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

Resource Library

Research Ethics MonthlyAbout Us

Australia

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Griffith University’s implementation of the Australian Code (2018)0

 

Dr Amanda Fernie, Manager Research Ethics & Integrity, Griffith University Dr Gary Allen, Senior Policy Officer, Griffith University

AUSTRALIAN CODE (2007)

At Griffith University, the implementation, operation, investigations and related professional development of/for the 2007 edition of the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research is the responsibility of the Research Ethics & Integrity team in the Office for Research.

The Griffith University Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research was the University’s policy implementation of the Australian Code (2007) and it was supplemented by the Research Integrity Resource Sheet (RIRS) series. The Griffith University Code was largely a direct repeat of the Australian Code into Griffith University policy. The RIRS is a series of short (most are four pages) guidance documents that provide practical tips related to the University’s implementation of Part A and Part B of Australian Code (2007).

IMPLEMENTING THE AUSTRALIAN CODE (2018)

This is the first post in the series about institutions implementing the Australian Code (2018). We’d love to hear about your instution’s progress and story. Email us at IntegrityStory@ahrecs.com to discuss logistics.

At the outset, Griffith University decided to give its Research Integrity Adviser (RIA) network a more collegiate advisory role, and while RIAs were made available to advise complainants and respondents, or parties in a dispute, their primary role was providing advice and suggestions.
.
Professional development workshops on research integrity for new HDR candidates were conducted a few times a year (as part of the orientation) and were co-facilitated by the Office for Research and the Griffith Graduate Research School. Workshops on research integrity were also conducted for new HDR Supervisors as part of their accreditation. Since 2007, professional development workshops in Schools, Departments, Research Centres, Administrative units and Groups have been co-facilitated by the relevant RIA and a member of the Research Ethics & Integrity team.
.

APPROACH TO THE AUSTRALIAN CODE (2018)

.
Griffith University aims to have fully implemented the Australian Code (2018) by the end of March 2019. Griffith’s Research Committee has recommended to the Academic Committee that the redundant detail of the Griffith University Code be replaced by the Griffith University Responsible Conduct of Research policy. This policy articulates the University’s implementation of the principles and responsibilities of the Australian Code (2018), the role of the University’s collegiate RIAs, and the existence and role of the resource material that will be produced by the Office for Research.
Our Office for Research is currently liaising with the relevant parts of the University to determine who has control of:

.

Level 1 – Documents that refer to or link to the Australian Code, where a simple change to the reference/URL is required. Example: HDR candidate supervision policy.
.
Level 2 – Documents that derive authority from the Australian Code, where it will need to be determined if the Australian Code (2018) still directly provides that authority or if any changes are required. Example: Publication ethics standards.
.
Level 3 – Documents that copy, refer to or use a component of the Australian Code (2007), where it will need to be determined if the Australian Code (2018) still provides that component or if it needs to be replaced by institutional guidance.
.

The above work is underway and progressing well.
.
In the event new institutional guidance is required, it will be included in the updated RIRS series.
.

UPDATED RESEARCH INTEGRITY RESOURCE SHEETS

.
The following resource sheets are being produced:
.

  1. Introduction to research integrity at Griffith University
  2. Moving to the 2018 version of the Australian Code
  3. Planning and conducting a project responsibly
  4. Responsible research outputs
  5. Responsible data management
  6. Collaborative research: Hints and tips
  7. The responsible supervisor
  8. The responsible candidate
  9. Conflicts of interest
  10. Tips for peer review
  11. Disputes between researchers
  12. Investigations of alleged breaches of the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research
  13. Alleged breaches: Tips for complainants
  14. Alleged breaches: Tips for respondents
  15. Research Misconduct

.
Initially any ‘new’ guidance material will use text from Part A of the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research (2007), but the intention is to refine the material based on (sub)discipline and methodological feedback from the University’s research community, drawing from useful ideas from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), US Office of Research Integrity (ORI) and the UK Research Integrity Office.
.
As new good practice guides are released the relevant RIRS will be reviewed and updated as required.
Griffith University is taking a ‘learning institution’ approach to this material, where it is refined and improved over time based on user feedback and suggestions, institutional and (inter)national experience/events and changes in needs.
.
COMMUNICATION PLAN

.
The Office for Research is currently finalising a communication plan, in addition to regular updates to Research Committee, the RIA network and the areas of the University identified for the consultation above. This will include briefings for the Group Research Committees.
.

