Part of a comprehensive analysis of the Human Biomedical Research Act 2015
All Parts in This Series
Institutional Review Board Waivers under the Human Biomedical Research Act 2015: Key Provisions and Their Purpose
The Human Biomedical Research Act 2015 (HBRA) establishes a comprehensive regulatory framework to govern human biomedical research in Singapore. A critical aspect of this framework is the role of the Institutional Review Board (IRB) in safeguarding the rights and welfare of research subjects, particularly in relation to consent requirements. Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the HBRA set out the conditions under which an IRB may waive the requirement for obtaining appropriate consent for research involving human biological material or health information. This article examines these key provisions, explaining their purpose and the rationale behind each criterion.
Section 3: Waiver of Consent for Research Involving Individually-Identifiable Human Biological Material or Health Information
"3. Where the institutional review board is satisfied that — (a) the research cannot reasonably be carried out without the use of the human biological material or health information in an individually‑identifiable form; (b) the process of obtaining consent from the person, to which the individually‑identifiable human biological material or health information relates, will involve a disproportionate amount of effort and resources relative to the research requirements; (c) the use of the individually‑identifiable human biological material or health information (as the case may be) involves no more than minimal risk to the research subject or donor; (d) the waiver concerned will not otherwise adversely affect the rights and welfare of the research subject or donor; and (e) the human biomedical research or health information research would reasonably be considered to contribute to the greater public good." — Section 3, Human Biomedical Research Act 2015
Verify Section 3 in source document →
Section 3 empowers the IRB to waive consent when all five conditions are met. The provision recognizes that in certain research contexts, obtaining consent may be impractical or impossible, yet the research holds significant public value. The criteria ensure a balance between facilitating important research and protecting individual rights.
- Necessity of Identifiable Material: The research must require the use of human biological material or health information in an individually-identifiable form. This ensures that the waiver is not granted for research that could be conducted using anonymized data, thereby minimizing privacy risks.
- Disproportionate Effort: Obtaining consent would require an unreasonable amount of effort and resources relative to the research objectives. This criterion acknowledges practical challenges, such as tracing donors or subjects over long periods.
- Minimal Risk: The use of the material or information must pose no more than minimal risk to the subject or donor. This protects individuals from harm or significant privacy breaches.
- Protection of Rights and Welfare: The waiver must not adversely affect the rights and welfare of the research subjects or donors, ensuring ethical standards are maintained.
- Contribution to Public Good: The research should reasonably be expected to contribute to the greater public good, justifying the waiver in light of societal benefits.
These conditions collectively serve to uphold ethical research practices while enabling valuable biomedical research that might otherwise be hindered by consent requirements.
Section 4: Waiver of Consent for Use of Individually-Identifiable Health Information Obtained Before 1 November 2017
"4. Where the institutional review board is satisfied that — (a) the individually-identifiable health information was obtained or compiled before 1 November 2017; (b) the research cannot reasonably be carried out without the use of the health information in an individually‑identifiable form; (c) the use of the individually‑identifiable health information involves no more than minimal risk to the research subject; (d) the waiver concerned will not otherwise adversely affect the research subject’s rights and welfare; and (e) the process of obtaining consent from the person, to which the individually‑identifiable health information relates, will involve a disproportionate amount of effort and resources relative to the research requirements." — Section 4, Human Biomedical Research Act 2015
Verify Section 4 in source document →
Section 4 specifically addresses the use of individually-identifiable health information obtained or compiled before 1 November 2017. This date marks the commencement of the HBRA, and the provision acknowledges the practical difficulties in obtaining consent retrospectively for older data sets.
The conditions largely mirror those in Section 3, emphasizing minimal risk, protection of rights, and disproportionate effort in obtaining consent. The focus on pre-2017 data reflects a policy choice to facilitate research using legacy data while maintaining ethical safeguards.
Section 5: Waiver of Consent for Use of Individually-Identifiable Human Biological Material Obtained Before 1 November 2017
"5. Where the institutional review board is satisfied that — (a) the individually‑identifiable human biological material was obtained or compiled before 1 November 2017; (b) the research cannot reasonably be carried out without the use of the human biological material in an individually‑identifiable form; (c) the use of the individually‑identifiable human biological material involves no more than minimal risk to the research subject; (d) the waiver concerned will not otherwise adversely affect the research subject’s rights and welfare; and (e) reasonable effort has been made to re‑contact the person to which the individually‑identifiable human biological material relates for the purpose of obtaining his or her consent." — Section 5, Human Biomedical Research Act 2015
Verify Section 5 in source document →
Section 5 parallels Section 4 but applies to human biological material obtained before 1 November 2017. A notable distinction is the requirement that reasonable efforts be made to re-contact the individual for consent. This reflects the higher sensitivity associated with biological material compared to health information.
The provision balances the need to respect donor autonomy with the practical realities of conducting research on legacy biological samples. It ensures that researchers actively attempt to obtain consent before resorting to a waiver, thereby reinforcing respect for individual rights.
Absence of Definitions, Penalties, and Cross-References in Part 2
"No definitions are provided in the text of Part 2." — Part 2, Human Biomedical Research Act 2015
Verify source in source document →
"No penalties for non-compliance are specified in the text of Part 2." — Part 2, Human Biomedical Research Act 2015
Verify source in source document →
"No cross-references to other Acts are contained in the text of Part 2." — Part 2, Human Biomedical Research Act 2015
Verify source in source document →
Part 2 of the HBRA, which encompasses Sections 3 to 5, does not contain specific definitions, penalties, or cross-references to other legislation. This suggests that the provisions are intended to be read in the context of the broader Act, which contains the necessary definitions and enforcement mechanisms. The absence of penalties within this Part indicates that non-compliance with consent waiver conditions would likely be addressed under general provisions elsewhere in the HBRA.
Purpose and Policy Rationale Behind the Provisions
The waiver provisions in Sections 3, 4, and 5 serve several important policy objectives:
- Facilitating Valuable Research: By allowing consent waivers under strict conditions, the HBRA enables research that might otherwise be impossible due to logistical or ethical challenges in obtaining consent, particularly for retrospective studies.
- Protecting Research Subjects: The criteria ensure that waivers are only granted when risks are minimal and rights and welfare are not adversely affected, maintaining ethical standards.
- Respecting Donor Autonomy: Especially in Section 5, the requirement to make reasonable efforts to re-contact donors underscores the importance of consent and autonomy.
- Promoting Public Good: The emphasis on research contributing to the greater public good aligns with the broader societal interest in advancing biomedical knowledge and improving health outcomes.
These provisions reflect a nuanced approach that balances individual rights with the collective benefits of biomedical research.
Conclusion
Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the Human Biomedical Research Act 2015 provide a clear and ethically grounded framework for Institutional Review Boards to waive consent requirements under specific, carefully defined circumstances. These provisions recognize the complexities of biomedical research involving human biological material and health information, particularly in retrospective contexts, while safeguarding the rights and welfare of research subjects. Understanding these key provisions is essential for researchers, IRB members, and legal practitioners navigating the regulatory landscape of human biomedical research in Singapore.
Sections Covered in This Analysis
- Section 3, Human Biomedical Research Act 2015
- Section 4, Human Biomedical Research Act 2015
- Section 5, Human Biomedical Research Act 2015
- Part 2, Human Biomedical Research Act 2015 (general observations)
Source Documents
For the authoritative text, consult SSO.