assessment identifies hazards and plans how to mitigate them before the investigation begins. The standard tool is the risk matrix: likelihood multiplied by consequence.

Steps.

1. Identify hazards. Chemical, biological, electrical, mechanical, radiation, psychological.
2. Assess risk. How likely is the hazard to cause harm? How severe is the harm?
3. Apply the hierarchy of control (most to least effective):
   • Elimination. Remove the hazard entirely.
   • Substitution. Replace with a safer alternative.
   • Engineering controls. Physical barriers, ventilation, shielding.
   • Administrative controls. Training, procedures, signage.
   • Personal protective equipment (PPE). Glasses, gloves, lab coat.
4. Document. Risk assessments are filed before the experiment and reviewed by the teacher or supervisor.

Australian context. Safe Work Australia and NSW WorkCover regulate workplace safety, and Safety Data Sheets (SDS) are required for every chemical used. Schools follow CECNSW or DET guidelines.

Ethical considerations

Different ethical frameworks apply depending on what is involved.

Human participants. The National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (NHMRC, ARC and Universities Australia, 2007 updated 2018) is the governing document.

• Informed consent. Voluntary, fully informed, written, revocable. Under-18 participants need parental consent.
• Privacy and confidentiality. De-identified data, secure storage.
• Minimising harm. Benefits must outweigh risks.
• Justice. Burdens and benefits of research distributed fairly.
• Vulnerable populations. Additional safeguards for children, Indigenous communities, prisoners, the mentally ill.

Animal subjects. The Australian Code for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes (NHMRC, 2013 updated 2024) governs animal research.

• The 3Rs principle: Replace animal use where possible with cell cultures or models; Reduce the number of animals used; Refine procedures to minimise suffering.
• Approval by an Animal Ethics Committee is required.
• Pain management and humane endpoints are mandatory.

Indigenous knowledge and sites. Research involving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander knowledge requires community consent, benefit-sharing and adherence to AIATSIS Code of Ethics. Cultural sites, sacred objects and traditional medicines have specific protocols.

Environmental impact. Field investigations must minimise harm to ecosystems. Sampling protocols, permit requirements (e.g. for protected species), and waste disposal are part of the ethical plan.

Ethics committees

Universities, research institutions and hospitals operate Human Research Ethics Committees (HRECs) and Animal Ethics Committees (AECs). No research can begin until the committee approves the protocol. NHMRC accredits committees and audits compliance.

Conflict of interest

Researchers must declare any conflict of interest before publication. Common conflicts include funding from a company whose product is being tested, prior employment by a stakeholder, or personal financial holdings related to the research.

Examples in context

Example 1. Lucas Heights low-level waste public consultation. ANSTO's plans for managing low-level radioactive waste at Lucas Heights and a proposed national repository involve formal public-consultation periods overseen by ARPANSA (the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency). The risk-assessment process applied the hierarchy of control: elimination not possible (waste already exists), substitution partial (smaller-volume vitrified forms replace bulk drums), engineering controls (multi-barrier disposal), administrative controls (licensing and inspection), and PPE for handling staff. Ethical considerations included community consent, intergenerational fairness for future custodians, and special protocols for sites of Aboriginal cultural significance near proposed locations. The case shows real-world application of the hierarchy and the ethical complexity of long-timeframe risks.

Example 2. AIATSIS code in Indigenous bush-food research. A University of Sydney project documenting the nutritional composition of Davidson plum (Davidsonia jerseyana), a Bundjalung Country fruit, requires AIATSIS Code of Ethics compliance before any sample collection. The research team negotiated a community agreement specifying community co-authorship, plant-collection protocols by Bundjalung Elders, benefit-sharing of any commercial outputs, and Indigenous community control over publication of culturally sensitive ecological information. NHMRC ethics approval was obtained in parallel for the laboratory analysis. The risk assessment covered field hazards (snake bite, heat stress, plant allergens) and laboratory hazards (solvent extraction). The case illustrates that ethics in modern Australian science is layered: human research ethics, environmental impact and Indigenous protocols all apply simultaneously.

Try this

Q1. Define the hierarchy of control in order from most to least effective. [3 marks]

• Cue. Elimination, substitution, engineering controls, administrative controls, PPE. Justify the ranking by referring to active vs passive protection.

Q2. A student plans to interview classmates about their COVID-19 vaccination status. List three ethical considerations and one practical mitigation for each. [3+3 marks]

• Cue. Informed consent (written, parental for under-18s); privacy (de-identification, no individual identification in report); vulnerable participants (right to skip questions and withdraw without penalty).

Q3. A medical researcher proposes a trial of a new asthma drug in children with severe asthma. (a) State the regulatory body that must approve the trial. (b) Outline how the 3Rs apply if mouse-model work precedes the trial. (c) Identify one situation in which the trial would not be ethical to run. [2+2+2 marks]

• Cue. (a) NHMRC-accredited HREC. (b) Replace (use cell culture where possible), reduce (minimum mice for statistical power), refine (humane endpoints). (c) If safer effective treatment already exists and trial subjects would be denied it.