ACN - 101321555 Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Resource Library

Research Ethics MonthlyAbout Us

Human Research Ethics

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Should we Reframe Research Ethics as a Professional Ethics?0

 

Dr Nathan Emmerich
Research Fellow in Bioethics at ANUMS

Despite the fact that one of the urtexts of bioethics—Beauchamp and Childress’ principles of biomedical ethics—offers a set of concepts that purport to apply to both research and medical practice it is nevertheless the case that we standardly contrast research ethics with professional ethics. The operating presumption seems to be that a proper grasp of professional ethics requires an understanding of the unique role professional’s play, whereas the same cannot be said of research ethics. Here the presumption is that researchers are not unique but interchangeable. Furthermore, their individuality is inimical to good, and therefore ethical, research.

Whilst both healthcare professionals and researchers should be objective, the professional enters into a singular relationship with their patients. The position of the researcher can, however, be occupied by any relevantly qualified individual and their function is to report their scientific observations. Thus, underlying this contrast is an epistemological point. The perceived importance of the relationship between doctors and patients means that whilst the ethics of the preeminent profession, medicine, are predicated on professionalism they are equally predicated on something that is distinctively (inter)personal. In contrast, the notion that there might be an (inter)personal dimension to the relationship between researchers and research participants is inimical to the requirement for objectivity, at least for a certain value of objectivity.

COMMENTARY
Nik Zeps, AHRECS

.
In this thought-provoking blog, Nathan Emmerich challenges the notion that there is any distinction between research ethics and professional ethics when it comes to social science research. That is, the very nature of the enterprise requires that the researcher be deeply engaged in ethical discourse throughout the conduct of the study and not simply at a point in time to satisfy the regulatory requirements of ethics committees to obtain their approval. Whilst the argument is reserved for the social sciences, and there is some hesitancy to extend it beyond this, it is clear that the arguments made are true for all research, including biomedical. There is a reluctance to challenge notions about the divide between research and clinical practice that have been with us for over 50 years, but perhaps it is time to have a proper discussion about whether this is or is not applicable any longer. Patient centered research with an emphasis on co-design with consumers upends the notion that this type of research maintains a separation between researchers and research participants. Social science research provides an immediate opportunity for rethinking how we behave ethically, but biomedical research should follow hot on the heels.

Therein, of course, lies the rub. According to Stark, the differentiation between research ethics and professional ethics can be traced to the National Institute of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA, circa 1950. Given the existing competition between the codes of professional ethics promulgated by medicine’s sub-specialties, the nascent idea of a research ethics was conceived pragmatically and in aprofessional terms. When it came to biomedical research, and the epistemology of the natural sciences, this was not an issue. However, consistent with Schrag’s critique of the subsequent development of research ethics as neglecting concerns expressed by social scientists, this is more problematic when it comes to the social sciences, particularly at the more interpretive end of the spectrum.
.

In qualitative social science the unique perspective, position or standpoint of the researcher is essential to understanding socio-cultural reality and, therefore, to the process of conducting research. Furthermore, it is not something that can be eliminated by the use of (replicable) quantitative measures. This does not mean qualitative research cannot be objective. Rather, it means that the notion of objectivity differs between the natural and social sciences. Doing qualitative social science does not mean embracing subjectivity. Rather, it requires qualitative researchers to embrace epistemological reflexivity and to aim at objectivity as a value, virtue, or standpoint of social research.
.

When this is coupled with the fact that such research often seeks to give expression to the ‘lived experience’ of research participants, one can see how a concern for the (inter)personal must return to center stage in discussions of social scientific research ethics. One way of doing so would be to rethink the ethics of social scientific research as a form of professional ethics. Thus, rather than simply ‘frontloading’ ethical decision-making as a part of the design of proposed research, which can then be subject to peer review or evaluation by committee, we can more clearly acknowledge that engaging with the ethical dimension of research requires ongoing attention. The range of ethical issues researchers might encounter, both in the field and as a function of their role, are such that we cannot hope to fully address them preemptively. In this context, and consistent with the contemporary concern for the integrity of both research and researchers, we might draw on the idea of researchers as professionals and, in so doing, embrace the view that they ought to be guided by a set of internal professional norms or ethics.
.

