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

Resource Library

Research Ethics MonthlyAbout Us

ResourcesMedical research

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Ethics in Health Research: Principles, Processes and Structures (2nd ed.) – South Africa0

Posted by Admin in on April 9, 2016

Chapter 1 Ethics in research
1.1 Introduction
1.2 The research context
1.3 Regulatory authority
1.4 Research with humans
1.5 Research using animals
1.6 Ethical research review
1.7 Glossary and resources
1.8 Purpose and status of these Guidelines
1.9 Structure of these Guidelines

Chapter 2 Guiding principles for ethical research
2.1 Ethical principles
2.2 Role of ethical principles
2.3 Key norms & standards

Chapter 3 Substantive norms and operational processes
3.1 Ethical basis for decision-making in the review process
3.2 Vulnerability and incapacity
3.3 Data and biological materials for research purposes
3.4 Considerations specific to research methods or contexts
3.5 Special topics

Chapter 4 Research Ethics Committees
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Legislative framework
4.3 Role of Research Ethics Committees
4.4 Membership
4.5 Standard operating procedures
4.6 Compliance reporting to NHREC

Chapter 5 Health research ethics infrastructure
5.1 Introduction
5.2 National Health Research Ethics Council
5.3 Research Ethics committees

Department of Health (2015) Ethics in Health Research: Principles, Processes and Structures (2nd ed.). Pretoria: Department of Health.,%20Processes%20and%20Structures%202nd%20Ed.pdf

A New Zealand retraction has been added to Retraction Watch – 28 March 20160

Posted by Admin in on March 29, 2016

“A journal has retracted a paper on a controversial course of treatment used to stunt the growth of disabled children, at the request of the human research ethics committee at the University of Waikato in New Zealand.

The paper described the so-called Ashley Treatmentexplored last week in the New York Times — in which disabled children receive hormones and procedures to keep them small and diminish the effects of puberty, making it easier for them to be cared for. The retracted paper analyzed the use of the treatment in a girl named Charley who was born in New Zealand with a brain injury, whose case has attracted the attention of The Washington Post and People magazine, among other outlets.

28 March 2016 – Ethics committee asks journal to retract paper about controversial growth-stunting treatment

About Retraction Watch
We launched Retraction Watch in August 2010, and although we didn’t predict this, it’s been a struggle to even keep up with retractions as they happen. While we occasionally dip into history in our “Best Of” series, realistically we don’t want to fall even further behind. If we ever have the resources to grow the site, this will be one of our priorities.

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process “Evidence-based medicine has been hijacked:” A confession from John Ioannidis (Author interview by Retraction Watch)0

Posted by Admin in on March 17, 2016

“John Ioannidis is perhaps best known for a 2005 paper “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.” One of the most highly cited researchers in the world, Ioannidis, a professor at Stanford, has built a career in the field of meta-research. Earlier this month, he published a heartfelt and provocative essay in the the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology titled “Evidence-Based Medicine Has Been Hijacked: A Report to David Sackett.” In it, he carries on a conversation begun in 2004 with Sackett, who died last May and was widely considered the father of evidence-based medicine. We asked Ioannidis to expand on his comments in the essay, including why he believes he is a “failure.”

Click here to read the interview by Retraction Watch

Ethics and History: STD Research in Guatemala from 1946 to 1948 (Papers: Daniel Sulmasy 2015)0

Posted by Admin in on February 27, 2016

Lecture by Daniel P Sulmasy, MD, University of Chicago at Tel Aviv University discussing STD research in Guatemala prior to the much publicised Tuskegee project. The Guatemalan work included deception/misleading participants, infecting healthy people, denying ‘efficacious’ treatment, re-infecting participants, persons living with mental illness, persons aged under eighteen years of age, indigenous people, commercial sex workers and at least one participant who was terminally ill. This work was being conducted at the same time as the Nuremberg War Trials. This lecture explores the ethical features of this case, discusses the ethical guidance of the time, questions the methodological merit of the work, and touches on its resonance with work that might be currently underway. Also discusses some research integrity matters related to this work.

Sulmasy, D. (2015, April 14). Ethics and History: STD Research in Guatemala from 1946 to 1948 [Video file]. Retrieved from