ACN - 101321555 Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Resource Library

Research Ethics MonthlyAbout Us

Institutional Responsibilities

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Clergy service to HRECs: the useful paradox within secular governance of research involving human participants0

 

Aviva Kipen, Union for Progressive Judaism and Progressive Judaism Victoria.

In 2015, I earned a Doctor of Ministry Studies degree from the University of Divinity in Melbourne. The thesis, investigating how 13 Christian and Jewish clergy experienced HREC service in their pastoral care roles, arose from my own human research ethics committee and Victorian Biotechnologies Ethics Advisory Committee service and extensive interfaith work. I had been mentored into my service to the Monash University HREC by the Rev’d Dr Judy Redman, the then Victorian Uniting Church Outreach Ministries Coordinator. I found myself in the company of Anglican clergy and had succeeded Catholics – nuns and priests – Buddhist monks and also male rabbis who had served before me. Joining Judy, the serving female minister, made the gender issue less remarkable than it might otherwise have been, even in the late 1990s. The faith interchanges on succession raised my immediate curiosity that would later lead to the research question and the project on which this piece draws.

The then National Guidelines were clear: we clergy appointees were not there to push our own denominational barrows. Still, I became curious about what was really going on in the minds of others who served HRECs interchangeably from a range of faiths and traditions regardless of often-irreconcilable theologies in the ‘pastoral chairs’. My interfaith work meant I was confident that, in the event of content matters being beyond my own repertoire, I would have an extensive network from which to seek expert guidance if asked to do so. But HREC appointment provides an opportunity to serve far beyond the specifics of faith content occasionally referenced in research applications.

I became aware that the recruitment of ‘the pastor’ in other committees was not always simple. I had been spotted at a meeting about chaplaincy in women’s prisons! How had others been identified and invited to join committees? What constituted their self-understanding of the ministry service being gifted to the committees they served? Would my interviews disclose any kind of ‘evangelism by stealth’?  Did faiths or denominations target access to committees assessing large amounts politically/theologically/ethically sensitive, kinds of research?

I discovered no documents showing the means by which the Catholic Church became an early adopter of the opportunity to be represented, but clearly there were Catholic clergy leading the discussion in the early years. My research showed great diversity within the voices of the Christian ministers. Even within denominations, including between current serving Catholics, there was diversity of expression on ground-breaking issues. It became clear that the one participant who asserted his role as being to represent the Catholic position, was the exceptional Catholic voice. Other Catholics applied the provisions of the current National Statement informed by their own faith understanding, but with broad appreciation for other communities’ concerns.

Many clergy enjoyed the intellectual effort of meeting preparation and assessing applications, perhaps indicating a somewhat obsessive character trait. The rigor of disciplined meetings, the collegiality with co-assessors and committee colleagues was experienced by many as a valued counterweight to congregational demands. When appointed, some experienced a bit of resistance and some took a gentle ribbing. But as they became known and trusted on their merits and performance, tenures were frequently extended. There was some inference that if individuals had theologies unable to embrace the content or methodologies required in assessing projects, it would be unlikely that they would find their way onto committees. A few references to short tenures alluded to non-renewal of clergy who were not a good fit.

The diversity of appointments reflects the neighbourhoods/communities served by HRECs and is appropriately representative of our national diversity. One participant was from a highly conservative evangelical denomination. The interview triggered deeply thoughtful reaction about personal identity relative to the HREC work. I would later find out that the reflection resulted in some major theological grappling as a consequence of the conversation. Regardless of denomination, interviewees found themselves intrigued by the attention my investigation was bringing to HREC clergy/pastoral work, which had almost invariably been out of the faiths’ hierarchical spotlights. Most remained entirely grateful for the freedom to do the HREC work without such attention.

One pastor described choosing not to participate in a committee discussion because he was aware his personal knowledge was not sufficient. It was a frank admission. The example begs the question of how applications need to enable comprehension and how lay and other non-disciplinary experts are enabled in their roles. Others found solutions to specific matters of dogma by offering wordings that would provide enough cues to the faith’s adherents to ensure they were going to be able to make informed choices without imperilling projects. What emerged was that clergy were clear about their denominational obligations and the tension between them and the needs of others in the general community.

