Gary Allen, Mark Israel and Colin Thomson|
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.
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.
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)….”
Embedding clinical research as part of routine healthcare: Managing the potential for competing interests. (UPDATED).
Nik Zeps AHRECS Consultant Clinical trials are widely accepted as the best method for understanding whether any particular medical
JC Gaillard School of Environment, The University of Auckland, New Zealand Unit for Environmental Sciences and Management, North-West University, South
Dr Ann-Maree Vallence and Dr Hakuei Fujiyama College of Science, Health, Engineering and Education, Murdoch University, Perth, Australia http://profiles.murdoch.edu.au/myprofile/ann-maree-vallence/ http://profiles.murdoch.edu.au/myprofile/hakuei-fujiyama/
Nik Zeps AHRECS Consultant Clinical trials have enormous value to society as they provide the most robust means of working
Aboriginal research and ethics: Could we be making it harder than it really is? Six things to focus your decision making
What do we know? I wish I could say there’s a simple formula that
Prof Colin Thomson AM Chairing an HREC can be complicated, demanding, stressful and tiring
The Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research 2007 (the Code) is Australia’s
Following my September 2017 piece: Ethics and the Participation of Indigenous Children and Young