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
Artificial Intelligence
Arts
Australia
Authorship
Belief
Beneficence
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
Evaluative practice/quality assurance
First People
Fraud
Gender
Genetics
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
Serious Adverse Event
Social Science
SoTL
Standards
Supervision
Training
Vulnerability
Young people
Exclude news

Sort by

Human Research Ethics Research Integrity

Research Ethics Monthly | ISSN 2206-2483

Is it time to extend the required membership of research ethics committees?

Posted by Dr Gary Allen
in Human Research Ethics
on September 23, 2020
0 Comments
Keywords Data,Ethical review,Good practice,Institutional Responsibilities,Participant protection,Respect for persons
Committee table with arms on a large wooden table

Dr Gary Allen

It doesn’t seem so long ago that all that HRECs in Australia needed to do was consider a project through the frame of four core principles (merit + integrity, beneficence, justice, and respect).  Section 1 of the National Statement called upon us to judge whether a project was justified with respect to those core principles.

In 2018, the new Chapter 3.1 made it easier to pivot that discussion to the elements of a project’s design.  It helped provide a common frame for talking about the ethical considerations of a project’s design.

For those of us that have been around a while (I just passed my 23rd anniversary in research ethics), it is fundamentally the same review task as it was in 1999. Arguably, it is just that the tools and language have been refined.  This is especially true for qualitative designs, action research, research in the broad social sciences, humanities and the fine arts.

So, tweaked but still substantially the same job.

But, if you’ve been following the AHRECS newsroom and Resource Library these last few years you may have noticed some troubling questions being posed:

  1. Can individuals be identified, even without obvious identifiers (see this item,  this item and this item).
  2. How successful will the strategies be to mask identity, mitigate risk and to protect the data?

These questions need to be answered in an environment where the processing power of consumer electronics, even in the ubiquitous smartphones most of us carry, far outperform what was available five years ago. Add to this big data, geo-tagging, facial recognition and social media and the landscape looks starkly different.

In addition, research ethics committees also need to consider the growing movement towards Indigenous data sovereignty.

So, even if the questions that we ask may be the same, the expertise that we need to answer them may have changed. As a result, our review process may no longer be fit for purpose.

I would like to put forward the idea that we need to extend the membership of research ethics committees:

  1. Data Scientist, computer security or big data specialist;
  2. Indigenous researcher.[1]

What do you think? Are there other forms of expertise that need to be represented on particular kinds of committees? Have other social norms (such as attitudes to non-binary gender) changed to the point that other categories of membership in the National Statement now appear out of date?

We would be thrilled to hear from you so that we can extend this discussion in a later edition.

[1] This position isn’t to help the committee to review Indigenous research, but to help the committee to identify whether a project that describes itself as non-Indigenous really is in fact Indigenous research and so requires specialist review.  We hope to do a longer discussion about First People membership on research ethics committees in a future edition.

This post may be cited as:
Allen, G. (23 September 2020) Is it time to extend the required membership of research ethics committees? Research Ethics Monthly. Retrieved from: https://ahrecs.com/is-it-time-to-extend-the-required-membership-of-research-ethics-committees/

 

Related reading

A checklist to assist a supervisor to check a candidate’s research ethics review application

Can I use your answers anyway?

A users perspective on the ethics application process in Australia-room for improvement

A preliminary geneaology of research ethics review and Māori

“Reminder about service options and an easy way to pay AHRECS,” we say… aware of how corporate sleazy that sounds

Can Your HREC Benefit from Coaching?

“More what you’d call guidelines”

Disaster Research and its Ethical Review

‘Don’t mention the c word: Covert research and the stifling ethics regime in the social sciences’

Can you hear us? The Queensland experience of health research with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

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

About the Author

Admin

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.

  • Home
  • Services
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
Menu
  • Home
  • Services
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Company
  • Terms Of Use
  • Copyright
  • Privacy Policy
  • Disclaimer
Menu
  • Company
  • Terms Of Use
  • Copyright
  • Privacy Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • Support
  • Contact Us
  • Site Map
Menu
  • Support
  • Contact Us
  • Site Map

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Facebook-f
Twitter
Linkedin-in