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

Resource Library

Research Ethics MonthlyAbout Us

ResourcesPrivacy

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

(Australia) Face off: technology leaves regulators scrambling – Crickey (Elise Thomas | July 2018)0

Posted by Admin in on July 29, 2018
 

From airline lounges to cricket matches, our faces are already being read everywhere. But what’s protecting us from misuse of that data?

If you feel like facial recognition technology is suddenly everywhere you look — or rather, facial recognition is everywhere looking at you — you’re not alone. Not only do many of us carry the technology with us everywhere on our smartphones, it’s also increasingly present in the spaces we move through and the interactions we have in our daily lives, whether we know it or not.

(Crickey is a subscription web site, but there is a free trial you can use to access this item.) The reported circumstances raise significant consent and privacy questions, with the glum certainty the trials are unlikely to have gone anywhere near a research ethics committee.

Most people walking into the public library in Toowoomba last year, for example, were probably not aware that they were taking part in a controversial trial of facial recognition technology by the local council. Likewise the 45,000 visitors to the SCG for the final Ashes test this year were probably mostly unaware that their faces were being run through newly installed facial recognition cameras.
.

Certain people walking around the streets of the Northern Territory in 2015, on the other hand, suddenly found themselves very aware of facial recognition when police used the technology to identify 300 wanted individuals via CCTV footage.
.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

The Ethics of Research on Leaked Data: Ashley Madison – Discover (Neuroskeptic | July 2018)0

Posted by Admin in on July 22, 2018
 

A paper just published reports that Republicans are more likely to have used the adultery website Ashley Madison than Democrats, while Libertarians were even more likely to do so.

Institutional and national research ethics review arrangements often exempt data that is already on the public record. Are you local arrangements nuanced enough to treat hacked and leaked data differently? An observation about the Ashley Madison data, which has been made before, is that while it’s a huge set of international data set in an area where data is notoriously hard to collect (infidelity) it actually has numerous flaws that probably makes it useless. We’ve included links to nine related items.

That’s a claim that could ruffle some feathers, but the way in which the researchers conducted this study might be even more controversial. That’s because this paper is based on the 2015 Ashley Madison data leak, which exposed the personal data, including names and credit-card details, of millions of registered users.
.
For this study, the authors, Kodi B. Arfer and Jason J. Jones, took the leaked data and matched it up against voter registration records for five U.S. states. They considered a voter to be an active Ashley Madison user if they had ever paid money to the website. About 1 in 500 voters met these criteria.
.
Those voters registered as Libertarians were most likely to be active users, even controlling for age, gender and state. Registered Republicans came next and Democrats were least likely.
.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Science needs clarity on Europe’s data-protection law – Nature (May 2018 | Editorial)0

Posted by Admin in on July 21, 2018
 

As a commendable European law on personal data comes into force, the research community must not let excessive caution about data sharing, however understandable, become the default position.

European policymakers have been discussing new rules on data protection for years, and scientists and universities — like everyone else across the continent — are about to see the results. Entering into force on 25 May, a new law known as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), is designed to protect the personal privacy of citizens and will overhaul how personal data are collected, handled, processed and stored. It’s a welcome move to safeguard individuals and is the biggest shake-up of data protection in more than 20 years.

Does your institution provide guidance to its researchers on the GDPR? The University Research Ethics Manual Gary Allen wrote will get a GDPR and National Statement (2018) update during the next few months. We included 10 links to other useful/interesting/topical items.

However, as this journal has noted before, earlier drafts of the law posed a problem for science and the research community. Of particular concern was the issue of consent — the draft language suggested researchers would be required to seek renewed consent to reuse data collected for a different purpose, which could have introduced delays and made some research impractical. But many in the research community worked relentlessly to warn policymakers of the potential harm. In response, officials put in place rules that exempt research from some of the requirements, provided the proper safeguards are in place. Universities and organizations have introduced plans to make sure they are. The bulk of the work should be done.
.

The passing of the final GDPR rules is, therefore, a good example of political engagement by researchers and their advocates, and a sensible and informed reaction from policymakers. Those involved, on both sides, deserve great credit. Harmonization of how data can be sourced, stored and used would, in theory, be good for research. It could smooth the difficulties that scientists face when they try to pool analysis of genomic data and tissue samples across national borders. Such sharing could help scientists to organize powerful trials with large numbers of participants.
.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Self-Determination in Health Research: An Alaska Native Example of Tribal Ownership and Research Regulation (Vanessa Y. Hiratsuka, et al | 2017)0

Posted by Admin in on July 17, 2018
 

Abstract

The idea of researchers building the trust of potential participants is sometimes viewed with caution (because of worry it will undermine the voluntary nature of participation) and scepticism (because of the time/resources required, that are needed to actually conduct the research). While such worries might seem reasonable, it is important to recognise: the historical experience of First Peoples and research has not been positive (and some of that ‘historical experience is fairly recent); Indigenous people are generally underrepresented in health research; and building trust is not only sound in terms of the ethical principle of Respect it’s likely to improve the usefulness of the results.

Alaska Native (AN) and American Indian (AI) people are underrepresented in health research, yet many decline to participate in studies due to past researcher misconduct. Southcentral Foundation (SCF), an Alaska Native-owned and operated health care organization, is transforming the relationship between researchers and the tribal community by making trust and accountability required features of health research in AN/AI communities. In 1998, SCF assumed ownership from the federal government of health services for AN/AI people in south central Alaska and transformed the health system into a relationship-based model of care. This change reimagines how researchers interact with tribal communities and established community oversight of all health research conducted with AN/AI people in the region. We describe the SCF research review process, which requires tribal approval of the research concept, full proposal, and dissemination products, as well as local institutional review board approval, and a researcher-signed contract. This review evaluates research through the lens of tribal principles, practices, and priorities. The SCF example provides a framework for other tribes and organizations seeking to reshape the future of health research in AN/AI communities.
.

Keywords: community review, Alaska Native, tribal, ethics, Native American, research, research conduct, trust, accountability
.

Hiratsuka, V. Y., Beans, J. A., Robinson, R. F., Shaw, J. L., Sylvester, I., & Dillard, D. A. (2017). Self-determination in health research: An Alaska Native example of Tribal ownership and research regulation. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(11), 1324. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14111324
Publisher (Open Access): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5707963/

0