Of course, this is not exactly a solution to the ethical issues social scientists might encounter in the course of research. It does, however, invite further engagement with such questions. Indeed, one can say more than this. Rather than thinking of the ethics of research as something to be addressed and codified by external commentators, such as bioethicists, the idea that research might benefit from a professional ethics invites researchers themselves to lead the discussion. No doubt questions remain, not least on what might constitute a profession or professional group in this context. Nevertheless, this proposal suggests that both professional groups and professional researchers should play a privileged role in creating, interpreting and putting into practice the substantive commitments of their own professional ethics. Furthermore, it is for them to set forth, justify and communicate the stance they adopt to other stakeholders.
.

This suggestion stands in relatively stark contrast to conceptions of research ethics, where external standards and evaluations are seen as having priority. To me, the difference is akin to the one we find when comparing research ethics committees and clinical ethics committees. The former tends to be rather one-sided; it assesses and offers judgment on research proposals or documents. The latter engages with professional actors and, through a process of mutual dialogue and discussion, facilitates and contributes to the individual’s own ethical formations. Which approach is more likely to promote the ethics and integrity of research, particularly social scientific research, seems self-evident.
.

Dr Nathan Emmerich is a Research Fellow in Bioethics at ANUMS. The ideas presented in this post stem from a book chapter entitled ‘A Professional Ethics for Researchers?’ (online first) recently published in Iphofen (Ed) Handbook of Research Ethics and Scientific Integrity (Springer) as well as an earlier publication ‘Reframing Research Ethics.

References:

Beauchamp, T.L., and J.F. Childress. 2009 [1979]. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. 6th Edition. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Emmerich, N. 2016 ‘Reframing Research Ethics: Towards a Professional Ethics for the Social Sciences’. Sociological Research Online 21(4):7 http://www.socresonline.org.uk/21/4/7.html

Emmerich, N. 2019. ‘A Professional Ethics for Researchers?’ In Iphofen, R. (Ed) Handbook of Research Ethics and Scientific Integrity. Springer. Online First: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76040-7_34-1

Iphofen, R. (Ed) Forthcoming 2020. Handbook of Research Ethics and Scientific Integrity. Springer, https://link.springer.com/referencework/10.1007/978-3-319-76040-7

Stark, L. 2011. Behind Closed Doors: IRBs and the Making of Ethical Research. University of Chicago Press. https://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/B/bo12182576.html

Schrag, Z.M. 2010. Ethical Imperialism: Institutional Review Boards and the Social Sciences, 1965–2009. The Johns Hopkins University Press. https://jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu/title/ethical-imperialism

This post may be cited as:
Emmerich, N. (1 October 2019) Should we Reframe Research Ethics as a Professional Ethics? Research Ethics Monthly. Retrieved from: https://ahrecs.com/human-research-ethics/should-we-reframe-research-ethics-as-a-professional-ethics

Ethics, Security and Privacy – the Bermuda Triangle of data management?0

 

Malcolm Wolski and Andrew Bowness
Griffith University

 

To manage sensitive research data appropriately, ethics, security and privacy requirements need to be considered. Researchers are traditionally familiar with ethics, but often have not considered the privacy and security pieces of the puzzle. Our reasons for making this statement are:

  • IT products used in research change rapidly
  • Legislation changes rapidly and there are jurisdictional issues
  • Most researchers are not legal or IT experts
  • No one teaches them enough basics to know what is risky behaviour

The recent revision to the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research (2018) on Management of Data and Information in Research highlights that it is not just the responsibility of a university to use best practice, but it is also the responsibility of the researcher. The responsible conduct of research includes within its scope the appropriate generation, collection, access, use, analysis, disclosure, storage, retention, disposal, sharing and re-use of data and information. Researchers have a responsibility to make themselves aware of the requirements of any relevant codes, legislation, regulatory, contractual or consent agreements, and to ensure they comply with them.

It’s a complex world

However, this is becoming an increasingly more complex environment for researchers. First, privacy legislation is dependent on jurisdiction of participants. For one example, a research project involving participants in Queensland is impacted by not only the Australian Privacy Act but also the Queensland version (Information Privacy Act 2009 Qld), and, if a participant or collaborator is an EU citizen, the General Data Protection Regulation (EU GDPR).

Secondly, cybersecurity and information security activities in universities have increased dramatically in recent times because of publicised data breaches and the impact of data breach legislation. If your research involves foreign citizens, you may also find foreign legislation impacting the type of response required.

