There is a good reason why research ethics reviewers ask about where a consent strategy will be conducted, who will be administering the consent process and whether any implicate coercion will be used. Hopefully, no one would ever use organised crime thugs to administer their consent strategy, in an isolated room and at least the impression that violence would follow if potential participants don’t ‘sign’. That notwithstanding, part of you has to chuckle at Don Mayne’s conceit here.
It is important to remember that our policies about incentives/reimbursements/compensation, as well as our review feedback, can result in researchers using language that they think is clever but to the rest of us just sounds odd. In Australia, the National Statement does allow for incentives, especially for research that involves no greater than a low risk of harm. Hopefully, your institution has produced useful resource material to help researchers interpret and understand the provisions in the National Statement.
(US) Harvard eye researchers have eight papers retracted for lack of ethical approval – Retraction Watch (Adam Marcus | March 2022)
Prior to the nineties (and we’re being generous here), health researchers might be forgiven for forgetting research ethics review. Saying nothing about research ethics being an integral part of their research design. But those days are long past. Without ethics approval, we can only speculate about matters such as consent for the research (discrete from consent for the clinical procedure) and beneficence considerations.
How do Research Ethics Committee Members Respond to Hypothetical Studies with Children? Results from the MESSI Study (Papers: Stephanie Taplin, et al | March 2022)
Abstract Hypothetical scenarios were used to assess the influence of the sensitivity of the study topic, payments, and study methods
(US) Can scientists repair their relationship with Native people as they probe the past? – Science (Andrew Curry | February 2022)
There is a long and shameful history of US researchers trampling Indigenous protocols and needs. This isn’t just matters in living history, it is incredibly current. So something must change! It should be said that the US is not alone in this being the experience of First People. Reflecting on respect, justice and data sovereignty must be a component of professional development for HDR candidates, supervisors, all researchers and research ethics reviewers. Genuine engagement and respect should start at the earliest phases of planning a project and continue far past the publication of research outputs.
(New Zealand) Risk Governance and Risk-Based Regulation: A Review of the International Academic Literature (Papers: Jeroen van der Heijden | June 2019 )
Abstract This research paper presents findings from a broad scoping of the international academic literature on the use of risk
(UK) Animal researchers shoulder a psychological burden that animal ethics committees ought to address (Papers: Mike King & Hazem Zohny | March 2021)
Abstract Animal ethics committees (AECs) typically focus on the welfare of animals used in experiments, neglecting the potential welfare impact
(Europe) Ethical Review of Animal Research and the Standards of Procedural Justice: A European Perspective (Tomasz Pietrzykowski | July 2021)
Abstract Committees established for the ethical review of research involving animals have become a widespread legal standard around the world.