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

Resource Library

Research Ethics MonthlyAbout Us

ResourcesMerit and integrity

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

AHRECS research ethics workshop at ACU0

Posted by Admin in on September 28, 2017
 

In September 2017, Mark Israel ran a seminar on research ethics and the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning at the Australian Catholic University.

The seminar explored issues raised by our work for the Australian Government Office for Learning and Teaching https://ahrecs.com/previous-projects/sotl-resource-booklets AHRECS is happy to arrange to run this seminar in other institutions.

Click here for more about our services and how to engage us.

Ethics in the scholarship of teaching and learning: Key principles and strategies for ethical practice. Taylor Institute for Teaching and Learning Guide Series0

Posted by Admin in on September 5, 2017
 

“This new Taylor Institute Guide takes the researcher through the essentials of the Canadian standards for ethical practice in the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL). Because of the unique challenges of SoTL, where the human participants that are the subject of the research are also typically the researcher’s students, this Guide translates the comprehensive TCPS2 (2014) for the researcher conducting SoTL research.” Access this particular guide here.

Fedoruk, L. (2017). Ethics in the scholarship of teaching and learning: Key principles and strategies for ethical practice. Taylor Institute for Teaching and Learning Guide Series. Calgary, AB: Taylor Institute for Teaching and Learning at the University of Calgary. www.ucalgary.ca/taylorinstitute/guides

Covers key issues in research ethics and tracks TCPS2 well (the Canadian national statement on research ethics). Limited reference to research ethics literature and it would have been good to see the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning community model more imaginative pedagogy in research ethics.

Also see
SoTL resource booklets produced by AHRECS

NIH Blood Transfusion Trial’s Ethics Questioned – MedPage Today (Larry Husten | August 2017)0

Posted by Admin in on September 3, 2017
 

Public Citizen demands halt to study comparing transfusion strategies after MI

Public Citizen is calling for the immediate suspension of a large NIH-sponsored trial comparing blood transfusion strategies after heart attacks. The Myocardial Ischemia and Transfusion (MINT) trial should be halted “because of potentially serious ethical violations,” said the consumer advocacy group in a letter sent to the Office for Human Research Protections and the VA’s Office of Research Oversight.

The MINT trial started earlier this year in April and is expected to be completed in 2021. The trial plan calls for 3,500 hospital patients with acute MI who have blood counts below 10 g/dL to be randomized to either a liberal or restrictive transfusion strategy with red blood cells. The primary endpoint is the composite outcome of all-cause mortality or nonfatal MI at 30 days.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

NYC’s forgotten cancer scandal – New York Post (Allen M. Hornblum | December 2013)0

Posted by Admin in on August 29, 2017
 

The front-page headline of the New York World-Telegram on Jan. 20, 1964 shocked readers: “Charge Hospital Shot Live Cancer Cells Into Patients.”

The stunning accusation was that Brooklyn’s Jewish Chronic Disease Hospital, a facility known for serving an elderly population and those in need of long-term physical care, was “conducting cancer experiments on unsuspecting non-cancerous patients.”

Selwyn Raab, who was a new hire at the old World-Telegram when an editor assigned him to check out a tip about some research shenanigans at a Brooklyn hospital, was admittedly “astonished” by the allegations.

Read the rest of this discussion piece
Read the original news story from 1964

Egregious ethical lapses from the past can be useful vignettes/springboards for workshop discussion but they shouldn’t be used as justification of why research ethics review arrangements exist. The former can get attendees thinking and talking about research ethics the latter runs the risk of reinforcing that human research ethics is about punishing 99.9% for the awful misdeeds of the reckless minority from decades ago.

0