Thirdly, funding agencies, such as government departments are increasingly specifying security and privacy requirements in tender responses and contracts.

These are having an impact on research project governance and practices, particularly for projects where the researcher has identified they are working with sensitive data. While the conversation typically focuses on data identified under the privacy acts as sensitive (e.g. Personally Identifiable Information (Labelled) under the Australian Privacy Act), researchers handle a range of data they may wish to treat as sensitive, whether for contractual reasons (e.g. participant consent, data sharing agreements) or for other reasons (e.g. ethical or cultural).

We have noticed an increasing trend within institutions where researchers are being required to provide more information on how they manage data as specified in a proposal or in a data sharing agreement. This typically revolves around data privacy and security, which is different from the ethics requirements.

What does “security” and “privacy” mean to the practitioner

IT security is more about minimising attack points though process or by using IT solutions to prevent or minimise the impacts of hostile acts or alternatively minimise impacts though misadventure (e.g. leaving a laptop on a bus). Data security is more in the sphere of IT and not researchers. This is reflected in which software products, systems and storage are “certified” to be safely used for handling and managing data classified as sensitive. IT usually also provides the identity management systems used to share data.

We have also noticed that researchers are relying on software vendors’ website claims about security and privacy which is problematic because most cloud software is running from offshore facilities which do not comply with Australian privacy legislation. Unless you are an expert in both Australian legislation and cybersecurity you need to rely on the expertise of your institutional IT and cybersecurity teams to verify vendors’ claims.

In the current environment, data privacy is more about mandated steps and activities designed to force a minimal set of user behaviours to prevent harm caused through successful attacks or accidental data breaches. It usually involves punishment to force good behaviour (e.g. see Data Breach Legislation for late reporting). Typically, data privacy is more the responsibility of the researcher. It usually involves governance processes (e.g. who has been given access to what data) or practices (e.g. what software products the team actually uses to share and store data).

What we should be worrying about

The Notifiable Data Breaches Statistics Report: 1 April to 30 June 2019 highlighted that only 4% of breaches, out of 254 notifications, were due to system faults, but 34% were due to human error and 62% due to malicious or criminal acts. Based on these statistics, the biggest risk associated with data breaches is where the data is in the hands of the end-user (i.e. the researcher) not with the IT systems themselves.

We argue the risks are also greater in research than the general population because of a number of factors such as the diversity of data held (e.g. data files, images, audio etc), the fluidity of the team membership, teams often being made up of staff across department and institutional boundaries, mobility of staff, data collection activities offsite, and the range of IT products needed in the research process.

For this discussion, the focus is on the governance and practice factor within the research project team and how this relates back to the ethics requirements when it has been highlighted that the project will involve working with sensitive data.

Help!!

We have worked closely with researcher groups for many years and have noticed a common problem. Researchers are confronted with numerous legislative, regulatory, policy and contractual requirements all written in terminology and language that bears little resemblance with what happens in practice. For example, to comply with legislation:

  • what does sending a data file “securely” over the internet actually look like in practice and which IT products are “safe”?
  • Is your university-provided laptop with the standard institutional image certified as “safe” for data classified as private? How do you know?
  • Is your mobile phone a “safe” technology to record interviews or images classified as private data? What is a “safe” technology for field work?

Within the university sector a range of institutional business units provide support services. For example, IT may provide advice assessing the security and privacy compliance of software, networked equipment or hardware infrastructure and the library may provide data management advice covering sensitive data. At our institution, Griffith University, the eResearch Services and the Library Research Services teams have been working closely with research groups to navigate their way through this minefield to develop standard practices fit for their purpose.

What we think is the best way forward

Our approach is to follow the Five Safes framework which has also been adopted by the Office of the National Data Commissioner. For example:

  • Safe People Is the research team member appropriately authorised to access and use specified data i.e. do you have a documented data access plan against team roles and a governance/induction process to gain access to restricted data?
  • Safe Projects Is the data to be used for an appropriate purpose i.e. do you have copies of the underlying data sharing/consent agreements, contracts, documents outlining ownership and licensing rights?
  • Safe Settings Does the access environment prevent unauthorised use i.e. do IT systems and processes support this and are access levels checked regularly?
  • Safe Data Has appropriate and sufficient protection been applied to the data i.e. what is it and does it commensurate with the level of risk involved?
  • Safe Outputs Are the statistical results non-disclosive or have you checked rights/licensing issues?

