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)

Constructive Voices Online Panels – National Statement session 22/11/2018 – Information for registrants0

Posted by Admin in Human Research Ethics on November 10, 2018 / Keywords: , , ,
 

To register for this event visit
https://zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_vwIWL16YT4S-lkMOXAxVtQ

Date Panel members Questions
National Statement  22/11/18
14:30 AEDT
MODERATOR
Mark Israel
.
Jeremy Kenner 
(NHMRC)
.
Wendy Rodgers (Chair NSRWG, Macquarie University)
.
Pamela Henry, ECU HREC Chair
.
Gary Allen (AHRECS)
.
1. Jeremy, what’s new and why does it matter?
.
2. Wendy, how could researchers use
and benefit from the changes?
.
3. Pam, how could HRECs use and
benefit from the changes?
.
4. Gary, what’s scary about the changes?

 

New South Wales Thursday, 22 November at 2:30:00 pm AEDT UTC+11 hours
Western Australia Thursday, 22 November at 11:30:00 am AWST UTC+8 hours
Australian Capital Territory Thursday, 22 November at 2:30:00 pm AEDT UTC+11 hours
Queensland Thursday, 22 November at 1:30:00 pm AEST UTC+10 hours
South Australia Thursday, 22 November at 2:00:00 pm ACDT UTC+10:30 hours
Northern Territory Thursday, 22 November at 1:00:00 pm ACST UTC+9:30 hours
Victoria/Tasmania Thursday, 22 November at 2:30:00 pm AEDT UTC+11 hours
New Zealand Thursday, 22 November at 4:30:00 pm NZDT UTC+13 hours

.
The panels run for 45 minutes. Each panellist has been asked to speak for five minutes on a particular question.

The panels will include a discussion of how institutions and researchers might best respond to the new Australian Code. The discussion will be partly based on

1. Questions submitted in advance to NSburningquestion@ahrecs.com – please consider doing so now, as it may allow panellists to provide you with better prepared answers

2. questions raised through the Q&A feature on Zoom

You’ll need to make sure that you have Zoom as an app on your device or access to Zoom on the internet. Login details will be sent to registrants.

You’ll have access to a website page after the seminar where panellists may leave further materials. We’ll also be distributing a questionnaire asking you about what worked, what didn’t work and what you’d like future sessions to cover.

I look forward to you joining the audience online.

Prof. Mark Israel
Moderator and AHRECS senior consultant

Constructive Voices Online Panels – Australian Code session 08/11/2018 – Information for registrants0

 

To register for this event complete the short form at https://zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_nsbPkzfbT6S4YWzeEekKxA

Date Panel members Questions
Australian Code

 

8th November at 14:30 AEDT MODERATOR
Mark Israel
.
Jillian Barr 
(NHMRC)
.
Kandy White (Expert Working Committee and Director, Research Ethics and Integrity, Macquarie University)
.
Gary Allen (AHRECS)
What are the responsibilities of institutions for implementation of the new Code?
.
What steps should institutions take to meet these responsibilities?
.
What would you like to see happen over the next two years in relation to the Code and Guides?

 

New South Wales Thursday, 8 November at 2:30:00 pm AEDT UTC+11 hours
Western Australia Thursday, 8 November at 11:30:00 am AWST UTC+8 hours
Australian Capital Territory Thursday, 8 November at 2:30:00 pm AEDT UTC+11 hours
Queensland Thursday, 8 November at 1:30:00 pm AEST UTC+10 hours
South Australia Thursday, 8 November at 2:00:00 pm ACDT UTC+10:30 hours
Northern Territory Thursday, 8 November at 1:00:00 pm ACST UTC+9:30 hours
Victoria/Tasmania Thursday, 8 November at 2:30:00 pm AEDT UTC+11 hours
New Zealand Thursday, 8 November at 4:30:00 pm NZDT UTC+13 hours

.
The panels run for 30 minutes. Each panellist has been asked to speak for five minutes on a particular question.

The panels will include a discussion of how institutions and researchers might best respond to the new Australian Code. The discussion will be partly based on

1. Questions submitted in advance to ACburningquestion@ahrecs.com – please consider doing so now, as it may allow panellists to provide you with better prepared answers

2. questions raised through the Q&A feature on Zoom

You’ll need to make sure that you have Zoom as an app on your device or access to Zoom on the internet. Login details will be sent to registrants.

You’ll have access to a website page after the seminar where panellists may leave further materials. We’ll also be distributing a questionnaire asking you about what worked, what didn’t work and what you’d like future sessions to cover.

I look forward to you joining the audience online.

Prof. Mark Israel
Moderator

Constructive Voices Online Panels0

 

The NHMRC, ARC and Universities Australia have had a busy 2018. Among other things, there is a new Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research and the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research has been revised.

AHRECS will be running two free Constructive Voices online panel discussions in November. The first will consider the new Australian Code (8th November) and the second the recent changes to the National Statement (22nd November).

