The varying perceptions of a statistician’s value, from “critical” to “not needed for 99.9% of applications”: A study of human research ethics committees in Australia

Abstract Currently, much medical research is wasted due to inappropriate study design or analysis. Qualified statisticians are essential for ensuring ideal study design and analysis, and the ethical review process is an ideal stage for their input. We estimated the percentage of Australian ethics committees with access to a qualified statistician. Sixty percent of committees reported access to a qualified statistician, either as a full committee member or as a non-member who could be consulted when needed; however, when accounting for statistical qualifications this dropped to 35%. Many committees rely on “highly numerate” researchers in place of qualified statisticians, as they viewed research experience and advanced statistical training as equivalent. Many committees felt that improving study designs was not part of their remit. Some committee chairs viewed formal statistical input as essential; however, there was also a common belief that statistical review was only applicable to some study designs and that “simple” studies did not need review. There was a surprising variance in practice and attitudes towards the involvement of statisticians on research ethics committees. The high number of research studies that receive approval without statistical review risks approving studies that could cause harm due to flawed evidence. Peer Review https://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway/wos/peer-review/10.1162/QSS.a.479