Research Ethics Monthly
ISSN 2206-2483
Ethics Committees and Research Data Management
March 14, 2023
No Comments
Human research projects often raise complex Data Management issues and considerations that can be pertinent for consent, privacy, risk management and research ethics review.
Research data is also an important element of research integrity, in that it serves as a record of the way in which the research project was conducted and the results of the work.
The data of the project could be useful and valuable for researchers conducting wider work in the same area. There are strong ethical reasons for the data to be in a form useful for sharing and the consent obtained allow for that sharing.
The responsible approach to that data should be informed by a mixture of institutional policy, the law /regulation and methodological standards.
In this post, Nichola Burton, Program Manager (Institutional Underpinnings), ARDC reflects on the issues confronting Australia Human Research Ethic Committees and their host institution.
Friend or foe? Building better relationships between HRECs and researchers
February 2, 2023
No Comments
In this terrific post, Jess Carniel of the University of Southern Queensland, reflects on research ethics committees engaging with researchers in discipline areas not included in core membership of a committee.
Jess Carniel is Senior Lecturer in Humanities in the School of Humanities and Communication, UniSQ.
She is also Deputy Chair of the USQ Human Research Ethics Committee and an Executive Member of the Centre for Heritage and Culture.
AHRECS agrees with and supports the approaches and ideas she discusses in this post.
We agree that the role research ethics committees should be approached positively to resource practice, rather than from within a bureaucratic frame to police research compliance with rules intended to constrain research practice.
Can reading Australian novels help us become more ethical researchers?
January 17, 2023
No Comments
If someone asked you for some recommended reading or viewing to help them understand human research ethics, animal ethics or research integrity, what would you recommend?
The policies and standards issued by National governments, learned societies, funding bodies and academic publications are generally not especially engaging or entertaining.
In this blog post, Sally Dalton-Brown discusses a couple of options from the streaming and fiction publishing offerings.
They won’t exactly discuss, explain or define the principles of ethical or responsible conduct. Neither will they explain how to adhere to national requirements or instutiona policy. That isn’t surprising, but that is probably not the point. Entertainment, enjoyment and a bit of fun is a great way to engage people with the important elements of ethical and responsible behaviour in the design and conduct of research.
This material could be usefully included in the resource library for members of an institution’s research ethics committee.
The need for ethical guidance for research other than human research or animal-based scientific work
January 12, 2023
No Comments
In this post, AHRECS Senior Consultant, Gary Allen, reflects on the fact that some research that does not require research ethics review from a Human Research Ethics Committee or an Animal Ethics Committee involve serious ethical questions that could benefit from guidance and ethical standards.
He uses four topical cases to illustrate why this is an important matter.
(1.) Kennewick Man and the ancient DNA (aDNA) furore – A case where there was an argument about the providence of an ancient body and whether it was subject to First Nation considerations.
(2.) Karl Andersson’s Masturbation Over Child Porn autoethnography project – A case that raised concern and commentary about the ethical oversight of research where there is potential for public harm.
(3.) Myanmar Amber Studies – A question about researchers purchasing amber samples from the country of Myanmar, when there are concerns that the revenue could be used to fund human rights abuses.
(4.) Artifical Intelligence Ethics Review – The use of Artificial Intelligence can have the potential for discrimination of marginalised communities and individuals. Given this potential for harm, it has been asked if there is a need for some form of ethics review of this work.
Setting the right tone
November 3, 2022
No Comments
In this very practical talk, AHRECS senior consultant, Gary discusses the positive and constructive ways in which a research ethics committee Chair can set the tone of the meeting.
Committees can, and should, have a role beyond the normal operational tasks (e.g. confirmation of the minutes), research ethics review (including the framing of review feedback) and involvement in the institutions approach to professional development for its research community.
The Chair has an essential role in regards to how the committee utilises national and institutional guidance material that frames the conduct reviews and the ethical design/conduct of research projects.
They can usefully also guide the committee towards constructive handling of matters such as conflicts of interest and typographical errors in the material submitted to the committee.
AHRECS has considerable experience in working with research institutions in this area, including mentoring for Chairs and Secretaries, coaching for committees and professional development.
Is having alternate/reserve members a helpful practice?
October 28, 2022
No Comments
In this incredibly helpful and practical post, Erich von Dietze (a senior consultant at AHRECS) reflects on the considerations, benefits and potential challenges when trying to structure your ethics committee (whether human research or Animal Ethics).
Like many matters in research governance (especially Human Research Ethics and Animal Ethics), there is no simple answer that is always right. Saving time and impediments in one area, can create more and introduce delays in another.
Erich discusses the options and explores the issues that require consideration.
Getting this right can mitigate against unexpected member absences, committee continuity and maintain the expertise and readiness of members.
Acting rashly can cause problems, take time and use up resources.
This item is a recommended read for research office staff, a secretaries, committee chairs and members.
