We respect you… we just don’t need to hear from you anymore: Should the consumer and their community participate in research as partners instead of just being subjects?
By Dr Gary Allen| Senior Policy Officer, Office for Research Griffith University | Ambassador Council the Hopkins Centre| Ambassador MS
Update on the new subscribers’ area
We are currently expecting the new service to go live prior to us sending the July 2019 edition of the Research Ethics
“Reminder about service options and an easy way to pay AHRECS,” we say… aware of how corporate sleazy that sounds
Dr Gary Allen, Senior Consultants AHRECS Prof. Mark Israel Prof. Colin Thomson AM . Just in time for the end of the
Is it something I said (or the way I said it)?
Dr Gary Allen, Senior Consultants AHRECS Prof. Mark Israel Prof. Colin Thomson AM . Reflecting on review feedback Feedback from the research
Research Ethics and the New Gene-editing Technology
Nik Zeps, Consultant, AHRECS Keywords: Ethical Review, International Guidelines, Gene editing technologies, It has now been over six months since
Complainant anonymity in misconduct proceedings depends on the forum
Prof. Colin Thomson AM, Senior Consultant, AHRECS This news item, while identifying the fact that the decision relates to court proceedings
A call for a national inquiry into the burden of research ethics and governance
Adrian Barnett, Queensland University of Technology . Do we need a national inquiry into the burden of research ethics and
Monitoring research is too important to be optional and too resource intensive to be manual
Dr Gary Allen, Senior consultant AHRECS | Profile | gary.allen@ahrecs.com The National Statement specifies researchers submitting self-completed ethical conduct reports as
Categories
Featured posts
The need for ethical guidance for research other than human research or animal-based scientific work
In this post, AHRECS Senior Consultant, Gary Allen, reflects on the fact that some research that does not require research ethics review from a Human Research Ethics Committee or an Animal Ethics Committee involve serious ethical questions that could benefit from guidance and ethical standards.
He uses four topical cases to illustrate why this is an important matter.
(1.) Kennewick Man and the ancient DNA (aDNA) furore – A case where there was an argument about the providence of an ancient body and whether it was subject to First Nation considerations.
(2.) Karl Andersson’s Masturbation Over Child Porn autoethnography project – A case that raised concern and commentary about the ethical oversight of research where there is potential for public harm.
(3.) Myanmar Amber Studies – A question about researchers purchasing amber samples from the country of Myanmar, when there are concerns that the revenue could be used to fund human rights abuses.
(4.) Artifical Intelligence Ethics Review – The use of Artificial Intelligence can have the potential for discrimination of marginalised communities and individuals. Given this potential for harm, it has been asked if there is a need for some form of ethics review of this work.
Worried your researchers might not be treating human research ethics as a core component of good research practice? Concerned they are not seeing it as their responsibility?
All of us might be part of the problem. Dr Gary Allen AHRECS Senior
What’s at risk? Who’s responsible? Moving beyond the physical, the immediate, the proximate, and the individual
Building the Conversation This month’s addition to the Building the Conversation series reflects upon
Reframing Indigenous consultation: engagement and risk management
Lindsey Te Ata o Tu MacDonald and commentary by Mandy Downing As a member
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.
Related Links
Research Ethics Monthly
No posts found.