Distinguish the activities before recruiting participants
A team may be conducting research, developing a product and finding customers at the same time. These activities can support one another, but participants may understand their purposes differently. Agreeing to discuss a work process is not automatically consent for recordings, logs or personal information to be used in other research, model training or public promotion.
Before recruitment, explain the actual plan to the responsible researcher: who participates, what they do, what is recorded, who receives it and its intended uses. If the classification is uncertain, seek the applicable university determination. Calling something a product trial or market interview does not create an exemption.
HKU's HREC page describes the route for relevant academic or research staff and research-student principal investigators outside Medicine and Dentistry whose research involves human participants. Required approval precedes data collection or analysis. Medical, dental and patient-related studies need their appropriate route checked separately. HKU HREC guidance
Not recording names does not settle the review question
The HREC FAQ expressly addresses research without names and use of existing information. Neither fact alone establishes exemption. Explain the information's actual content, collection and purpose rather than relying on an anonymous label. HREC FAQ
This matters for research-led ventures because a pilot may generate voice, images, usage logs or interview material. Even without names, teams should know what leaves the collection setting and which partners can access it. This article does not determine whether a particular dataset is anonymised or meets privacy law.
Undergraduates, taught postgraduates and research postgraduates should not assume identical submission paths. The FAQ distinguishes departmental, faculty and HREAS arrangements. Confirm the current route for the person's role instead of copying someone else's application process.
An application reference is not an approval
The FAQ separately explains assignment of an HREC reference upon submission and notification of approval with a formal approval document. A reference entered in a project spreadsheet does not, by itself, establish permission to start.
Keep proposal, submission, reviewer comments and approval-with-scope as separate states. A booked product demonstration or a partner's availability should not turn a submission into an approval. Published normal processing times have conditions, including complete materials, and are not a guaranteed timetable for an individual study. No turnaround promise is made here.
Explain the company partner's access to information
The following is a hypothetical non-clinical device-use study, not an actual HKU or Jimhang Capital project or an official checklist.
| Pilot arrangement | What researchers should explain | What the company should clarify |
|---|---|---|
| Recruitment and participation | Who participates, invitation and activities | Recruitment owner and any power relationship |
| Recording and analysis | Data recorded and original purposes | Access to raw material and work requiring it |
| Product use | Actual device version and procedure | Whether engineering changes alter the protocol |
| Presenting results | Research, internal improvement or external communication | Any separate permission, consent or university determination |
| Document status | Approval scope, period and conditions | Document owner and amendment responsibility |
Research participation or a supplier role does not automatically give a company all raw data, commercial-use rights or permission for publicity photographs. Align access with the protocol, participant arrangements and applicable agreements. Do not expand use retrospectively by calling everything project information.
Changes need to be checked against the approved scope
Adding recording, changing participants, extending uses or altering procedures may change the study described. HREC provides an amendment route for approved projects. Continued collection or analysis beyond expiry also needs an extension addressed in advance. The institution should determine what is required, not the supplier acting alone.
For existing data, the FAQ asks how present purposes and use align with the original collection arrangements, and addresses renewed informed consent for a new purpose involving pre-existing data with personal identifiers. A consent form from one study is not a pass for every future product use.
Ethics review and commercialisation do not replace each other
Do not present ethics approval as university certification of efficacy, market access or commercial value. Funding, a technology licence or an industry collaboration likewise does not replace ethics review. HKU's research-integrity policy separately addresses fabrication, falsification and unauthorised data use. Research-integrity policy
For Hong Kong research and Shenzhen engineering partners, maintain a shared account of engineering changes, participant arrangements and external claims. Market validation seeks real needs; research records should also preserve results that do not support the original assumption. Our research-to-market evidence guide and technology-licensing discussion address different questions.
Jimhang Capital can discuss non-confidential pilot objectives, product stage and engineering needs for resource coordination. It does not replace a university ethics committee, request unauthorised participant data or imply an existing HKU partnership.
Contact Justin Zhan · About Jimhang Capital · Justin Zhan profile
Sources reviewed on 22 October 2026. AI-assisted website editorial analysis, not a verbatim statement by Justin Zhan or an official HKU view. A webpage update date is not a new policy commencement date. Study classification, ethics route, data uses and legal requirements need institutional and appropriate professional review.