Given that the task of assessing applications and contributing to meetings is identical for all HREC members, how do clergy understand themselves alongside their colleagues (who may be harbouring strong religious views but are not required to disclose them and which need not be presumed) as contributors to the wellbeing of the research landscape? Several clergy described pastoral care for committee colleagues and secretariat staff, by virtue of regular contact with them. This was implicit and automatic pastoral work. Care for researchers and participants whom the HREC members will never meet, is also natural pastoral work and a clear driver for clergy in their appointments.

Serving HRECs also provides clergy with a window to unfolding knowledge, a forward-looking perspective, regular use of critical faculties not always appreciated in congregational work, intelligent company, confidential settings in which they can be full participants without any oversight from their hierarchies resulting in contributions that don’t need to follow predictable, dogmatic lines, and a chance to serve beyond the faith or denomination. Australia has encoded high standards for itself in the research domain. Participants in my research were clear that high ethical research standards fit congruently into their understanding of their ministry work and several specialise in HREC work as their ministry interest. Many of these have high-level academic qualifications and years of expertise, which are offered repeatedly to the Australian community through HREC service.

Rabbi Dr Aviva Kipen has held Monash University HREC appointments and served on the Victorian Bio-Ethics Advisory Committee. She returned to serve a second term on the Australian Health Ethics Committee of NHMRC in 2019 and has begun the current triennium for the Victorian DHHS HREC. All comments reflect material in the thesis Kipen, A. (2015) Serving God and The Commonwealth of Australia: The Ministry Experiences of Clergy in Victorian Human Research Ethics Committees. Melbourne: University of Divinity.

This post may be cited as:
Kipen, A. (3 November 2019) Clergy service to HRECs: the useful paradox within secular governance of research involving human participants. Retrieved from: https://ahrecs.com/human-research-ethics/clergy-service-to-hrecs-the-useful-paradox-within-secular-governance-of-research-involving-human-participants

Keywords
Clergy, religion, denomination, ministry, faith

Pondering on whether to submit your research output to a journal?0

 

The significance of how we talk and think about the pachyderm elephant mammoth in the room.

Dr Gary Allen
AHRECS Senior Consultant

The names we give things matter. The Bard may have been willing to allow a rose to stand in place for any noun, but he hadn’t encountered unscrupulous publishers.

Thanks to Beall’s List, over the last few years we may have been ready to declare that an unscrupulous journal was predatory. Prior to early 2017, many of us defaulted to Beall’s List to label a journal and its publisher as being naughty or nice.

In general, a predatory journal is one that claims an editorial board, impact factor and quality assurance process it doesn’t actually have and is far more focussed on fast profits than a meaningful contribution to scholarly wisdom. Often predatory journals come within suites belonging to a predatory publisher. Other dubious behaviours of these unscrupulous publishers include:

  1. Listing eminent/influential editors who don’t actually have any involvement or association with the publication (and refusing to remove names when challenged).
  2. Styling their website after a reputable publisher or using a very similar journal title in the hopes of tricking the unwary.
  3. Offering to add undeserving co-authors to a publication… for a price.

Chances are our professional development workshops during this time would have been loaded with tips on how to spot a predatory journal, to be suspicious of unsolicited emails from publishers, and to be aware publishing with a predatory publisher could be a costly mistake (Eve and Priego 2017).

But credible voices started to ask whether we should pay heed to blacklists (Neylo 2017) and that Beall’s List hadn’t been without its problems (Swauger 2017). The difficulty is that blacklists tend to be conservative and can privilege established ways of doing business. There are quality open access publishers using non-traditional editorial and author-pays models and ‘traditional’ publishers whose business practices may not be that friendly to good academic practice.

After Beall’s List disappeared, we were all given good reason to reflect upon where not to publish. I was co-author of an earlier post on this topic (Israel and Allen 2017).

Over the last few years, it has become clear the relationship between questionable publishers and researchers was more complex than a predator/prey dichotomy where hapless authors were being tricked by unscrupulous publishers (submitting a paper to them because they were fooled by the false claims of peer review/editorial processes).

In this context, we saw: commentary that pointed to researchers publishing with predatory publishers was not limited to the global South (Oransky 2017); educational materials produced by the Committee on Publication Ethics; peak funding bodies urging grant-recipients to stay away from illegitimate publishers (Lauer 2017); the growth of predatory conferences (Cress 2017), and institutions treating as fraud the use of such publications in applications (Campanile & Golding 2017). I wrote about this shift in an earlier post in the Research Ethics Monthly (Are we missing the true picture? Stop calling a moneybox a fishing hook).

