ACN - 101321555 | ABN - 39101321555

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

AHRECS icon
Exclude terms...
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
AHRECS
Analysis
Animal ethics
Animal Ethics Committee
Animal handling
Animal housing
Animal Research Ethics
Animal Welfare
ANZCCART
Artificial Intelligence
Arts
Australia
Authorship
Belief
Beneficence
Big data
Big data
Biobank
Bioethics
Biomedical
Biospecimens
Breaches
Cartoon/Funny
Case studies
Clinical trial
Collaborative research
Conflicts of interest
Consent
Controversy/Scandal
Controversy/Scandal
Creative
Culture
Data management
Database
Dual-use
Essential Reading
Ethical review
Ethnography
Euthanasia
Evaluative practice/quality assurance
Even though i
First People
Fraud
Gender
Genetics
Get off Gary Play man of the dog
Good practice
Guidance
Honesty
HREC
Human research ethics
Humanities
Institutional responsibilities
International
Journal
Justice
Links
Media
Medical research
Merit and integrity
Methodology
Monitoring
New Zealand
News
Online research
Peer review
Performance
Primary materials
Principles
Privacy
Protection for participants
Psychology
Publication ethics
Questionable Publishers
Research ethics committees
Research integrity
Research Misconduct
Research results
Researcher responsibilities
Resources
Respect for persons
Sample paperwork
sd
se
Serious Adverse Event
Social Science
SoTL
Standards
Supervision
Training
Vulnerability
x
Young people
Exclude news

Sort by

Animal Ethics Biosafety Human Research Ethics Research Integrity

Animal Ethics

Artistically worn US flag

(US) Watchdog group calls for federal investigation of UW regarding research misconduct – Wyoming Public Media (Jeff Victor | May 2023)

This research integrity and animal ethics story from the United States is a stark example of how institutional conflicts of interest undermined the speed and credibility of research misconduct investigations and retraction processes.  Too often, concerns about the potential impact on funding and reputation trump action on publicly penalising misconduct and correcting the scientific record.  This is why the team at AHRECS believe misconduct and retractions need to be the remit of an independent national body that isn’t compromised by local finding and reputational concerns.

Read More
A rat in a wire cage

(USA) “Unapproved euthanasia” of rats in neuroscience study leads to retraction – Reaction Watch (Ellie Kincaid | April 2023)

Breaches of ethical standards (both animal and human) aren’t just a matter for the relevant institutional ethics committee, it can also represent a research integrity matter and potentially research misconduct.  National standards, such as the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research, specifically indicate that a breach of ethical standards can be a research integrity matter.  Institutional research ethics breach and complaint processes must incorporate links and interoperation with the institution’s research integrity breach processes. 

Read More
Cat scientists looking into a testing room, where a mallet is poised to smack down on anyone eating a piece of cheese. With the sign above "BETTER MOUSE TRAP INC".

Friday afternoon’s funny – Is this really science?

Generally, it is not the role of an ethics committee (human or animal) to discuss methodological matters, but hopefully, if confronted with a research project that looked like this humorous Don Mayne cartoon, members would query whether the project was valid scientific research.  More could be said about corporate research and the degree to which corporate researchers have a predator/prey relationship with the research subjects/participants. 

Read More
Animal Welfare Sign

Addressing the Problematic Past of Animal Behavior Research – The Scientist (Holly Root-Gutteridge & Anna Korzeniowska | April 2023)

A sanitised version of these animal behaviour experiments are well known, but the gruesome details of the actual work would be shocking and distressing to most people. This piece in The Scientist take a look at these details, and reflects that were they to be conducted now they are unlikely to be approved by an Animal Ethics Committee.  It is unlikely that even the strongest proponents of animal research would consider this work to be acceptable.  As this piece observes, we now know that animals that endure cruelty and serious pain do not react or behave naturally, thus invalidating the whole point of the research.  

Read More
Three regulation buses in a row at a transit centre, with cobwebs denoting the bus most used.

Friday afternoon’s funny – The regulation bus less travelled

The members of the AHRECS team have participated in the reviews of national standards for human research ethics. We have also advised and assisted research institutions when they conduct internal reviews of their policies, processes and resource material. As depicted in this humorous Don Mayne cartoon, these exercises can be generally characterised in three ways: 1. Basically a continuation of the current setting and approaches previously used. 2. A change, but not one that disrupts the status quo for powerful interest. 3. A disruptive change, which will improve the approach, but one which will be inconvenient for powerful interests. The sad and hard reality is that the best option is rarely chosen and repeating previous practice happens too often.  

Read More
Female scientists handles laboratory mouse in modern laboratory

Suffering in Silence – Science (Simon Prades | March 2023)

The hard practicality of much animal research is that some animals will suffer and die.  Accomplished animal-based researchers understand and accept this.  They are a fundamental component of their chosen career.  But do we give a thought to animal technicians and junior researchers who may not have considered this when accepting a job?  This Science piece discusses the personal torment of an animal technician who genuinely cares for animals.  Institutions have a duty of care to offer support and assistance to junior research staff struggling with these matters.

Read More
Scientist with rabbit and cosmetic product in chemical laboratory, closeup. Animal testing

When journals don’t meet their ethical guidelines, will anyone hold them accountable? – Retraction Watch (Janine McCarthy | March 2023)

Animal ethics in research is generally founded on the principle that we should refine, reduce and replace the use of animals in research whenever possible.  Arguably, the degree of public support for such research owes much to our adherence to this principle.  Many journals in this space mouth belief and support for this fundamental principle for the ethical conduct of animal research.  This Retraction Watch piece looks at circumstances when research journals fail to live up to their stated beliefs.  Such behaviour runs the risk of undermining public support.

Read More

Related Links

Compiled here are links, downloads and other resources relating to research integrity and human research ethics. more…

Resources Menu

Four hands solving a jigsaw against the sun blazing out of a cloudy sky

Research Integrity

Human Research Ethics

Research Ethics Monthly Receive copies of the Research Ethics Monthly directly
by email. We will never spam you.

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Facebook-f Twitter Linkedin-in