Expect to see a lot more of the Five Safes approach in the coming years.

References

Hardy, M. C., Carter, A., & Bowden, N. (2016). What do postdocs need to succeed? A survey of current standing and future directions for Australian researchers.2, 16093. https://doi.org/10.1057/palcomms.2016.93

Meacham, S. (2016). The 2016 ASMR Health and Medical Research Workforce Survey. Australian Society of Medical Research.

Contributors

Malcolm Wolski, Director eResearch Services, Griffith University

Andrew Bowness, Manager, Support Services, eResearch Services, Griffith University

This post may be cited as:
Wolski, M. and Bowness, A. (29 September 2019) Ethics, Security and Privacy – the Bermuda Triangle of data management?. Research Ethics Monthly. Retrieved from: https://ahrecs.com/research-integrity/ethics-security-and-privacy-the-bermuda-triangle-of-data-management

The need to seek institutional approval to survey staff – was this a misunderstanding of the purpose of Guideline 2.2.13 in the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research?0

 

Katherine (Kate) Christian, Carolyn Johnstone, Jo-ann Larkins and Wendy Wright
Federation University

 

We have conducted a research project investigating the factors contributing to the satisfaction – or dissatisfaction – of early-career researchers (ECRs) from across Australia working in the sciences. A requirement of our ethics approval was a need to provide evidence from every university and research institute of permission to approach their staff to invite their participation in our research.

This requirement was a consequence of answering ‘yes’ to the following question:

If your research involves participants from other organisations (e.g. educational institutions, companies, agencies, collectives), you may need to obtain authorised approval before approaching participants, eg: Department of Education and Training, School Principals, School Councils (for research involving Government schools); Catholic Education Office (Catholic schools); School Boards (Independent schools); Senior Officers (Commercial or Government entities); Elders (Aboriginal communities); or Representative bodies (Collectives). Copies of approval letters must be attached to this application or, if pending at the time of submission, forwarded to HREC when available. Some authorities may decline to provide permission letters until ethics approval has been granted. In such cases, you should submit your application to the HREC for provisional approval pending receipt of the documentation.

Does research involve or impact on participants from external agencies or organisations? Yes No

 

 

Our project entailed collection of data from researchers, typically from other institutions, no more than ten years past the award of their PhD who could be participants in a focus group, one-on-one in-depth interviews or in a national on-line survey. The precise method for extending invitations to participants for each of these activities (which included email invitations, social media posts, and advertising by relevant bodies) was specified in the ethics application and approved by our Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC). In most cases email approaches were to be made by third parties, for example distribution of a forwarded email; otherwise email contact was limited to those people whose contact details were known or publicly available.

The eligible population was adult, clearly defined and without special risks; individuals were able to offer informed consent as defined in the overarching principle for consent in the National Statement defined in Section 2.2.1:

The guiding principle for researchers is that a person’s decision to participate in research is to be voluntary, and based on sufficient information and adequate understanding of both the proposed research and the implications of participation in it.

An attempt to meet the requirement to seek approval for people to be invited to take part in the survey from the prospective 37 universities and many independent research institutes was extremely arduous and a significant barrier to recruitment. We question whether seeking this approval added ethical value, and indeed, whether it may have been required because of a misunderstanding of the purpose of the National Statement, in particular of Section 2.2.13:

Within some communities, decisions about participation in research may involve not only individuals but also properly interested parties such as formally constituted bodies, institutions, families or community elders. Researchers need to engage with all properly interested parties in planning the research.

Section 2.2.13 of the National Statement is placed in the section ‘Where others need to be involved in participation decisions’ and appears directly after a section relating to potential participants who lack the capacity to consent. This requirement appears on the documentation of some other Australian HRECs, (including Australian Catholic University, University of Melbourne,  Menzies Research Institute). However, we believe this section of the National Statement is intended to apply to research conducted within organisations and communities that have a duty of care towards people – or groups of people – who are at risk, such as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, school students or adults with special needs.

Alternatively, it could be construed the request to obtain approval is a misunderstanding of the first part of 3.1.16 and that HRECs take the view that the institutions, in their capacity as employers, have a duty of care as ‘gatekeepers’ for their employees.

Researchers and reviewers should consider the degree to which potential participant populations might be over‑researched or may require special consideration or protection and the degree to which the flow of benefits to that population (or to individual participants) justify the burdens.