Recently we have been noting how ‘junk science’ disseminated by questionable publishers is hurting research (Gillis 2019), is undermining public trust in research (Marcus 2019), is underpinning claims by climate change denialists and the anti-vaccine movement based on ‘alternative facts’, and is something selection committees should be aware of (Flaherty 2019). The toxic effects of dodgy publications have been described as citation pollution (Hinchliffe & Michael Clarke 2019, Beach 2019).

AHRECS recommends professional development efforts be updated again. The content discussed above should be retained but added to it should be a call for us all to safeguard the integrity and trustworthiness of science by creating an environment within which the incentive for our colleagues to use dodgy publication outlets is diminished.

In the subscribers’ areas you will find a short template ppt about this topic (which you can modify and use) and an AHRECS branded version with embedded audio by Professor Mark Israel. To access the subscribers’ area for institutions go to https://www.ahrecs.vip and for individuals go to https://www.patreon.com/ahrecs

References

Allen, G. (26 October 2018) Are we missing the true picture? Stop calling a moneybox a fishing hook. Research Ethics Monthly. Retrieved from: https://ahrecs.com/research-integrity/are-we-missing-the-true-picture-stop-calling-a-moneybox-a-fishing-hook

Beach, R. (2019  28 October) Citation Contamination: References to Predatory Journals in the Legitimate Scientific Literature. Scholarly Kitchen (Rick Anderson | October 2019). Retrieved from: https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2019/10/28/citation-contamination-references-to-predatory-journals-in-the-legitimate-scientific-literature

Eve, P. M. & Priego E. (2017) Who is Actually Harmed by Predatory Publishers? Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society. 15(2)
Publisher (Open access): http://www.triple-c.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/867/1042

Gillis, A. (2019 09 July) The Rise of Junk Science. The Walrus. Retrieved from: https://thewalrus.ca/the-rise-of-junk-science/

Hinchliffe, L. J. & Clarke, M. (2019 25 September) Fighting Citation Pollution — The Challenge of Detecting Fraudulent Journals in Works Cited. Scholarly Kitchen. Retrieved from: https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2019/09/25/fighting-citation-pollution/

Israel M. & Allen G. (2017 26 July) In a world of hijacked, clone and zombie publishing, where shouldn’t I publish? Research Ethics Monthly. Retrieved from: https://ahrecs.com/research-integrity/world-hijacked-clone-zombie-publishing-shouldnt-publish

Lauer, M. (2017) Continuing Steps to Ensuring Credibility of NIH Research: Selecting Journals with Credible Practices. Extramural Nexus. Retrieved from: https://nexus.od.nih.gov/all/2017/11/08/continuing-steps-to-ensuring-credibility-of-nih-research-selecting-journals-with-credible-practices/

Marcus, A (2019 09 January) Oft-quoted paper on spread of fake news turns out to be…fake news. Retraction Watch. Retrieved from: https://retractionwatch.com/2019/01/09/oft-quoted-paper-on-spread-of-fake-news-turns-out-to-befake-news/

Neylon, C. (2017 29 January) Blacklists are technically infeasible, practically unreliable and unethical. Period. LSE Impact Blog. Retrieved from: https://cameronneylon.net/blog/blacklists-are-technically-infeasible-practically-unreliable-and-unethical-period/

Oransky, I. (2017) Predatory journals: Not just a problem in developing world countries, says new Nature paper. Retraction Watch. Retrieved from: http://retractionwatch.com/2017/09/06/predatory-journals-not-just-developing-world-countries-says-new-nature-paper/

Swauger, S. (2017) Open access, power, and privilege. College & Research Libraries News. 78(11)
Publisher (Open Access): http://crln.acrl.org/index.php/crlnews/article/view/16837/18434

This post may be cited as:
Allen, G. (31 October 2019) Pondering on whether to submit your research output to a journal?. Research Ethics Monthly. Retrieved from: https://ahrecs.com/research-integrity/pondering-on-whether-to-submit-your-research-output-to-a-journal

Should we Reframe Research Ethics as a Professional Ethics?0

 

Dr Nathan Emmerich
Research Fellow in Bioethics at ANUMS

Despite the fact that one of the urtexts of bioethics—Beauchamp and Childress’ principles of biomedical ethics—offers a set of concepts that purport to apply to both research and medical practice it is nevertheless the case that we standardly contrast research ethics with professional ethics. The operating presumption seems to be that a proper grasp of professional ethics requires an understanding of the unique role professional’s play, whereas the same cannot be said of research ethics. Here the presumption is that researchers are not unique but interchangeable. Furthermore, their individuality is inimical to good, and therefore ethical, research.

