


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

Towards a code of conduct for ethical post-disaster research
JC Gaillard School of Environment, The University of Auckland, New Zealand Unit for Environmental Sciences and Management, North-West University, South

Conversations with an HREC: A Researcher’s perspective
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/
Inclusion of Culturally and Linguistically Diverse populations in Clinical Trials:
Nik Zeps AHRECS Consultant Clinical trials have enormous value to society as they provide the most robust means of working

The research use of online data/web 2.0 comments
Does it require research ethics review and specified consent? Dr Gary Allen AHRECS Senior Consultant The internet is a rich
Empowering and enabling participation in human research: Reflections from two Queenslanders living with Multiple Sclerosis
Dr Gary Allen MS Qld Ambassador | AHRECS Senior Consultant | Member NS s4 review committee Natalie Walsh MS Qld

We respect you… we just don’t need to hear from you any more: Should the consumer and their community participate in research as partners instead of just being subjects?
By Dr Gary Allen| Senior Policy Officer, Office for Research Griffith University | Ambassador Council the Hopkins Centre| Ambassador MS
Categories
Featured posts

A rose by any other name….?
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.

If you build it, they will come- 2020 Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) Training Conference (online) 18-20 Nov
Approximately 2.5 months from inception to execution, a veritable cornucopia of Australia’s thought leaders

Going video: A chance to change review practice?
In this post, Gary asks when it comes to research ethics review, whether something useful might come from social distancing

A new approach to the AHRECS site
In response to community feedback, from 1 November 2020, only papers, books and genuine resources will be posted to the AHRECS Resource Library; news and announcements will be posted to the feeds page. Searches of the site can include searches of the feed. Links to Research Ethics Monthly editions will also be posted to the feeds page. Please bear with us as we move all existing news items over to the feed. Eventually, this approach will make it easier to distinguish between research outputs and news items about human research ethics and research integrity.