Skip to content

ACN - 101321555 | ABN - 39101321555

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

AHRECS icon
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Consultants
    • Services
  • Previous Projects
  • Blog
  • Resources
  • Feeds
  • Contact Us
  • More
    • Request a Quote
    • Susbcribe to REM
    • Subscribe to VIP
Menu
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Consultants
    • Services
  • Previous Projects
  • Blog
  • Resources
  • Feeds
  • Contact Us
  • More
    • Request a Quote
    • Susbcribe to REM
    • Subscribe to VIP
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
First People
Fraud
Gender
Genetics
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
Serious Adverse Event
Social Science
SoTL
Standards
Supervision
Training
Vulnerability
x
Young people
Exclude news

Sort by

Animal Ethics Human Research Ethics Research Integrity

Research Ethics Monthly

ISSN 2206-2483

  • Home
  • >
  • Australia
Ethics Honesty Responsibility Education Learning Business concept.

Effective use of research management systems

Dr Gary Allen April 28, 2022 No Comments
Read More
A diverse group of positive people

Element Zero: What’s missing from the National Statement to support Consumer and Community Involvement in health research?

April 28, 2021 No Comments

In this great post, Mark, Deborah and Ciara discuss a useful new element for the National Statement that relates to genuine involvement, input and participation for consumers/community members.

Mark Israel, Deborah Hersh and Ciara Shiggins

Advocates in health research of Consumer and Community Involvement – a concept better known in the United Kingdom as Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) – argue that it offers a way of building knowledge that incorporates the experiences and perspectives of a range of stakeholders, including patients and members of the public. Such involvement can improve the experience for research participants, enhance the process of informed consent, aid research impact and dissemination. It might also avoid the waste of resources on findings that have little relevance to end users or that cannot be implemented…

Read More
Looking through a wire fence of Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp

Why university research ethics committees are vital

March 13, 2021 No Comments

In this post Daniel Sokol writes about a troubling research integrity/human research ethics case that relates to Poland, the UK and Australia.

Daniel Sokol 

When I sat on the Ministry of Defence’s Research Ethics Committee, some research projects were potentially dangerous.  The risks of testing a new piece of military diving equipment, for example, are obvious.  If it malfunctions, the volunteer could drown or suffer brain damage.  The risks of historical research can be more subtle but they are nonetheless real, as shown by a recent case involving the University of Warwick.

Dr Anna Hájková, an associate professor of modern continental European history, researches the queer history of the Holocaust.  She claimed that a Jewish prisoner may have engaged in a lesbian sexual relationship with a Nazi guard in Hamburg in 1944.

After the war, the prisoner worked as an actress and emigrated from…

Read More
A row of dice sitting on the trigger of a metal trap displaying the word "RISK"

A big bear trap on the horizon

January 27, 2021 No Comments

Many Australian research bodies link to the National Statement. They do so through websites, policy documents, professional development material and other resources.

This is logical and makes it easier for researchers and others to access the national policy/guidance material.

Another reason to do this is that it makes it easier for researchers to see the external impetus for the institution’s arrangements and provides a source of further information and guidance.

Read More
Graphic about research

A rose by any other name….?

November 30, 2020 No Comments

As both a researcher and a research administrator in healthcare, one of the more vexing issues that I have to deal with on an almost daily basis is how to manage what are termed quality assurance, quality improvement and audit activities. In its 2014 publication entitled “Ethical Considerations in Quality Assurance and Evaluation Activities”, the NHMRC (NHMRC QA guidance) suggests that these can be loosely gathered together under an umbrella term of Quality Assurance (QA) and/or evaluation. I believe this construct is wrong and reinforces a longstanding approach to ethics review that relies on the category of an investigative activity to determine the level of review that is used. This approach is problematic and leads to some significant unintended consequences.

Read More
Three collaborators working on a laptop

If you build it, they will come- 2020 Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) Training Conference (online) 18-20 Nov

November 29, 2020 1 Comment

Approximately 2.5 months from inception to execution, a veritable cornucopia of Australia’s thought leaders on topics such as consent, voluntary

Read More
Wordcloud around the concept of 'BEST PRACTICE'

A poor call and two missed opportunities, but otherwise not a bad proposed revision to NS s5

October 20, 2020 No Comments

In this post, Gary, Mark and Kim refect on the draft update to Section 5 of the Australia’s National Statement.

