“To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose” a time to report on ethical conduct, a
Mark Israel (AHRECS and Murdoch University) and Farida Fozdar (The University of Western Australia). There is considerable momentum behind the
Dr Ann-Maree Vallence and Dr Hakuei Fujiyama College of Science, Health, Engineering and Education, Murdoch University, Perth, Australia http://profiles.murdoch.edu.au/myprofile/ann-maree-vallence/ http://profiles.murdoch.edu.au/myprofile/hakuei-fujiyama/
Suat Chin Ng. MBBS, BMedSc, FRACS. Department of Surgery, Eastern Health, Melbourne, Australia. Wei Ming Ong MBBS Department of Surgery,
Question for Research Ethics Monthly readers: Win for your institution a new 12-month subscription to https://www.ahrecs.vip
Prof. Mark Israel and Dr Gary Allen We would like to encourage institutions to try out the ahrecs.vip set of
Nik Zeps and Tanya Symons AHRECS Consultant Breakthroughs in medicine often highlight the existing limitations of the frameworks established to
Nerida Quatermass | University Copyright Officer | Project Manager, Creative Commons Australia at Queensland University of Technology As a university
Lindsey Te Ata o Tu MacDonald AHRECS, Consultant In New Zealand, we have two separate drivers for change in
Last year, I was invited by Tracey Bretag to contribute a chapter to the
In this post, Gary Allen and Nik Zeps explore the human research ethics arguments and imperatives that only allow for the sharing of data, but establish a public good that can make sharing expected and essential.
This expectation should shape the approach to consent, the framing of assurances given to potential participants about confidentiality and e reflected in the application for research ethics review.
Research ethics committees and review bodies should be cognisant of these ethical arguments during the research ethics review of projects
Institutions must have clear policies and guidance material on data sharing.
We’re preparing to work on a new version of the subscribers’ area, so we’d
What do HREC members think and do when deciding about children’s participation in social research? Results from the MESSI survey
In this guest post, Associate Professor Stephanie Taplin (UTS) reflects upon the reflections and attitudes of members of a research ethics committee when reviewing a project involving sensitive issues, where the participants are young people.
She reflects upon the degree that this consideration is based upon standards and expectations that are often not transparent to researchers and can be an impediment to useful/important research.
This post is based upon a longer research output that was about research exploring those attitudes.
This included whether there were topics that a research ethics committee member would never approve for a research project to explore with young people.
This work points to the need for specialist professional development for committee members relating to research on sensitive issues with young people.
This also raises the question of what guidance material institutions publish for researchers and for reference by research ethics reviewers.
Subscribe to newsletter
The Research Ethics Monthly is a free monthly publication about human research ethics and research integrity. It is emailed to our subscribers generally towards the end of every month.
Research Ethics Monthly
No posts found.