Nik Zeps, Consultant, AHRECS Keywords: Ethical Review, International Guidelines, Gene editing technologies, It has now been over six months since
In this post find out why Gary is cranky about the proposed good practice guide for Australian Research Integrity Advisers.
#SPOILERALERT It is because he believes institutions need a network of collegiate Research Integrity Advisers to nurture and support a community of practice within their institution.
He also thinks mandatory reporting and telling people to speak in hypotheticals are STUPID.
While Gary describes this as a personal opinion, we agree. We don’t see how mandatory reporting will make serving as an RIA would be appealing or encourage anyone to consult them about whether an individual’s practice is appropriate.
AHRECS provides desktop audit and blueprint on Research Integrity within an institution and conducts professional development for RIAs.
Contact email@example.com to discuss.
Element Zero: What’s missing from the National Statement to support Consumer and Community Involvement in health research?
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…
In this post, Gary Allen and Nik Zeps explore the human research ethics arguments and imperatives that only allow for the sharing of data, but establish a public good that can make sharing expected and essential.
This expectation should shape the approach to consent, the framing of assurances given to potential participants about confidentiality and e reflected in the application for research ethics review.
Research ethics committees and review bodies should be cognisant of these ethical arguments during the research ethics review of projects
Institutions must have clear policies and guidance material on data sharing.
Clergy service to HRECs: the useful paradox within secular governance of research involving human participants
Aviva Kipen, Union for Progressive Judaism and Progressive Judaism Victoria. In 2015, I earned