“In recent years in Australia, we have seen some painful cases where research ethics review delegated to a non-HREC review body has failed to guard against projects that proved to be embarrassing for their host institution (see, for example, the ‘Racist bus driver’ and ‘Laughing at the disabled’ projects)….”

Read More
Three multi-racial arms griped together

Reframing Indigenous consultation: engagement and risk management

September 16, 2020 No Comments

Lindsey Te Ata o Tu MacDonald and commentary by Mandy Downing As a member and then chair of both a

Read More

What are questionable research practices as reported by ECRs in STEMM in Australia?

July 29, 2020 No Comments

Katherine Christian, Carolyn Johnstone, Jo-ann Larkins, Wendy Wright and Michael Doran Katherine Christian, Federation University Australia Carolyn Johnstone, Federation University

Read More
Previous Page1 Page2 Page3 Page4 … Page10 Next

Categories

AHRECS Admin
17
Animal Ethics
2
Global Ethics
1
Human Research Ethics
160
Research Integrity
57
Services
27
Uncategorized
2

Featured posts

Error of judgment! Handwritten message on a white background.

Unnatural justice: Public allegations could cause significant harm to vital clinical trial activity

October 25, 2021 No Comments

In this thought-provoking post, Nik Zeps (a consultant with AHRECS and a partner at Chrysalis) discusses the serious harm (in terms of reputation and career, as well as lost useful lines of inquiry) when there are complaints that allege ethical problems with clinical research.

These relate to situations where the clinical research is evaluating different kinds of intervention, where the evidence for the ‘accepted’ treatment might not be clear.

A misunderstanding of such research designs and a visceral reaction to apparent breaches aren’t helpful.

When such allegations are made, the researchers are rarely afforded an opportunity to respond and explain. If they were, one assumes that the manner could be easily cleared up.

We are embarrassed to admit in our own reporting of the cited case we really didn’t grasp the realities of what occurred or called out the very emotive reaction.

Strategies for resolving ethically ambiguous scenarios

June 20, 2017 2 Comments

During the fall of 2013 and spring of 2014, I traveled to numerous universities

The complex art of benefit-sharing

July 24, 2018 No Comments

In community-based participatory action programs (programs which have a research component but which are

Graphic of camera observation of the community

Should we accept funding for facial recognition research, and other dilemmas?

January 26, 2021 No Comments

Gary Allen, Mark Israel and Colin Thomson|
PEER REVIEWED

In the 1980s and 1990s, many research institutions made the principled and commendable decision not to accept funding from the tobacco industry.

This reflected the recognition of the awful health impacts of tobacco use and the degree to which the industry was muddying the waters of public debate with academic and clinical research questioning the veracity of the overwhelming body of evidence that clearly showed the dire dangers of activity such as smoking. While we continue to be shocked by cases such those like the research of Hans J Eysenck (and this), for the main it is accepted that receiving funding from the tobacco industry is not in the public’s best interest.

Subscribe to newsletter

The Research Ethics Monthly is a free monthly publication about human research ethics and research integrity. It is emailed to our subscribers generally towards the end of every month.

  • Enter the answer as a word
  • Hidden
    This field is hidden and only used for import to Mailchimp
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Related Links

  • Comment Rules
  • Complaints against the Research Ethics Monthly
  • Request a Take Down
  • Submission guidelines
  • About the Research Ethics Monthly
  • About Subscribing to the Research Ethics Monthly

Research Ethics Monthly

  • October/November 2020
  • August/September 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May/June 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • January/February 2020
  • December 2019
  • November/December 2019
Load More

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

  • Enter the answer as a word
  • Hidden
    This field is hidden and only used for import to Mailchimp
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
  • Home
  • Services
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
Menu
  • Home
  • Services
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Company
  • Terms Of Use
  • Copyright
  • Privacy Policy
Menu
  • Company
  • Terms Of Use
  • Copyright
  • Privacy Policy
  • Site Map
Menu
  • Site Map

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Facebook-f Twitter Linkedin-in