Whilst both healthcare professionals and researchers should be objective, the professional enters into a singular relationship with their patients. The position of the researcher can, however, be occupied by any relevantly qualified individual and their function is to report their scientific observations. Thus, underlying this contrast is an epistemological point. The perceived importance of the relationship between doctors and patients means that whilst the ethics of the preeminent profession, medicine, are predicated on professionalism they are equally predicated on something that is distinctively (inter)personal. In contrast, the notion that there might be an (inter)personal dimension to the relationship between researchers and research participants is inimical to the requirement for objectivity, at least for a certain value of objectivity.

COMMENTARY
Nik Zeps, AHRECS

.
In this thought-provoking blog, Nathan Emmerich challenges the notion that there is any distinction between research ethics and professional ethics when it comes to social science research. That is, the very nature of the enterprise requires that the researcher be deeply engaged in ethical discourse throughout the conduct of the study and not simply at a point in time to satisfy the regulatory requirements of ethics committees to obtain their approval. Whilst the argument is reserved for the social sciences, and there is some hesitancy to extend it beyond this, it is clear that the arguments made are true for all research, including biomedical. There is a reluctance to challenge notions about the divide between research and clinical practice that have been with us for over 50 years, but perhaps it is time to have a proper discussion about whether this is or is not applicable any longer. Patient centered research with an emphasis on co-design with consumers upends the notion that this type of research maintains a separation between researchers and research participants. Social science research provides an immediate opportunity for rethinking how we behave ethically, but biomedical research should follow hot on the heels.

Therein, of course, lies the rub. According to Stark, the differentiation between research ethics and professional ethics can be traced to the National Institute of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA, circa 1950. Given the existing competition between the codes of professional ethics promulgated by medicine’s sub-specialties, the nascent idea of a research ethics was conceived pragmatically and in aprofessional terms. When it came to biomedical research, and the epistemology of the natural sciences, this was not an issue. However, consistent with Schrag’s critique of the subsequent development of research ethics as neglecting concerns expressed by social scientists, this is more problematic when it comes to the social sciences, particularly at the more interpretive end of the spectrum.
.

In qualitative social science the unique perspective, position or standpoint of the researcher is essential to understanding socio-cultural reality and, therefore, to the process of conducting research. Furthermore, it is not something that can be eliminated by the use of (replicable) quantitative measures. This does not mean qualitative research cannot be objective. Rather, it means that the notion of objectivity differs between the natural and social sciences. Doing qualitative social science does not mean embracing subjectivity. Rather, it requires qualitative researchers to embrace epistemological reflexivity and to aim at objectivity as a value, virtue, or standpoint of social research.
.

When this is coupled with the fact that such research often seeks to give expression to the ‘lived experience’ of research participants, one can see how a concern for the (inter)personal must return to center stage in discussions of social scientific research ethics. One way of doing so would be to rethink the ethics of social scientific research as a form of professional ethics. Thus, rather than simply ‘frontloading’ ethical decision-making as a part of the design of proposed research, which can then be subject to peer review or evaluation by committee, we can more clearly acknowledge that engaging with the ethical dimension of research requires ongoing attention. The range of ethical issues researchers might encounter, both in the field and as a function of their role, are such that we cannot hope to fully address them preemptively. In this context, and consistent with the contemporary concern for the integrity of both research and researchers, we might draw on the idea of researchers as professionals and, in so doing, embrace the view that they ought to be guided by a set of internal professional norms or ethics.
.

Of course, this is not exactly a solution to the ethical issues social scientists might encounter in the course of research. It does, however, invite further engagement with such questions. Indeed, one can say more than this. Rather than thinking of the ethics of research as something to be addressed and codified by external commentators, such as bioethicists, the idea that research might benefit from a professional ethics invites researchers themselves to lead the discussion. No doubt questions remain, not least on what might constitute a profession or professional group in this context. Nevertheless, this proposal suggests that both professional groups and professional researchers should play a privileged role in creating, interpreting and putting into practice the substantive commitments of their own professional ethics. Furthermore, it is for them to set forth, justify and communicate the stance they adopt to other stakeholders.
.

