Skip to content

ACN - 101321555 | ABN - 39101321555

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

AHRECS icon
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Consultants
    • Services
  • Previous Projects
  • Blog
  • Resources
  • Feeds
  • Contact Us
  • More
    • Request a Quote
    • Susbcribe to REM
    • Subscribe to VIP
Menu
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Consultants
    • Services
  • Previous Projects
  • Blog
  • Resources
  • Feeds
  • Contact Us
  • More
    • Request a Quote
    • Susbcribe to REM
    • Subscribe to VIP
Exclude terms...
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
AHRECS
Analysis
Animal ethics
Animal Ethics Committee
Animal handling
Animal housing
Animal Research Ethics
Animal Welfare
ANZCCART
Artificial Intelligence
Arts
Australia
Authorship
Belief
Beneficence
Big data
Big data
Biobank
Bioethics
Biomedical
Biospecimens
Breaches
Cartoon/Funny
Case studies
Clinical trial
Collaborative research
Conflicts of interest
Consent
Controversy/Scandal
Controversy/Scandal
Creative
Culture
Data management
Database
Dual-use
Essential Reading
Ethical review
Ethnography
Euthanasia
Evaluative practice/quality assurance
Even though i
First People
Fraud
Gender
Genetics
Get off Gary Play man of the dog
Good practice
Guidance
Honesty
HREC
Human research ethics
Humanities
Institutional responsibilities
International
Journal
Justice
Links
Media
Medical research
Merit and integrity
Methodology
Monitoring
New Zealand
News
Online research
Peer review
Performance
Primary materials
Principles
Privacy
Protection for participants
Psychology
Publication ethics
Questionable Publishers
Research ethics committees
Research integrity
Research Misconduct
Research results
Researcher responsibilities
Resources
Respect for persons
Sample paperwork
sd
se
Serious Adverse Event
Social Science
SoTL
Standards
Supervision
Training
Vulnerability
x
Young people
Exclude news

Sort by

Animal Ethics Biosafety Human Research Ethics Research Integrity

Research Ethics Monthly | ISSN 2206-2483

Confidence versus mandatory reporting

Posted by Dr Gary Allen
in Research Integrity
on June 18, 2021
0 Comments
Keywords Australia,Breach,Good practice,Governance,Institutional Responsibilities,Research Integrity,Resourcing practice
A menacing man in shadow holding a finger to his lips

Dr Gary Allen

4.4 Ensure that any potential breaches of the Code are reported
…in instances where the concerned party does not wish to report the suspected breach, and the RIA has reason to believe a breach of the Code has occurred, the RIA has a responsibility to report the potential breach to the RIO. (Draft Good Practice Guide for Research Integrity Advisors, 2021)

The NHMRC is currently conducting a consultation on the proposed good practice guide for Research Integrity Advisers.

The draft indicates that an advisor must report a breach of the Australian Code if they know the details of the breach. To do otherwise would itself be a breach of the Code. Advisers are told helpfully to advise researchers to speak in hypotheticals, lest the adviser be obligated to report the matter to the institution.

This has me hot under the collar.

Allow me to explain why. A collegiate RIA network has the capacity to create, nurture and support a community of practice for research integrity in an institution. This rests on researchers being able to check their practice with an RIA, receive advice and improve their practice. It should also involve researchers being able to check the behaviour of their peers, mentors and supervisors with the RIA to confirm they are appropriate, or whatever they should be gently prompting a change in their peer’s practice.

The idea such conversations could be framed as hypotheticals feels like something that should be the stuff of theatre farce.

Setting aside the silliness and the thought acrobatics that would ensue, this positions the role of RIAs as agents in an enforcement and punishment system rather than as focussed on improving collective practice.

I concede there are matters which an RIA should be obliged to report. Behaviour that is clearly illegal, involves imminent harm or serious institutional risk, should be immediately reported. But the RIA should be helped identify whether such a situation exists.

An instruction that they must report any breaches if they know the details is unlikely to improve an institution’s research culture. It is hard to imagine too many people wanting to serve in such a role or others being confident and comfortable in seeking their advice.

These are my own views and I feel them strongly.

This post may be cited as:
Allen, G. (18 June) Confidence versus mandatory reporting. Research Ethics Monthly. Retrieved from: https://ahrecs.com/confidence-versus-mandatory-reporting/

Related reading

A poor call and two missed opportunities, but otherwise not a bad proposed revision to NS s5

Hong Kong Principles

What are questionable research practices as reported by ECRs in STEMM in Australia?

New research integrity professional development resource

Griffith University’s implementation of the Australian Code (2018)

Australian Code 2018: What institutions should do next

A code of ethics to get scientists talking – Nature (Editorial | February 2018)

Cracking the Code: Is the Revised Australian Code likely to ensure Responsible Conduct of Research?

Review of the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research

We would all benefit from more research integrity research

Institutional approaches to research integrity: Tilting at blazing windmills?

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

About the Corresponding Author

Dr Gary Allen

Sp-user Link
Gary has been practicing in the global Research Integrity sphere for over 21 years and is a senior consultants at AHRECS
Facebook-f Twitter Linkedin-in Sp-mail User

About the blog

The senior consultants started AHRECS in 2007. We were looking for a way of responding to requests for advice on research ethics and integrity from the government, health and education sectors read more…

Comment rules

We decided to include comment functionality in the Blog because we want to encourage the Research Integrity and Human Research Ethics communities to contribute to public discourse about resourcing and improving practice. read more…

Related Links

Complaints against Research Ethics Monthly

Request a Takedown

Submission Guidelines

About the Research Ethics Monthly

About subscribing to the Research Ethics Monthly

A smiling group of multi-racial researchers

Random selected image from the AHRECS library. These were all purchased from iStockPhoto. These are images we use in our workshops and Dr Allen used in the GUREM.

Research Ethics Monthly Receive copies of the Research Ethics Monthly directly
by email. We will never spam you.

  • Enter the answer as a word
  • Hidden
    This field is hidden and only used for import to Mailchimp
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
  • Home
  • Services
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Home
  • Services
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Company
  • Terms Of Use
  • Copyright
  • Privacy Policy
  • Company
  • Terms Of Use
  • Copyright
  • Privacy Policy
  • Site Map
  • Site Map

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Facebook-f Twitter Linkedin-in