Our observations of Australian institutions indicate it is easy either to do too much in response and end up with excessive bureaucratic requirements that make research harder, or do too little and risk institutional exposure to regulatory censure. The panels will last for 30 minutes and will include briefings from representatives of the NHMRC, and discussion of how institutions and researchers might best respond to the changes.

If you are interested in joining the online audience, you can register here where you will also find out more about the panellists. Details about joining the Zoom meeting will be circulated near the time.

If you would like to ask a question of the panel members, you can use the Q&A feature within Zoom during the meeting. However, you are more likely to gain a more considered answer if you email your question in advance to ACburningquestion@ahrecs.com (for the Australian Code) or  NSburningquestion@ahrecs.com (for the National Statement).

Feel free to circulate this message to interested colleagues. We look forward to the possibility of seeing you there.

Topic Date Panel members Questions
Australian Code

 

8th November at 14:30 AEDT Jillian Barr (NHMRC)

Kandy White (Expert Working Committee and Director, Research Ethics and Integrity, Macquarie University)
Colin Thomson (AHRECS)

What are the responsibilities of institutions for implementation of the new Code?

What steps should institutions take to meet these responsibilities?

What would you like to see happen over the next two years in relation to the Code and Guides?

National Statement 

 

22nd November at 14:30 AEDT Jeremy Kenner (NHMRC)

Wendy Rogers (Chair National Statement Review Working Group, Macquarie University)

Pamela Henry (Chair of ECU, Human Research Ethics Committee)
Gary Allen (AHRECS)

What’s new?

How could researchers use and benefit from the changes?

How could HRECs use and benefit from the changes?

 

The value of respect in human research ethics: a conceptual analysis and a practical guide0

 

Pieper, I J and Thomson CJH The value of respect in human research ethics: a conceptual analysis and a practical guide Monash Bioeth. Rev. (2014) 32:232–253

A Series on the Four Principles of the Australian National Statement on Ethics Conduct in Human Research

In this issues of the Research Ethics Monthly, Ian Pieper and Colin Thomson continue their series of short summaries of each of their four co-authored articles on the principles that underpin the Australian National Statement, namely, research merit and integrity, justice, beneficence and respect.

The articles were originally published in the Monash Bioethics Review and remain available to subscription holders to that journal. The publisher, Springer, has generously agreed to place each of the four articles on Free Access for one month after the corresponding short summary is published in the Research Ethics Monthly. Last month they revisited their paper entitledBeneficence as a Principle in Human Research.  This month they revisit the paper exploring the principle of respect for humans in the context of human research. The full paper can be found here.

Respect for human beings is an essential component of human research ethics.  It was emphasised in the Nuremberg code and has been continually recognised in all authoritative international and national guidelines since then.

Although primarily reflected in requirements for consent, the central concept is respect for personal autonomy, that is, for the capacity of individuals to be able to put their principles and values into practice. Sometimes the concept of dignity is added, recognising respect for a person’s ability to live in accordance with their desires and values and requiring more than a focus merely on consent.

Individual autonomy has both a volitional component, requiring a decision to be voluntary and not made under compulsion, threats or coercion, and a cognitive component requiring a decisionmaker to have both the capacity and sufficient information to make a decision.  It is important that all stakeholders involved in assessing consent in human research understand these foundational elements of ethically sound consent.

 

This paper outlines and discusses the guidance provided within the National Statement around what is sufficient information and how that should be disclosed, the need for adequate understanding, the assessment of capacity and the requirement of voluntariness including the relevance to decision-makers of relationships with others. The discussion of capacity includes consideration of circumstances involving children, people dependent on medical care or who may have cognitive impairments.

The requirement of voluntary choice and possible impacts from coercion, inducement, dependency, and vulnerability are examined.   In this context, the paper offers a reminder that respect requires more than a focus on consent.  It explores circumstances where a limited disclosure or waiver of the requirement for consent can be granted in order to facilitate important research in ways that are ethically justified.

Ian and Colin have produced an activity sheet to accompany this post. It can be found in the subscribers’ area (https://www.patreon.com/ahrecs). A subscription of only USD15/month (approx AUD21/month) provides access to a growing library of activity items, reflections on papers and news, and other resource items. At least two items are added to the library every month.  These are shared on a creative commons basis, so you are free to use them internally without otherwise engaging AHRECS. These items would ordinarily cost more than AUD500. So becoming an AHRECS patron not only helps AHRECS stay a constructive voice for change it’s a way to get access some terrific items for a great price.

Email gary.allen@ahrecs.com for further information.

Contributors:
Ian Pieper, AHRECS Consultant, Ian’s AHRECS profile
Colin Thomson AM, AHRECS Senior Consultant, colin.thomson@ahrecs.com | Colin’s AHRECS profile

This post may be cited as:
Pieper, I & Thomson C. (25  October 2018) The value of respect in human research ethics: a conceptual analysis and a practical guide. Research Ethics Monthly. Retrieved from: https://ahrecs.com/human-research-ethics/the-value-of-respect-in-human-research-ethics-a-conceptual-analysis-and-a-practical-guide

We invite debate on issues raised by items we publish. However, we will only publish debate about the issues that the items raise and expect that all contributors model ethical and respectful practice.

0