Many research ethics committees work in a high workload and high-danger context for their journey. This is a journey towards high-quality review in a reasonable amount of time. Though probably not as perilous as pictured in this humourous Don Mayne cartoon.
There is so much wrong with this humorous Don Mayne cartoon. It is inappropriate to spring a consent form on a potential participant during the middle of a procedure, much less in an operating theatre. This is obviously not conducive to seeking thoughtful reflection free of any perceived pressure to participate. It is also not ok to wait to spring an unexpected, much less violent, surprise on your participants.
Now that international travel has resumed, researchers are returning to jetting worldwide. This humorous Don Mayne cartoon looks at why it is a dubious pleasure to spend hours in a plane and in an airport. And recently it seems there’s the mystery tour of whether your luggage will reach the same destination as you.
The concept of insider trading in financial stocks and why it is inappropriate is well known, at least amongst scrupulous traders. But the same principle applies to researchers before the results of early-stage testing of a pharmaceutical agent are published. A researcher who benefits from the early purchase of stocks in an agent that they have got inside knowledge of its testing should expect a visit by their country’s financial regulator.
Generally, it is not the role of an ethics committee (human or animal) to discuss methodological matters, but hopefully, if confronted with a research project that looked like this humorous Don Mayne cartoon, members would query whether the project was valid scientific research. More could be said about corporate research and the degree to which corporate researchers have a predator/prey relationship with the research subjects/participants.
The members of the AHRECS team have participated in the reviews of national standards for human research ethics. We have also advised and assisted research institutions when they conduct internal reviews of their policies, processes and resource material. As depicted in this humorous Don Mayne cartoon, these exercises can be generally characterised in three ways: 1. Basically a continuation of the current setting and approaches previously used. 2. A change, but not one that disrupts the status quo for powerful interest. 3. A disruptive change, which will improve the approach, but one which will be inconvenient for powerful interests. The sad and hard reality is that the best option is rarely chosen and repeating previous practice happens too often.
The flow of public support for research isn’t always noble or reflect a desire to support important research. Institutions should review plans to attract community funding. While most won’t be as starkly dubious as this humorous Don Mayne cartoon, some may be taping into unrealistic expectations, such as funding a new centre will help them access a new experimental treatment being developed by the centre.
The working reality for CRAs isn’t pretty or appealing. That they would be presented as benefits isn’t funny. Don Mayne has a good go in this humorous cartoon. Institutions have a responsibility to provide workspaces that are safe and provide for the needs of their workers. Chief Investigators have a direct personal responsibility to argue and provide for working arrangements for their CRAs that are sustainable, support safe work practices and are adequately resourced.