This suggestion stands in relatively stark contrast to conceptions of research ethics, where external standards and evaluations are seen as having priority. To me, the difference is akin to the one we find when comparing research ethics committees and clinical ethics committees. The former tends to be rather one-sided; it assesses and offers judgment on research proposals or documents. The latter engages with professional actors and, through a process of mutual dialogue and discussion, facilitates and contributes to the individual’s own ethical formations. Which approach is more likely to promote the ethics and integrity of research, particularly social scientific research, seems self-evident.
.

Dr Nathan Emmerich is a Research Fellow in Bioethics at ANUMS. The ideas presented in this post stem from a book chapter entitled ‘A Professional Ethics for Researchers?’ (online first) recently published in Iphofen (Ed) Handbook of Research Ethics and Scientific Integrity (Springer) as well as an earlier publication ‘Reframing Research Ethics.

References:

Beauchamp, T.L., and J.F. Childress. 2009 [1979]. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. 6th Edition. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Emmerich, N. 2016 ‘Reframing Research Ethics: Towards a Professional Ethics for the Social Sciences’. Sociological Research Online 21(4):7 http://www.socresonline.org.uk/21/4/7.html

Emmerich, N. 2019. ‘A Professional Ethics for Researchers?’ In Iphofen, R. (Ed) Handbook of Research Ethics and Scientific Integrity. Springer. Online First: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76040-7_34-1

Iphofen, R. (Ed) Forthcoming 2020. Handbook of Research Ethics and Scientific Integrity. Springer, https://link.springer.com/referencework/10.1007/978-3-319-76040-7

Stark, L. 2011. Behind Closed Doors: IRBs and the Making of Ethical Research. University of Chicago Press. https://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/B/bo12182576.html

Schrag, Z.M. 2010. Ethical Imperialism: Institutional Review Boards and the Social Sciences, 1965–2009. The Johns Hopkins University Press. https://jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu/title/ethical-imperialism

This post may be cited as:
Emmerich, N. (1 October 2019) Should we Reframe Research Ethics as a Professional Ethics? Research Ethics Monthly. Retrieved from: https://ahrecs.com/human-research-ethics/should-we-reframe-research-ethics-as-a-professional-ethics

Ethics, Security and Privacy – the Bermuda Triangle of data management?0

 

Malcolm Wolski and Andrew Bowness
Griffith University

 

To manage sensitive research data appropriately, ethics, security and privacy requirements need to be considered. Researchers are traditionally familiar with ethics, but often have not considered the privacy and security pieces of the puzzle. Our reasons for making this statement are:

  • IT products used in research change rapidly
  • Legislation changes rapidly and there are jurisdictional issues
  • Most researchers are not legal or IT experts
  • No one teaches them enough basics to know what is risky behaviour

The recent revision to the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research (2018) on Management of Data and Information in Research highlights that it is not just the responsibility of a university to use best practice, but it is also the responsibility of the researcher. The responsible conduct of research includes within its scope the appropriate generation, collection, access, use, analysis, disclosure, storage, retention, disposal, sharing and re-use of data and information. Researchers have a responsibility to make themselves aware of the requirements of any relevant codes, legislation, regulatory, contractual or consent agreements, and to ensure they comply with them.

It’s a complex world

However, this is becoming an increasingly more complex environment for researchers. First, privacy legislation is dependent on jurisdiction of participants. For one example, a research project involving participants in Queensland is impacted by not only the Australian Privacy Act but also the Queensland version (Information Privacy Act 2009 Qld), and, if a participant or collaborator is an EU citizen, the General Data Protection Regulation (EU GDPR).

Secondly, cybersecurity and information security activities in universities have increased dramatically in recent times because of publicised data breaches and the impact of data breach legislation. If your research involves foreign citizens, you may also find foreign legislation impacting the type of response required.

Thirdly, funding agencies, such as government departments are increasingly specifying security and privacy requirements in tender responses and contracts.

These are having an impact on research project governance and practices, particularly for projects where the researcher has identified they are working with sensitive data. While the conversation typically focuses on data identified under the privacy acts as sensitive (e.g. Personally Identifiable Information (Labelled) under the Australian Privacy Act), researchers handle a range of data they may wish to treat as sensitive, whether for contractual reasons (e.g. participant consent, data sharing agreements) or for other reasons (e.g. ethical or cultural).

We have noticed an increasing trend within institutions where researchers are being required to provide more information on how they manage data as specified in a proposal or in a data sharing agreement. This typically revolves around data privacy and security, which is different from the ethics requirements.

