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

Resource Library

Research Ethics MonthlyAbout Us

ResourcesPeer review

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

When the Anths Come Marching In (Papers: Michelle Trudgett and Susan Page 2014)0

Posted by Admin in on March 28, 2016

Excerpt: This essay provides a first-hand account of why it is important to have Indigenous representation on Human Research Ethics Committees (HRECs), and more importantly why some research simply should not go ahead. Collectively we have 10 years experience serving on HRECs, extensive Indigenous Higher Education research, as well as our lived experience as Indigenous Australians. Despite such experience and expertise, we find ourselves too often in the firing lines of unhappy researchers whose breathtaking sense of entitlement underlines their claims to ‘know’ a particular community. As a noted Native American scholar notes in relation research on Indigenous peoples:
We have been observed, noted, taped, and videoed. Our behaviors have been recorded in every possible way known to Western Science, and I suppose we could learn to live with this if we had not become imprisoned in the anthropologist’s words. The language that anthropologists use to explain us traps us in linguistic cages because we must explain our ways through alien hypothetical constructs and theoretical frameworks (King 2012: 207).

Trudgett M and Page S (2014) When the Anths Come Marching In. The Australian Journal of Anthropology 25 (3): 388-390

What happens before a retraction? A behind-the-scenes look from COPE – Interview by Retraction Watch (2016)0

Posted by Admin in on March 23, 2016

“Ever wonder how editors figure out whether a paper should be corrected, retracted, or left as-is? For a window into that crucial decision-making process, the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) publishes a number of anonymized cases per year, in which they weigh in on a dilemma faced by a journal editor. The organization has weighed in on more than 500 such situations since 1997. We spoke with Charon Pierson, Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners and the Secretary of the Trustee Board and Council at COPE to find out more information about these cases – including the one that affected her most.”

Click here to read the full interview

The Politicisation of Ethics Review in New Zealand (Book: Martin Tolich and Barry Smith 2015)0

Posted by Admin in on February 14, 2016

Description: The National Women’s Hospital research scandal saw women being involved in medical research without their knowledge and without the opportunity to make a choice about their participation. The 1988 Cartwright Inquiry into this decades-long study established a template for ethics review in New Zealand. Ethics committees were subsequently established to independently evaluate the potential benefits as well as the risks of research.

This book traces the gradual undermining of the independence of ethics review in New Zealand and the politicisation of ethics committees between 1988 and 2014. There have been substantial changes in this review process brought about by government in response to other medical crises such as that which occurred in Gisborne in the late 1990s and then an “economic crisis” between 2008 and 2010 that involved international pharmaceutical companies.

This book explores the implications of these changes for a robust ethics review process across research environments in New Zealand, especially those affecting Maori. It includes recommendations aimed at enhancing independent ethics review, best practice, and providing adequate protection for all citizens.

Tolich, M. & Smith, B. (2015). The Politicisation of Ethics Review in New Zealand. Auckland: Dunmore. 241 pages.

How does voluntary ethics improve research?: introducing a community research development initiative (Papers: Flanagan, Tumilty 2015)0

Posted by Admin in on January 19, 2016

Abstract: Until recently, community organisations in Aotearoa New Zealand (NZ) have not had any avenue for ethical review of research involving human participants unless they were connected to researchers involved with health and disability research (narrowly-defined), or tertiary education institutions. The New Zealand Ethics Committee (NZEC), a recent community research development initiative, has invited organisations to submit their proposals for voluntary ethics review and provides research methodology support where sought. This paper introduces this initiative, describing both its make-up and processes. It also explores the relationship between reviewer-applicant in the NZEC as distinctive to the relationship of reviewer-applicant in traditional ethical review settings, explaining this difference of power relations and philosophy. Those in the community see research ethics review as something to be learned along with research methodology/practice.

Flanagan, P. and Tumilty, E. (2015) How does voluntary ethics improve research? Introducing a community research development initiative, Whanake: The Pacific Journal of Community Development, 1(2), 14-23