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

Resource Library

Research Ethics MonthlyAbout Us

ResourcesInstitutional responsibilities

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Investigating Human Research Ethics in Practice: Project Report (ARC Project Report, Marilys Guillemin, et al 2008)0

Posted by Admin in on May 28, 2015
 

REPORT: Guillemin, Marilys & Human Research Ethics Committee & University of Melbourne. Centre for Health and Society & Australian Research Council (2008). Investigating human research ethics in practice : project report. University of Melbourne, Melbourne School of Population Health, Centre for Health and Society, Melbourne

“Investigating Human Research Ethics in Practice aimed to investigate how health researchers and members of Human Research Ethics Committees (HRECs) understand research ethics, and how they make decisions about what constitutes ethical conduct in health research. A total of 83 participants were individually interviewed by the research team: 34 ethics committee members and 49 health researchers, from metropolitan and regional hospitals, universities, research institutes, government and non-government organisations across Victoria.

“The data from these interviews showed that HREC members overwhelmingly believe that they do an important job and generally are doing it well. HREC members put in many hours of effort and are committed to the task. Almost without exception, researchers interviewed supported the need for a system of formal ethical review of research. Most felt that ethics review provided them with institutional backing and validation for their research studies. Many researchers also felt that the process of ethics review improved the quality of their projects. However, a large number of researchers reported frustrations with the time taken to put in ethics applications and delays before receiving approval. Some researchers described particularly poor experiences with ethics committees which had soured their view of the whole process.

“Both researchers and HREC members described a number of different ways of thinking about ethics and making decisions about what counts as ethical practice in research. For each group, the different approaches were potentially complementary rather than competing. They ranged from use of the formal ethical principles set out in the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (2007) to everyday folk strategies of intuition and ‘putting oneself in another’s shoes’ (which we have termed ‘imaginative identification’). There was considerable commonality between researchers and HREC members in the strategies they described, though not total overlap.

“On the basis of the project fi ndings, a number of recommendations are made relating to: mechanisms to improve communication and mutual understanding between researchers and HRECs; expanded training for both researchers and HREC members; and a working party to address the excessive length of Plain Language Statement and Consent Forms, which both researchers and HREC members saw as a major problem in the current system”

The University of Minnesota’s Medical Research Mess – New York Times (Carl Elliot 2015)0

Posted by Admin in on May 28, 2015
 

“MINNEAPOLIS — IF you want to see just how long an academic institution can tolerate a string of slow, festering research scandals, let me invite you to the University of Minnesota, where I teach medical ethics.

“Over the past 25 years, our department of psychiatry has been party to the following disgraces: a felony conviction and a Food and Drug Administration research disqualification for a psychiatrist guilty of fraud in a drug study; the F.D.A. disqualification of another psychiatrist, for enrolling illiterate Hmong refugees in a drug study without their consent; the suspended license of yet another psychiatrist, who was charged with “reckless, if not willful, disregard” for dozens of patients; and, in 2004, the discovery, in a halfway house bathroom, of the near-decapitated corpse of Dan Markingson, a seriously mentally ill young man under an involuntary commitment order who committed suicide after enrolling, over the objections of his mother, in an industry-funded antipsychotic study run by members of the department.”

Indemnity and consent guidelines – Medicines Australia0

Posted by Admin in on May 28, 2015
 

Guidelines for Ethical Research in Australian Indigenous Studies (GERAIS)0

Posted by Admin in on May 27, 2015
 

Published by the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies. This resource was first published in 2002 and was updated in 2010 and 2012. The guidelines outline 15 principles which should inform the conception, design, conduct and reporting the results of research Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Arguably the principles discussed in the GERAIS document are a far more useful reference for research outside of the health sciences compared to the NHMRC’s Values and Ethics guidelines.

“Indigenous peoples have inherent rights, including the right to self-determination. The principles in these Guidelines for Ethical Research in Australian Indigenous Studies are founded on respect for these rights, including rights to full and fair participation in any processes, projects and activities that impact on them, and the right to control and maintain their culture and heritage. AIATSIS considers that these principles are not only a matter of ethical research practice but of human rights.

“It is essential that Indigenous people are full participants in research projects that concern them, share an understanding of the aims and methods of the research, and share the results of this work. At every stage, research with and about Indigenous peoples must be founded on a process of meaningful engagement and reciprocity between the researcher and Indigenous people. It should also be recognised that there is no sharp distinction between researchers and Indigenous people. Indigenous people are also researchers, and all participants must be regarded as equal partners in a research engagement.”

0