Are you attending the ‘Constructive voices’ panel discussions in November about the 2018 changes to the Australian Code and National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research?
Just a reminder these online discussions are free, but you will need to RSVP. Details below. Recordings of the sessions
Justice in Human Research Ethics: A Conceptual and Practical Guide
Pieper, I. & Thomson, C.J.H. Justice in Human Research Ethics: A Conceptual and Practical Guide, Monash Bioethics Review I Volume
Contextualising Merit and Integrity within Human Research: A Summary
Pieper, I and Thomson, CJH (2011) Contextualising Merit and Integrity within Human Research, Monash Bioethics Review,Volume 29, Number 4, pp
New resources coming soon from AHRECS
AHRECS has always had two primary missions: to provide relevant and up-to-date information services on human research ethics and research
Australian Code 2018: What institutions should do next
Gary Allen, Mark Israel and Colin Thomson At first glance, there is much to be pleased about the new version
What’s been going on at AHRECS
We’re thrilled by how the AHRECS team has been growing and the expertise Sarah, Barry and Nik have brought to
The Research Ethics Adviser Platform is now live
We are delighted to announce that the beta test version of the Research Ethics Adviser Platform (REAP) is now live (https://ahrecs.com/about-this-service).
Professional Development across the Term of an HREC Committee Member
AHRECS has considerable experience working with universities, hospitals, research institutions, government and non-government organisations to care for and build the
Categories
Featured posts
Research Ethics as Gatekeeping in Justice Institutions
The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology has just published on OnlineFirst an
An argument for registers for research ethics committee members
In this great and very helpful post, Gary and Kim (from AHRECS) looks at the benefits of institutions establishing and keeping updated a register of their members.
Such a register could track, when a member was appointed to the committee, when their appointment is up for renewal and the maximum finish date for their appointment. It should also track the dates on which the member has participated in professional development.
Such a register can be a component of good governance with regards to the membership of a research ethics committee.
Maintaining a register of when members have participated in professional development activities can be a great way of reinforcing the expectation that members will regularly participate in professional development. There is of course a reciprocal obligation that institutions regularly conduct internal and fund participation and external professional development activities.
It is good practice for institutions to maintain a public register of the declaration of interest from members. At the very least, such a register should be easily accessible by members of the committee, but it is also recommended that the register be publicly available. Members should be encouraged to at least lodge their interests when they are first appointed and when their membership is renewed.
Is human research ethics review a form of out of date, inefficient and ineffective regulation?
As I reached page 35 of the latest NEAF application for the next HREC
When is research not research?
Most institutions have processes for differentiating between Quality Assurance/Quality Improvement (QA/QI) activities and those
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.