ACN - 101321555 Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)
Search
Generic filters
Exact text matches only
Search into
Filter by Categories
Research integrity
Filter by Categories
Human Research Ethics

Resource Library

Research Ethics MonthlyAbout Us

ResourcesRespect for persons

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Vulnerability in Research Ethics: a Way Forward (Papers: Margaret Meek Lange, et al | 2013)0

Posted by Admin in on November 30, 2018
 

Abstract
Several foundational documents of bioethics mention the special obligation researchers have to vulnerable research participants. However, the treatment of vulnerability offered by these documents often relies on enumeration of vulnerable groups rather than an analysis of the features that make such groups vulnerable. Recent attempts in the scholarly literature to lend philosophical weight to the concept of vulnerability are offered by Luna and Hurst. Luna suggests that vulnerability is irreducibly contextual and that Institutional Review Boards (Research Ethics Committees) can only identify vulnerable participants by carefully examining the details of the proposed research. Hurst, in contrast, defines the vulnerable as those especially at risk of incurring the wrongs to which all research ethics participants are exposed. We offer a more substantive conception of vulnerability than Luna but one that gives rise to a different rubric of responsibilities from Hurst’s. While we understand vulnerability to be an ontological condition of human existence, in the context of research ethics, we take the vulnerable to be research subjects who are especially prone to harm or exploitation. Our analysis rests on developing a typology of sources of vulnerability and showing how distinct sources generate distinct obligations on the part of the researcher. Our account emphasizes that the researcher’s first obligation is not to make the research participant even more vulnerable than they already are. To illustrate our framework, we consider two cases: that of a vulnerable population involved in international research and that of a domestic population of people with diminished capacity.

Keywords
Vulnerability, Research ethics, Alzheimer’s Disease, Tenofovir case

Lange, M. M., Rogers, W. and Dodds, S. (2013), Vulnerability in Research Ethics: A Way Forward. Bioethics, 27: 333-340. doi:10.1111/bioe.12032
Publiher (PDF available): https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/bioe.12032

Ethical relationships, ethical research in Aboriginal contexts: Perspectives from central Australia0

Posted by Admin in on November 18, 2018
 

Learning Communities International Journal of Learning in Social Contexts
Special issue: Ethical relationships, ethical research in Aboriginal contexts: Perspectives from central Australia

Number 23 – November 2018

CONTENTS
Introduction to Special Issue: Being here matters …2
Barry Judd

Editorial….12
Al Strangeways

“You helped us and now we’re going to all help you”: What we learned about how to do research together …16
Lisa Hall, Linda Anderson, Fiona Gibson, Mona Kantawara, Barbara Martin and Yamurna Oldfield

Ngapartji ngapartji ninti and koorliny karnya quoppa katitjin (Respectful and ethical research in central Australia and the south west) …32
Jennie Buchanan, Len Collard and Dave Palmer

Researching together: Reflections on ethical research in remote Aboriginal communities …52
Tessa Benveniste and Lorraine King

The dancing trope of cross-cultural language education policy…64
Janine Oldfield and Vincent Forrester

Different monsters: Traversing the uneasy dialectic of institutional and relational ethics …76
Al Strangeways and Lisa Papatraianou

Research for social impact and the contra-ethic of national frameworks…92
Judith Lovell Altyerre

NOW: Arrernte dreams for national reconstruction in the 21st century …106
Joel Liddle Perrurle and Barry Judd

The making of Monstrous Breaches: An ethical global visual narrative…116
Judith Lovell and Kathleen Kemarre Wallace

Read  the special edition

(US) ER patients given ketamine, other powerful drugs in clinical trials without their consent, FDA finds – STAT (Sharon Begley | October 2018)0

Posted by Admin in on November 15, 2018
 

Minneapolis hospital tested powerful antipsychotics and the potent anesthetic ketamine on emergency room patients without their knowledge or consent, violating regulations on human research, federal inspectors have determined.

Based on those findings, a health watchdog group on Monday urged federal regulators to suspend all clinical trials at the hospital. In a letter to the Food and Drug Administration and the Department of Health and Human Services office that protects human research subjects, Public Citizen also called for regulators to immediately launch an investigation into the conduct and oversight of the studies and “impose severe sanctions for the serious ethical and regulatory lapses that have occurred in the ketamine clinical trials and other studies” at Minneapolis’s Hennepin County Medical Center.

The hospital committee that green-lighted the studies, called an institutional review board (IRB), “appears incapable of doing its job,” said Dr. Michael Carome, director of Public Citizen’s Health Research Group, who organized the letter. It acted unethically and placed patients in danger, he said, “including by waiving the requirement for informed consent in situations where that is not allowed.”

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Research ethics, informed consent and the disempowerment of First Nation peoples (Papers: Juan M Tauri | 2017)0

Posted by Admin in on November 14, 2018
 

Abstract
Recently, Indigenous commentators have begun to analyse the way in which institutional Research Ethics Boards (REBs) engage with Indigenous researchers and participants, respond to Indigenous peoples’ concerns with academic research activities, and scrutinise the ethics proposals of Indigenous scholars. Of particular concern for Indigenous commentators is that the work of REBs often results in the marginalisation of Indigenous approaches to knowledge construction and dissemination, especially in relation to the vexed issue of informed consent. Based on analysis of the results of research with Indigenous researchers and research participants, this paper argues that institutionalised REBs’ preference for ‘universal’ and ‘individualised’ approaches for determining ethical research conduct marginalises Indigenous approaches to ethical research conduct. The paper concludes by calling for a decolonisation of REB processes through recognition of the validity of communal processes for attaining the informed consent of Indigenous research participants.

Keywords First Nations, research ethics boards, informed consent, decolonisation

Tauri, J. M. (2018). Research ethics, informed consent and the disempowerment of First Nation peoples. Research Ethics, 14(3), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016117739935
Publisher (Open Access): https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1747016117739935

0