The latter part of this section suggests that individuals within the ECR population that we were attempting to sample could have been permitted to make up their own minds about participation, as they do not fall into the type of special category suggested.

Equally, people should not be denied the opportunity to exercise self-determination or obtain the potential benefits of research solely because they are a member of a population that might be over-researched or may require special consideration or protection, such as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

The literature about the work-life of ECRs in STEMM disciplines in Australia does not show evidence of an over-researched ECR population or a group which merits special consideration. We are aware of only two national surveys of Australian ECRs in STEMM in recent years (Hardy, Carter, & Bowden, 2016, Meacham, 2016).

If any university staff member received an invitation to participate from an external researcher, whether directly or forwarded from an internal address, it is unlikely they would have wondered if either the researcher, or they, needed permission from the organization. Instead, they would make an individual decision on participation or otherwise, and act accordingly.

We used several recruitment strategies. Since all the potential participants worked at universities and research institutes, a direct approach to these entities provided the logical and, indeed, preferred avenue. Organisations and associations whose members were likely to represent the target audience were also approached; these ‘umbrella’ groups were very supportive ofrequests for assistance with recruitment of participants and, more generally of the research. They extended an invitation to their members on behalf of the project team via broadcast email and social media. Another HREC-approved method of recruitment was via social media. Social media, which has no boundaries, proved itself to be a successful avenue for recruitment and due to its very nature and culture of sharing brought in responses from prospective participants based at many universities from which we had received no response to our initial request for approval to recruit their staff. Such responses did not violate ethics requirements, again bringing into question the merits of seeking institutional approval.

We did not interpret the requirement to obtain approval as being necessary for the ‘umbrella’ organisations as they do not have the same responsibility for, or duty of care to, the ECRs. This highlights another anomaly in the interpretation of the guidelines: what constitutes ‘an organisation’ from which approval might be required? So saying, we interpreted the ready agreement of these organisations to share the invitation, whether by distributing the link by email or by promoting it on social media, as implicit approval.

We recommend that HRECs amend their forms to permit researchers to offer further explanation about the nature of the people being recruited and their capacity to freely make a consent decision so that the Committee members can make appropriate decisions about the need for institutional approvals. We argue that these approvals should only be required when the research participants need a particular level of protection.

References

Hardy, M. C., Carter, A., & Bowden, N. (2016). What do postdocs need to succeed? A survey of current standing and future directions for Australian researchers.2, 16093. https://doi.org/10.1057/palcomms.2016.93

Meacham, S. (2016). The 2016 ASMR Health and Medical Research Workforce Survey. Australian Society of Medical Research.

Contributors

Katherine Christian, Federation University Australia School of Arts, Mt Helen Campus, Ballarat, Victoria

Carolyn Johnstone, Federation University Australia School of Arts, Mt Helen Campus, Ballarat, Victoria

Jo-ann Larkins, Federation University Australia School of Science, Engineering and Information Technology, Gippsland Campus, Churchill, Victoria

Wendy Wright, Federation University Australia School of Health and Life Sciences, Gippsland Campus, Churchill, Victoria[MI3]

Sources

Menzies Research Institute
https://www.menzies.edu.au › Research › Forms › HREC_Application_Form

Australian Catholic University
https://www.acu.edu.au/research/research-ethics-integrity-and-compliance/research-ethics
https://www.acu.edu.au › assets › Ethics_Guidelines_revised_March_2012

University of Melbourne
https://staff.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/1977543/HRE-Application-Guidance-V-1.1.pdf

This post may be cited as:
Christian, K., Johnstone, C. Jo-ann Larkins, J. and Wright, W. (17 September 2019) The need to seek institutional approval to survey staff –was this a misunderstanding of the purpose of Guideline 2.2.13 in the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research?. Research Ethics Monthly. Retrieved from: https://ahrecs.com/human-research-ethics/the-need-to-seek-institutional-approval-to-survey-staff-was-this-a-misunderstanding-of-the-purpose-of-guideline-2-2-13-in-the-national-statement-on-ethical-conduct-in-human-research

Smarter proportional research ethics review0

 

Rushing toward a faster review decision should not mean relaxing standards or playing chicken with stricter central control

Gary Allen, Mark Israel and Colin Thomson

Too often, there is a danger that ‘expedited ethical review’ (a term not used in the National Statement since 1999) might equate to an approach that abridges the review process to the point where it’s little more than a friendly exchange between peers or a nod to seniority. We won’t call out the well-reported cases where it is hard to fathom how they were granted ethics approval. Such cases should make us uncomfortable, because they are invitations to replace institutional self-regulation with something hasher and unsympathetic.