What does “security” and “privacy” mean to the practitioner

IT security is more about minimising attack points though process or by using IT solutions to prevent or minimise the impacts of hostile acts or alternatively minimise impacts though misadventure (e.g. leaving a laptop on a bus). Data security is more in the sphere of IT and not researchers. This is reflected in which software products, systems and storage are “certified” to be safely used for handling and managing data classified as sensitive. IT usually also provides the identity management systems used to share data.

We have also noticed that researchers are relying on software vendors’ website claims about security and privacy which is problematic because most cloud software is running from offshore facilities which do not comply with Australian privacy legislation. Unless you are an expert in both Australian legislation and cybersecurity you need to rely on the expertise of your institutional IT and cybersecurity teams to verify vendors’ claims.

In the current environment, data privacy is more about mandated steps and activities designed to force a minimal set of user behaviours to prevent harm caused through successful attacks or accidental data breaches. It usually involves punishment to force good behaviour (e.g. see Data Breach Legislation for late reporting). Typically, data privacy is more the responsibility of the researcher. It usually involves governance processes (e.g. who has been given access to what data) or practices (e.g. what software products the team actually uses to share and store data).

What we should be worrying about

The Notifiable Data Breaches Statistics Report: 1 April to 30 June 2019 highlighted that only 4% of breaches, out of 254 notifications, were due to system faults, but 34% were due to human error and 62% due to malicious or criminal acts. Based on these statistics, the biggest risk associated with data breaches is where the data is in the hands of the end-user (i.e. the researcher) not with the IT systems themselves.

We argue the risks are also greater in research than the general population because of a number of factors such as the diversity of data held (e.g. data files, images, audio etc), the fluidity of the team membership, teams often being made up of staff across department and institutional boundaries, mobility of staff, data collection activities offsite, and the range of IT products needed in the research process.

For this discussion, the focus is on the governance and practice factor within the research project team and how this relates back to the ethics requirements when it has been highlighted that the project will involve working with sensitive data.

Help!!

We have worked closely with researcher groups for many years and have noticed a common problem. Researchers are confronted with numerous legislative, regulatory, policy and contractual requirements all written in terminology and language that bears little resemblance with what happens in practice. For example, to comply with legislation:

  • what does sending a data file “securely” over the internet actually look like in practice and which IT products are “safe”?
  • Is your university-provided laptop with the standard institutional image certified as “safe” for data classified as private? How do you know?
  • Is your mobile phone a “safe” technology to record interviews or images classified as private data? What is a “safe” technology for field work?

Within the university sector a range of institutional business units provide support services. For example, IT may provide advice assessing the security and privacy compliance of software, networked equipment or hardware infrastructure and the library may provide data management advice covering sensitive data. At our institution, Griffith University, the eResearch Services and the Library Research Services teams have been working closely with research groups to navigate their way through this minefield to develop standard practices fit for their purpose.

What we think is the best way forward

Our approach is to follow the Five Safes framework which has also been adopted by the Office of the National Data Commissioner. For example:

  • Safe People Is the research team member appropriately authorised to access and use specified data i.e. do you have a documented data access plan against team roles and a governance/induction process to gain access to restricted data?
  • Safe Projects Is the data to be used for an appropriate purpose i.e. do you have copies of the underlying data sharing/consent agreements, contracts, documents outlining ownership and licensing rights?
  • Safe Settings Does the access environment prevent unauthorised use i.e. do IT systems and processes support this and are access levels checked regularly?
  • Safe Data Has appropriate and sufficient protection been applied to the data i.e. what is it and does it commensurate with the level of risk involved?
  • Safe Outputs Are the statistical results non-disclosive or have you checked rights/licensing issues?

Expect to see a lot more of the Five Safes approach in the coming years.

References

Hardy, M. C., Carter, A., & Bowden, N. (2016). What do postdocs need to succeed? A survey of current standing and future directions for Australian researchers.2, 16093. https://doi.org/10.1057/palcomms.2016.93

Meacham, S. (2016). The 2016 ASMR Health and Medical Research Workforce Survey. Australian Society of Medical Research.

Contributors

Malcolm Wolski, Director eResearch Services, Griffith University

Andrew Bowness, Manager, Support Services, eResearch Services, Griffith University

This post may be cited as:
Wolski, M. and Bowness, A. (29 September 2019) Ethics, Security and Privacy – the Bermuda Triangle of data management?. Research Ethics Monthly. Retrieved from: https://ahrecs.com/research-integrity/ethics-security-and-privacy-the-bermuda-triangle-of-data-management

0