An argument for registers for research ethics committee members
September 29, 2022
No Comments
In this great and very helpful post, Gary and Kim (from AHRECS) looks at the benefits of institutions establishing and keeping updated a register of their members.
Such a register could track, when a member was appointed to the committee, when their appointment is up for renewal and the maximum finish date for their appointment. It should also track the dates on which the member has participated in professional development.
Such a register can be a component of good governance with regards to the membership of a research ethics committee.
Maintaining a register of when members have participated in professional development activities can be a great way of reinforcing the expectation that members will regularly participate in professional development. There is of course a reciprocal obligation that institutions regularly conduct internal and fund participation and external professional development activities.
It is good practice for institutions to maintain a public register of the declaration of interest from members. At the very least, such a register should be easily accessible by members of the committee, but it is also recommended that the register be publicly available. Members should be encouraged to at least lodge their interests when they are first appointed and when their membership is renewed.
AHRECS expands to encompass animal ethics
September 20, 2022
No Comments
In this short post AHRECS consultant, Amanda Fernie discusses the animal ethics services that AHRECS now provides and are experienced in, in this complex and important area of research governance.
Amanda is one of the recent additions to the AHRECS team.
She brings considerable experience as someone who has worked as an animal ethics officer and as a manager of a Research Ethics and Research Integrity team.
Even more than is a case for Human Research Ethics, Animal Ethics is an area that cannot be purely approached as a matter of technical regulation where researchers and institutions must comply with relevant laws and ethical codes. This is NOT a useful approach to Animal Ethics. It also unlikely to prompt researchers to approach the topic in a way that it thoughtful, reflective and engaged.
Considering matters such as the sufficiency of environmental enrichment and techniques is not merely a matter of whether a proposed approach complies with the law. It requires a far more thoughtful reflection on animal welfare and respect. What was appropriate 20 years ago is unlikely to be acceptable now.
The AHRECS team brings together considerable experience and insight into international best practice.
Contact us on enquiry@ahrecs.com if you would like to discuss how we can assist your institution.
Categories
Featured posts
Questionable publishing practice? Are you harmed?
July 30, 2020
1 Comment
Antony Ley (Information Policy Officer at Griffith University) & Gary Allen When considering whether
The Code Breaker book review
September 14, 2022
No Comments
In this post, AHRECS senior consultant, Erich von Dietze, does a review of an incredibly interesting book by Walter Isaacson.
The book, ‘Breaking the Code’ is a very engaging discussion and introduction to genetic research and the labs that work in this field.
The book focuses upon Jennifer Doudna and her collaborators.
The writing style is punchy, direct and it provides an easily digestible introduction to genetics concepts, science and technology.
Amongst the matters discussed is the technology CRISPR.
The author is a professor of history who has written several books including contemporary histories of science and technology.
The book is a recommended read for research Ethics committee members, secretaries and research offices.
It can be especially helpful for lay and other community members, as well as for researchers outside go to outside the genetics field.
We recommend its inclusion in the resource library for your institution’s research ethics committee. It can also be the basis of professional department for committee members.
Effective use of research management systems
April 28, 2022
No Comments
In this post, Michael Creevey (the CEO of Endpoint IQ) discusses the effective and constructive use of research management systems, including research ethics modules.
He discusses how a system can be used to resource and support a positive research culture within an institution.
Effective systems should provide the tools so users and their stakeholders can operate a constructive and value adding set of research governance arrangements (including Human Research Ethics, Animal Ethics and the related processes).
Michael discusses the origins of Endpoint IQ and how it was informed by the perspectives, needs and aspirations of research managers and researchers in Australia.
AHRECS is very conscious of the degree to which we have a conflict of interest in this space, but we think the Endpoint IQ system is excellent and is worth a serious look. We have an ongoing good relationship with Michael and the Endpoint IQ team, we have also partnered with them in bids in New Zealand. We also have a small financial connection to them. This conflict notwithstanding, we encourage research institutions to have a serious look at this system.
Even though Endpoint IQ is an excellent system, there are a number of other research management systems that are commendable and can perform similar (but not identical) functions to those of Endpoint IQ.
What do HREC members think and do when deciding about children’s participation in social research? Results from the MESSI survey
November 30, 2021
No Comments
In this guest post, Associate Professor Stephanie Taplin (UTS) reflects upon the reflections and attitudes of members of a research ethics committee when reviewing a project involving sensitive issues, where the participants are young people.
She reflects upon the degree that this consideration is based upon standards and expectations that are often not transparent to researchers and can be an impediment to useful/important research.
This post is based upon a longer research output that was about research exploring those attitudes.
This included whether there were topics that a research ethics committee member would never approve for a research project to explore with young people.
This work points to the need for specialist professional development for committee members relating to research on sensitive issues with young people.
This also raises the question of what guidance material institutions publish for researchers and for reference by research ethics reviewers.