Don’t get us wrong, we’ve spoken often and enthusiastically about the value of well-designed proportional review arrangements. We have assisted many clients, large and small, to design and implement such arrangements and believe that they form part of a well-conceived review system.

A proportional review arrangement can deliver a review outcome much faster than consideration by a human research ethics committee, but instead of a ‘Claytons’ or mock-review, it should have the following features:

  1. While there can, and should, be a mechanism to do an automated quick self-assessment of whether a proposed project qualifies for ethics review other than by a research ethics committee, the process should:
    1. not rely on questions along the lines of “Is this a low risk research project?”
    2. draw on, reference and link to guidance material.
    3. when using trigger questions, ensure they are nuanced, with probing sub-questions.
    4. include confirmation of a quick assessment by an experienced ethics officer or chairperson.
    5. retain an applicant’s responses, both as a record of what they said about the project, and for future evaluation of whether the arrangement is correctly assessing new projects and guiding applications along the correct review pathway.
  2. The process should preferably be online, easily (re)configurable, easily auditable, with information entered by applicants and ‘triaged’ by an ethics officer.
  3. A quality online system will populate committee papers and reports, will issue reminders and will populate with known information.
  4. While many projects may be reviewed outside of the human research ethics committee, the reviews should be conducted by experienced persons, who participate in annual professional development and who can draw upon internal and external policy and resource material.

In Australia, an institution’s proportional review arrangements might include the following pathways:

  1. Prior review– Research that has already been reviewed by another HREC, appropriately delegated review body, or an international body equivalent to an Australian research ethics review body.
  2. Scope checker– A test to confirm whether a proposed project is in fact human research.
  3. Exemption test– A test to determine whether the proposed research is a type an institution could exempt from ethics review as per the National Statement.
  4. HREC review required test– A test to confirm whether the research project is of a type the National Statement specifies must be reviewed by a HREC.
  5. Institutional exemption test– Many institutionsexempt some categories of human research from research ethics review (e.g. universities often exempt course evaluations and practical activities for a teaching-learning purpose).
  6. Negligible risk research– Subject to qualifying criteria an institution might establish a negligible risk review pathway in which applications are considered administratively.
  7. Low-risk, and minimal ethical issue research– Subject to qualifying criteria, proposed projects that are low risk and have minimal ethical sensitivity could be reviewed by the chair of the research ethics committee.
  8. Low-risk, some ethical issue research– Again subject to qualifying criteria, proposed projects that are low risk but have some ethical sensitivity could be reviewed by a small panel of the research ethics committee (including external member of the committee).
  9. HREC review – Only human research (see 2), that has not previously been reviewed (see 1) that is not exempt (see 3 and 4) and has not been classified as negligible risk (see 6) or low risk (see 7 and 8) needs to be reviewed by HREC.

An arrangement with the features listed above would allow for review that is proportional, timely, efficient and justifiable. Reviews that are merely expedited or fast places us all at risk. The increasing examples of “how could that have been approved?” makes it feel as though some institutions are gambling that a desire to meet researchers’ calls for quick, if superficial, review won’t be exposed by unethical practice. Perhaps they are correct, but every new reported review misstep makes us more nervous. Realistically, establishing a nationally administered reliable, robust and agile proportional review process requires substantial investment of time and other resources so is unlikely to happen.  But, what poor review processes could do is invite far more detailed direction on how institutions can design, conduct and monitor processes outside of a HREC. In our experience, there are greater and longer-lasting benefits that can accrue from an institution having a high quality approach to proportional review.

The above is a summary of the discussion we typically include in blueprint documents about establishing a robust proportional review arrangement. We have included some further notes on this topic on our https://www.ahrecs.vip and Patreon pages.

Please contact us at proportional@ahrecs.com if you would like to discuss how we might assist your institution.

This post may be cited as:
Allen, G., Israel, M. & Thomson, C. (26 August 2019) Smarter proportional research ethics review.  Research Ethics Monthly. Retrieved from: https://ahrecs.com/human-research-ethics/smarter-proportional-research-ethics-review

0