AWARENESS AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
.
Early in 2019, the Office for Research and RIAs will commence professional development activities to raise awareness and understanding of the national and international changes.
.

Amanda is happy to be contacted with any questions or suggestions about this work.
..

Contributors
Amanda Fernie, Griffith University | a.fernie@griffith.edu.au & Gary Allen, Griffith University

This post may be cited as:
Fernie, A. & Allen, G. (26  November 2018) Griffith University’s implementation of the Australian Code (2018). Research Ethics Monthly. Retrieved from: https://ahrecs.com/research-integrity/griffith-universitys-implementation-of-the-australian-code-2018
.
We invite debate on issues raised by items we publish. However, we will only publish debate about the issues that the items raise and expect that all contributors model ethical and respectful practice.

 

Beneficence as a Principle in Human Research0

 

Pieper, I. & Thomson, C.J.H. (2016) Beneficence as a Principle in Human Research. Monash Bioethics Review. 34: 117. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40592-016-0061-3

A Series on the Four Principles of the Australian National Statement on Ethics Conduct in Human Research

In this issue of the Research Ethics Monthly, Ian Pieper and Colin Thomson continue their series of short summaries of each of their four co-authored articles on the principles that underpin the Australian National Statement, namely, research merit and integrity, justice, beneficence and respect.

The articles were originally published in the Monash Bioethics Review and remain available to subscription holders to that journal. The publisher, Springer, has generously agreed to place each of the four articles on Free Access for one month after the corresponding short summary is published in the Research Ethics Monthly. Last month they revisited their paper entitled The value of respect in human research ethics: a conceptual analysis and a practical guide. This month they revisit the paper exploring the principle of beneficence in the context of human research. The full paper can be found here.

Beneficence is one of the four values and principles on which the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (National Statement) is founded. A requirement for beneficence to be demonstrably present in human research is not a uniquely Australian consideration but is found in many of the human research ethics guidance documents from around the world. Beneficence is an important consideration in that it mirrors the altruistic nature of the voluntary nature of participation in human research.

Being a positive virtue, beneficence is a moral ideal and considerations of it as a principle during the design and ethical assessment of a research project can be seen as subjective. This can make beneficence difficult to identify within research proposals. As a principle which promotes good or charitable outcomes, over and above those imposed by duty, it is not merely synonymous with non malfeasance. Beneficence is the provision of benefits over and above the costs associated with the burdens of research.

This paper provides some clarity for researchers and Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) members on the role that beneficence plays in discussions about human research ethics. While applying beneficence in human research does involve consideration of risks and benefits to participants, consideration should also extend to individuals, groups, and communities not directly involved in the research

This paper also provides both researchers and HREC members with practical guidance on the application of beneficence in the design, review and conduct of ethical human research. This guidance does not consider beneficence in isolation but places it within the context of the other principles and the National Statement as a whole.

Ian and Colin have produced an activity sheet to accompany this post. It can be found in the subscribers’ area (https://www.patreon.com/ahrecs). A subscription of only USD15/month (approx AUD21/month) provides access to a growing library of activity items, reflections on papers and news, and other resource items. At least two items are added to the library every month.  These are shared on a creative commons basis, so you are free to use them internally without otherwise engaging AHRECS. These items would ordinarily cost more than AUD500. So becoming an AHRECS patron not only helps AHRECS stay a constructive voice for change it’s a way to get access some terrific items for a great price.

Email gary.allen@ahrecs.com for further information.

