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)

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/

Why bioethics needs a concept of vulnerability (Papers: Wendy Rogers, et al | 2012)0

Posted by Admin in on November 30, 2018
 

Abstract
Concern for human vulnerability seems to be at the heart of bioethical inquiry, but the concept of vulnerability is under-theorized in the bioethical literature. The aim of this article is to show why bioethics needs an adequately theorized and nuanced conception of vulnerability. We first review approaches to vulnerability in research ethics and public health ethics, and show that the bioethical literature associates vulnerability with risk of harm and exploitation, and limited capacity for autonomy. We identify some of the challenges emerging from this literature: in particular, how to reconcile universal human vulnerability with a context-sensitive analysis of specific kinds and sources of vulnerability; and how to reconcile obligations to protect vulnerable persons with obligations to respect autonomy. We then briefly survey some of the theoretical resources available within the philosophical literature to address these challenges, and to assist in understanding the conceptual connections between vulnerability and related concepts such as harm, exploitation, needs, and autonomy. We also sketch out a taxonomy of sources and kinds of vulnerability. Finally, we consider the implications for policy evaluation of making vulnerability an explicit and central focus of bioethics. Our investigation is in the form of a broad survey motivating a research agenda rather than a detailed analysis.

Keywords
Bioethics, Disabilities, Child molestation, Feminism, Public health, Territories, Productivity, Research ethics. Morality, Informed consent

Rogers, W., Mackenzie, C., & Dodds, S. (2012). Why bioethics needs a concept of vulnerability. International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics, 5(2), 11-38. doi:10.2979/intjfemappbio.5.2.11
Publisher (PDF available with frre login): https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2979/intjfemappbio.5.2.11?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

Why do medical journals keep taking authors at their word? – STAT (Ivan Oransky | September 2018)0

Posted by Admin in on November 29, 2018
 

The recent revelation that a leading official at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center failed for years to disclose lucrative financial conflicts of interest might have been surprising in its scale. But it’s old news that many researchers aren’t fully transparent when it comes to their financial relationships with industry.

So why should we keep up the charade? And why, given the clarity of the problem, do medical journals continue to take authors at their word — only to wind up looking like dupes?

According to an investigation by ProPublica and The New York Times, Dr. José Baselga — who was chief medical officer of the venerable cancer clinic until resigning Thursday — has what can charitably be described as an inconsistent personal policy on revealing companies that have given him cash or other potentially lucrative fillips. Baselga also has stayed mum about his conflicts of interest — which also involve research funding and seats on advisory boards — in many of his publications, including those in high-rent titles like the New England Journal of Medicine, and despite policies from the journals demanding that authors reveal such relationships.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

New COPE guidelines on publication process manipulation: why they matter – BMC (Jigisha Patel | November 2018)0

Posted by Admin in on November 27, 2018
 

Abstract
Manipulation of the publication process is a relatively new form of misconduct affecting the publishing industry. This editorial describes what it is, why it is difficult for individual journal editors and publishers to handle and the background to the development of the new COPE guidelines on how to manage publication process manipulation.

These new guidelines represent an important first step towards encouraging openness and collaboration between publishers to address this phenomenon.

10 years ago, a retraction of an article was a rare thing. We know that the rate of journal retractions has been rising [1]. It has been argued that the increasing number of journals and the ‘pressure to publish’ have been the driving unethical practices such as data falsification, fabrication, and plagiarism [2]. There have been calls to address this by changing the way research success is measured, for example, by changing the way journal and article quality is measured and rewarded [3] in the hope that, by removing the pressure, unethical practices might decline.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

0