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)

Expression of Interest: Consumer Inclusive Research – Consumer Reference Group0

Posted by Admin in on August 26, 2019
 

The Hopkins Centre is recruiting 8 consumer representatives on a Consumer Inclusive Research – Consumer Reference Group.

The Hopkins Centre is conducting research on “Supporting the ethical inclusion of people with acquired disability in research: Consumer informed approaches”. We invite consumers and community members to join a reference group which will support and guide us in this project. We cannot and should not do our research without including you, so we are asking for your help.

This opportunity would suit a consumer who has a particular interest in research.

Membership
We are recruiting 8 consumers or carers from a variety of backgrounds to participate in a maximum of 4 meetings to be held over approximately 6 months via teleconference or web based.

Applications from a range of people and groups is encouraged.

How to apply
Please complete the Expression of Interest form below and return to Dr Gary Allen at The Hopkins Centre via g.allen@griffith.edu.au by 9am Friday 20 September 2019.

For queries relating to the Reference Group or assistance completing this Expression of Interest, please contact Gary Allen at The Hopkins Centre via g.allen@griffith.edu.au or by phone on c/o 07 3735 2069.

Download expression of interest form >

Conflicts of interest declarationGary Allen is a Griffith University staff member, he is the lead investigator for this research project and he is a member of The Hopkins Centre’s Ambassadors Committee.  Gary is also a member of the national committee reviewing s4 of the National Statement (2007 updated 2018).

International Association for the Study of Forced Migration (IASFM) Code of ethics: Critical reflections on research ethics in situations of forced migration0

Posted by Admin in on August 18, 2019
 

Context:
Research with people in situations of forced migration poses particular ethical challenges because of unequal power relations, legal precariousness, extreme poverty, violence, the criminalization of migration, politicized research contexts, the policy relevance of our research and/or dependence on government and non-governmental services and funding. However, Research Ethics Boards (REBs) are not always aware of these particular ethical issues; some countries and institutions do not have REBs; and some kinds of research are not subject to REB approval. In this context of heightened risks of research, and uneven institutional accountability for research ethics, the International Association for the Study of Forced Migration (IASFM) hereby proposes this code of ethics for research with people in situations of forced migration. Similarly to how Indigenous research methodologies incorporate a broad, engaged and critical notion of ethics that recognizes power differentiations and the agency of the participants within exploitive research histories, this document sets forth principles that are starting points for respectful research.1 It is intended to reflect the broad diversity of our membership, including those involved in gathering information – whether in an academic or community setting – as well as those who are asked to take part in research. That being said, we acknowledge that this is not a comprehensive nor exhaustive document, but rather a starting point for active, critical engagement with ethical issues.

Access the Code

(US) NIH probe of foreign ties has led to undisclosed firings-and refunds from institutions – Science (Jeffrey Mervis | June 2019)0

Posted by Admin in on August 17, 2019
 

An aggressive effort by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to enforce rules requiring its grantees to report foreign ties is still gathering steam. But it has already had a major impact on the U.S. biomedical research community. A senior NIH official tells ScienceInsider that universities have fired more scientists—and refunded more grant money—as a result of the effort than has been publicly known.

Since August 2018, Bethesda, Maryland–based NIH has sent roughly 180 letters to more than 60 U.S. institutions about individual scientists it believes have broken NIH rules requiring full disclosure of all sources of research funding. To date, the investigation has led to the well-publicized dismissals of five researchers, all Asian Americans, at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas, and Emory University in Atlanta.

But other major U.S. research universities have also fired faculty in cases that have remained confidential, according to Michael Lauer, head of NIH’s extramural research program. And some have repaid NIH “hundreds of thousands of dollars” in grants as a result of rule violations, he says. “I can understand why [the universities] aren’t talking about it,” Lauer says. “No organization wants to discuss personnel actions in a public forum.”

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Journals retract more than a dozen studies from China that may have used executed prisoners’ organs – Retraction Watch (Ivan Oransky | August 2017)0

Posted by Admin in on August 15, 2019
 

In the past month, PLOS ONE and Transplantation have retracted fifteen studies by authors in China because of suspicions that the authors may have used organs from executed prisoners.

All of the original studies — seven in Transplantation, and eight in PLOS ONE — were published between 2008 and 2014. Two involved kidney transplants, and the rest involved liver transplants. Two other journals, the Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology and Kidney International, have recently issued expressions of concern for the same reason.

In an editorial explaining the seven retractions from its journal, the editors of Transplantation write:

Read the rest of this discussion piece

0