ACN - 101321555 Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Resource Library

Research Ethics MonthlyAbout Us

ResourcesHuman research ethics

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

ICV Guidelines for Muslim Community-University Research Partnerships0

Posted by Admin in on October 26, 2017


The principles and practices described here are intended to educate, inform and facilitate respectful, collaborative and beneficial research relationships between the Victorian Muslim Community and the wider university research community. It is also a statement of principles to guide these relationships towards an ideal. It is not a formal policy.

As the peak community organisation for over 200,000 Muslim Victorians, the ICV has been a ‘community-partner’ or ‘participant’ in many Muslim-focused research projects over its 42-year history…

Read the rest of this guidance material

Friday afternoon’s funny – Group consent, peer-group pressure and risk0

Posted by Admin in on October 13, 2017

Cartoon by Don Mayne

In some ways recruiting/seeking as group might seem ideal: more time/resource efficient; avoids putting individuals under pressure; and could result in a block of individuals giving their consent. BUT as Don’s cartoon shows: Peer-group-pressure might undermine just how voluntary the consent will be; there can sometimes have risks associated with being known as someone who is ineligible to participate; the process of declining to participate should be too obvious if the previous two factors are a consideration. Is group consent always inappropriate? No. Are there situations where it shouldn’t be used. Definitely.

Ethics of Internet research trigger scrutiny – Nature (Elizabeth Gibney | October 2017)0

Posted by Admin in on October 12, 2017

Concern over the use of public data spurs guideline update.

This case highlights the degree to which there has been an important shift in the degree to which online research can circumvent anonymity strategies that in the recent past seemed impenetrable. We will be following PERVADE with keen interest.

British graffiti artist Banksy is renowned for his anonymity. But that status was dented last year when researchers published a paper that cross-referenced the locations of Banksy’s street art with public information about people’s addresses and likely movements (M. V. Hauge et al. J. Spatial Sci. 61, 185–190; 2016). The team, led by academics at Queen Mary University of London, concluded that someone previously suspected to be Banksy probably was the secretive artist.
Because the study used public data, a university ethics committee said that the work was exempt from formal review — and informally advised academics that it would do no harm because a UK national newspaper had already identified the person in question as Banksy. But for some ethicists, the paper highlights growing concerns about the potential hazards of research that uses public data. “I think this study should never have been done,” says Jake Metcalf, a technology ethicist at the think tank Data & Society in New York City.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Fertility docs said their study didn’t need ethics review. An investigation said they were wrong – Retraction Watch (Andrew P. Han | September 2017)0

Posted by Admin in on October 5, 2017

A journal is retracting a paper on the relative merits of one fertility procedure compared to another because the study never received ethical review or approval.

Another ‘good’ example of failure to obtain ethical clearance becoming a research integrity matter.

In the paper, “Intracytoplasmic morphologically selected sperm injection versus conventional intracytoplasmic sperm injection: a randomized controlled trial,” originally published Aug. 27, 2015 in Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology, the authors wrote:

……“The Local Ethical Committee approval was not required because the procedure was commonly employed in the clinical practice.

Read the rest of this discussion piece