Contributors:
Ian Pieper, AHRECS Consultant, Ian’s AHRECS profile
Colin Thomson AM, AHRECS Senior Consultant, colin.thomson@ahrecs.com | Colin’s AHRECS profile

This post may be cited as:
Pieper, I & Thomson C. (23  November 2018) Beneficence as a Principle in Human Research. Research Ethics Monthly. Retrieved from: https://ahrecs.com/human-research-ethics/beneficence-as-a-principle-in-human-research

We invite debate on issues raised by items we publish. However, we will only publish debate about the issues that the items raise and expect that all contributors model ethical and respectful practice.

It’s not too late to register for today’s free webinar about the 2018 update to the National Statement0

Posted by Admin in Human Research Ethics on November 21, 2018 / Keywords: , , ,
 

Details about the event below. While we hope to see you there in a few days we’ll add a recording of the event to our website.

To register for this event visit
https://zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_vwIWL16YT4S-lkMOXAxVtQ

Date Panel members Questions
National Statement  22/11/18
14:30 AEDT
MODERATOR
Mark Israel
.
Jeremy Kenner 
(NHMRC)
.
Wendy Rodgers (Chair NSRWG, Macquarie University)
.
Pamela Henry, ECU HREC Chair
.
Gary Allen (AHRECS, C0-chair of the committee that
drafted  the new Chapter 3.1 of the National
Statement)
 

.
1. Jeremy, what’s new and why does it matter?
.
2. Wendy, how could researchers use
and benefit from the changes?
.
3. Pam, how could HRECs use and
benefit from the changes?
.
4. Gary, what’s scary about the changes?

 

New South Wales Thursday, 22 November at 2:30:00 pm AEDT UTC+11 hours
Western Australia Thursday, 22 November at 11:30:00 am AWST UTC+8 hours
Australian Capital Territory Thursday, 22 November at 2:30:00 pm AEDT UTC+11 hours
Queensland Thursday, 22 November at 1:30:00 pm AEST UTC+10 hours
South Australia Thursday, 22 November at 2:00:00 pm ACDT UTC+10:30 hours
Northern Territory Thursday, 22 November at 1:00:00 pm ACST UTC+9:30 hours
Victoria/Tasmania Thursday, 22 November at 2:30:00 pm AEDT UTC+11 hours
New Zealand Thursday, 22 November at 4:30:00 pm NZDT UTC+13 hours

.
The panels run for 45 minutes. Each panellist has been asked to speak for five minutes on a particular question.

The panels will include a discussion of how institutions and researchers might best respond to the new Australian Code. The discussion will be partly based on

1. Questions submitted in advance to NSburningquestion@ahrecs.com – please consider doing so now, as it may allow panellists to provide you with better prepared answers

2. questions raised through the Q&A feature on Zoom

You’ll need to make sure that you have Zoom as an app on your device or access to Zoom on the internet. Login details will be sent to registrants.

You’ll have access to a website page after the seminar where panellists may leave further materials. We’ll also be distributing a questionnaire asking you about what worked, what didn’t work and what you’d like future sessions to cover.

I look forward to you joining the audience online.

Prof. Mark Israel
Moderator and AHRECS senior consultant

Get access to some great resources (two examples included in this post) and support events like the Constructive Voices panels0

 

Every month we add at least two items to the subscribers’ area. These include vignettes and other resources to use in your internally delivered professional development workshops. They are shared on a creative commons basis, so a nominated person can download selected material, load it onto a local server and use it within his or her own institution multiple times.(as long as they adhere to the CC license). Included here is a example pf a discussion item. We are currently working on a library of 26+ research integrity short audio snippets that could be incorporated into your internal research integrity workshops (example also attached). A library of these will be available from the subscribers’ area.

In addition to getting access to these great material, patrons are helping AHRECS cover the costs of events like the Australian Code= and National Statement Constructive Voices panel discussions webinars.

A Gold sponsorship (which costs US15/month) provides access to all materials. Subscriptions are paid via PayPal. We can provide a payment receipt after each monthly payment.

Too become a patron visit https://www.patreon.com/ahrecs.

Feel free to contact us on patron@ahrecs.com to discuss.