Release of the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research 2007 (updated 2018) – With interview
The revised National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research 2007 (updated 2018) was released on 9 July 2018. .
‘Except as required by law’: Australian researchers’ legal rights and obligations regarding participant confidentiality
Anna Olsen, Research School of Population Health, ANU Julie Mooney-Somers, Centre for Values, Ethics and the Law in Medicine, University
Abuse of prisoners in the United States
Mike Adorjan and Rose Ricciardelli’s edited collection, Engaging with Ethics in International Criminological Research, was recently published by Routledge. Of
A Note on the Importance of Sensitising the Novice Researcher to the Realities of Ethics in Practice
Discussions of research ethics have begun to centre increasingly on how research guidelines translate into ethical practice during the research
Research Ethics as Gatekeeping in Justice Institutions
The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology has just published on OnlineFirst an article by Jacqui Horan (Melbourne) and
Smarter proportional research ethics review
Rushing toward a faster review decision should not mean relaxing standards or playing chicken
The value of respect in human research ethics: a conceptual analysis and a practical guide
Pieper, I J and Thomson CJH The value of respect in human research ethics:
Self-plagiarism? When re-purposing text may be ethically justifiable
In an institutional environment where researchers may be coming under increasing pressure to publish,
Unnatural justice: Public allegations could cause significant harm to vital clinical trial activity
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.