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)

Chinese military warns against forged data and plagiarism in science and technology research – South China Morning Post (Minnie Chan | September 2018)0

Posted by Admin in on December 1, 2018
 

Academics have been put on notice to maintain ‘integrity of scientific research’ as rampant misconduct puts lives at risk

China’s military top brass have released research integrity guidelines urging leaders in charge of the country’s defence-related science and technology research to avoid forgery, plagiarism and other wrongdoing.

While it is great to see the Chinese military take this stance, the reported problems in State-funded research are sobering.

The guidelines published on Friday are the first indication that China’s defence industry faces a forgery problem similar to that found in the academic community – including feigning scientific data, plagiarising subordinates’ study results, exaggerating study achievements and other misconduct.
.

The guidelines have been proposed by the Science and Technology Commission, a functional department directly under the powerful Central Military Commission headed by President Xi Jinping, which is in charge of China’s military defence technology research and development.
.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Vulnerability in research subjects: a bioethical taxonomy (Kenneth Kipnis | 2001)0

Posted by Admin in on November 30, 2018
 

The concept of vulnerability appears to have been grandfathered into the lexicon, lore, and literature of research ethics without undergoing stringent certification. And yet the need for some such notion has long been appreciated. More than 50 years ago, reflecting on the ethical implications of the Nazi medical experiments, the authors of the Nuremberg Code emphasized the necessity of the subject’s informed consent, too hastily ruling out, as it quickly became apparent, medical research on children and those with cognitive impairments.

In the United States, widely studied episodes such as Willowbrook,1 the Brooklyn Jewish Chronic Disease Hospital Case,2 and the Tuskegee Syphilis Study3 provoked debates that eventually gave birth to our current methods for ensuring the ethical conduct of research. But despite the remarkable circumstances of the subjects involved in those studies—institutionalized children, hospitalized elderly, and impoverished and poorly educated black Alabama males—it is not much of an exaggeration to say that in the minds of many investigators the paradigmatic research subject remains more or less a mature, respectable, moderately well-educated, clearthinking, literate, self-supporting U.S. citizen in good standing—that is, a man who could understand a 12- page consent form and act intelligently on the basis of its contents. While I shall assume in what follows both that the existing guidelines are sufficient to deal ethically with the paradigmatic research subject, and, further, that all those standard protections are reliably in place, the vulnerable research subject nonetheless requires ethical consideration going beyond that baseline.

More recently, in the wake of the Nuremberg Code’s shortcomings, systematic attention has been accorded to a motley collection of vulnerable subpopulations. In 1979, for example, the seminal Belmont Report4 briefly considered children, the institutionalized mentally ill, and prisoners, mentioning dependency and compromised capacity for consent as representative hallmarks of vulnerability. There was no effort to be comprehensive. The more recent Federal Regulations on the Protection of Human Subjects (45 CFR 46) implement the requirement that Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) take into account the “special problems of research involving vulnerable populations, such as children, prisoners, pregnant women, mentally disabled persons, or economically or educationally disadvantaged persons” (46–111). Criteria for vulnerability are not discussed although subparts are included with supplementary regulations for some of these groups. Finally, the Final Report of the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments,5 after reviewing patterns of unethical misconduct in military research, recommended special protections for enlistees.

Read the rest of this commissioned  paper

Kipnis K. (2001) Vulnerability in research subjects: a bioethical taxonomy. In: National Bioethics Advisory Commission, editor. Ethical and policy issues in research involving human participants. Bethesda: National Bioethics Advisory Commission. pp. G1–G13. http://www.aapcho.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Kipnis-VulnerabilityinResearchSubjects.pdf

Vulnerability: new essays in ethics and feminist philosophy (Books: Catriona Mackenzie (Editor), et al | 2014)0

Posted by Admin in on November 30, 2018
 

The aim of this volume is to open up reflection on the nature of vulnerability, the responsibilities owed to the vulnerable, who bears these responsibilities, and how they are best fulfilled. In canvassing responses to these questions, the contributors engage with a range of ethical traditions and with issues in contemporary political philosophy and bioethics. Some essays in the volume explore the connections between vulnerability, autonomy, dignity, and justice. Other essays engage with a feminist ethics of care to articulate the relationship between vulnerability, dependence, and care. These theoretical approaches are complemented by detailed examination of vulnerability in specific contexts, including disability; responsibilities to children; intergenerational justice; and care of the elderly. The essays thus address fundamental questions concerning our moral duties to each other as individuals and as citizens. Contributing significantly to the development of an ethics of vulnerability, this volume opens up promising avenues for future research in feminist philosophy, moral and political philosophy, and bioethics.

Keywords:
Vulnerability, ethics, moral theory, bioethics, feminist philosophy, autonomy, dependence, justice, ethics of care, children

Mackenzie, C., Rogers, W. & Dodds, S.. (2014). Vulnerability: New Essays in Ethics and Feminist Philosophy, OUP USA.
Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Vulnerability-Essays-Feminist-Philosophy-Studies/dp/0199316651
Google Books: https://books.google.com.au/books/about/Vulnerability.html?id=6W9MAQAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y
Publisher: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/vulnerability-9780199316649?cc=au&lang=en&

Rethinking the Vulnerability of Minority Populations in Research (Papers: Wendy Rogers and Margaret Meek Lange | 2013)0

Posted by Admin in on November 30, 2018
 

Abstract
The Belmont Report, produced in 1979 by a United States government commission, includes minority populations among its list of vulnerable research participants. In this article, we consider some previous attempts to understand the vulnerability of minorities in research, and then provide our own account.

First we examine the question of the representation of minorities in research. Then we argue that the best understanding of minorities, vulnerability, and research will begin with a broad understanding of the risk of individual members of minority groups to poor health outcomes. We offer a typology of vulnerability to help with this task.

Finally, we show how researchers should be guided by this broad analysis in the design and execution of their research.

Vv

Rogers, W., & Lange, M. M. (2013). Rethinking the vulnerability of minority populations in research. American Journal  of Public Health, 103(12), 2141-6.. 2013;103(12).
NCBI (Full text available): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3828952/

0