ACN - 101321555 Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)
Generic filters
Exact text matches only
Search into
Filter by Categories
Research integrity
Filter by Categories
Human Research Ethics

Resource Library

Research Ethics MonthlyAbout Us


Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

(South Africa) University of Pretoria Code of Ethics for Research (Released 2007, updated 2017)0

Posted by Admin in on April 5, 2018

We were impressed by the Pretoria Code because of its approach to social responsibility. Together with the discussion of how social responsibility as a component of research ethics operates in South Africa, it is interesting, particularly the need to engage with, but also remain independent of, government priorities. The recognition that there are different concepts of justice is more sophisticated than discussions in many other national frameworks (including the Australian National Statement).


The University of Pretoria gives high priority to research as one of the primary functions of the university community.

It pursues a research ethos that promotes excellence as well as ethical responsibility in the search for and the creation, conservation and transfer of knowledge.

Consequently, researchers at the University are required to pursue the highest standards of excellence and ethical behaviour in all their research activities…

Access the Code






1. The rights of researchers

1.1 Academic freedom
1.2 Research environment
1.3 Facilities, services and other resources

2. The responsibilities of researchers

2.1 Social responsibility
2.2 Justice
2.3 Benevolence
2.4 Respect for the individual
2.5 Professionalism
2.6 Refraining from discrimination
2.7 Refraining from abusing supervisory authority
2.8 Refraining from sexual harassment


1. Researchers and South African society

1.1 South African society
1.2 The government of the day
1.3 The environment

2. Researchers and clients or funders of research

2.1 Conflict of interests
2.2 Confidentiality of research results
2.3 Financial obligations
2.4 Equipment control
2.5 Funds for new fields of research

3. Researchers, the University and the broad science community

3.1 General conduct
3.2 Academic misconduct
3.3 Conflict of interests
3.4 Intellectual property

4. Researchers and their colleagues or collaborators

4.1 Authorship
4.2 Selecting research partners
4.3 Assisting with the research of others
4.4 Health and safety

(Norway) Guidelines for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences, Humanities, Law and Theology – NESH (Guidelines | 2016)0

Posted by Admin in on April 3, 2018

The three National Research Ethics Committees (NEM, NENT and NESH) were established in 1990, based on the Proposition to the Storting No. 28 (1988–1989) Om forskning. In 2007, the Research Ethics Act provided a legal mandate for the three committees and also for the establishment of a National Commission for the Investigation of Research Misconduct. With effect from 1 January 2013, the Norwegian National Research Ethics Committees (FEK) was established as an independent administrative agency under the Ministry of Education and Research. The three committees and the commission are part of the admin- istrative agency, and they all have a central role promoting research ethics in the national research system.

The National Committee for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences and the Humanities (NESH) is an impartial advisory body established to provide guidelines for research ethics and to promote good and responsible research.

The first version of NESH’s guidelines was adopted in 1993 and later amended in 1999 and 2006. The present round of revision has been discussed in NESH since 2013, and a new version was sent on national consultation in May 2015. This is the fourth edition of NESH’s Guidelines for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences, Humanities, Law and Theology.1…


Research ethics
Ethical guidelines and legislation
Other institutions and authorities

A) Research, society and ethics
1 Norms and values of research
2 Freedom of research
3 Responsibility of research
4 Responsibility of institutions

B) Respect for individuals
5 Human dignity
6 Privacy
7 Duty to inform
8 Consent and obligation to notify
9 Confidentiality
10 Limited re-use
11 Storage of personal data
12 Responsibility for avoiding harm
13 Respect for third parties
14 Protection of children
15 Respect for privacy and family life
16 Respect for the values and motives of others
17 Respect for posthumous reputations
18 Defining roles and responsibilities

C) Respect for groups and institutions
19 Respect for private interests
20 Respect for public administration
21 Respect for vulnerable groups
22 Preservation of cultural monuments and remains
23 Research on other cultures
24 Limits on cultural recognition

D) The research community
25 Co-authorship
26 Good citation practice
27 Plagiarism
28 Scientific integrity
29 Data sharing
30 Impartiality
31 Relations with colleagues
32 The student-supervisor relationship 32 33 Responsibilities of supervisors and project managers 33

E) Commissioned research
34 Different types of research
35 Commissioned research
36 The responsibility of researchers in large projects
37 Independence and conflict of interests
38 Transparency in research funding
39 Presentation and use of results
40 Right and duty to publish

F) Dissemination of research
41 Dissemination as an academic responsibility
42 Requirements for individuals and institutions
43 Interdisciplinary discourse and public deliberation
44 Participation in public debate
45 Accountability in dissemination
46 Reporting results to participants

Norwegian National Research Ethics Committees (2016) Guidelines for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences, Humanities, Law and Theology.

Dark past of deep-brain stimulation – Nature (Christian Lüscher | March 2018)0

Posted by Admin in on April 1, 2018

Christian Lüscher considers an alarming career from the early days of psychiatry.

Many people consider deep-brain stimulation (DBS) to have begun in 1987 in Grenoble, France, when Pierre Pollak and Alim Benabid stopped a person’s tremor by delivering high-frequency pulses of electricity to her thalamus. In fact, more than three decades earlier, a psychiatrist called Robert G. Heath at Tulane University in New Orleans, Louisiana, had experimented with this approach. Now, science writer Lone Frank pulls Heath (1915–99) from obscurity for her exploration of DBS, The Pleasure Shock.

As AHRECS readers know, we believe there is a trap in using egregious ethical lapses/scandals in human research ethics professional development activities, but this awful story is a less commonly known example and a chance to talk about the ends not justifying the means.

Frank has traced and interviewed surviving patients, former collaborators, family members and current DBS scientists. The result is a rarity: a thrilling, well-researched read. Above all, it is a chilling reminder of how early neurosurgical experimentation knew few ethical boundaries — even firmly within the medical and academic establishment. Heath was chair of Tulane’s psychiatry and neurology department for 31 years, from 1949 to 1980.
Today, DBS is an approved treatment for Parkinson’s disease, dystonia (uncontrollable muscle contractions) and essential tremor. Other indications, such as therapy for obsessive–compulsive disorder, depression and addiction, are the focus of intensive research. Just a few patients are treated ‘off label’, with mixed results.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

New curriculum prioritizes tribal sovereignty, cultural respect in scientific research of American Indian, Alaska Native communities – UW News (Kim Eckart | February 2018)0

Posted by Admin in on March 27, 2018

When scientists have conducted research in Native American communities, the process and the results have sometimes been controversial.

There have been a few well-known cases, such as the 1979 Barrow Alcohol Study, in which researchers examined substance use in the tiny Arctic Circle town and issued findings to the press, before briefing the local community. Media coverage interpreting the findings described an “alcoholic” society of Iñupiats “facing extinction,” while the people of Barrow (now known as Utqiaġvik) felt betrayed, and researchers faced questions and criticism.

Then in 1990, members of the Havasupai Tribe gave DNA to an Arizona State University researcher for the study of diabetes; when they learned their blood samples had been used for other studies as well, they filed a lawsuit, ultimately winning a financial settlement and the return of their DNA.

Read the rest of this discussion piece