Gary Allen, Mark Israel and Colin Thomson|
In the 1980s and 1990s, many research institutions made the principled and commendable decision not to accept funding from the tobacco industry.
This reflected the recognition of the awful health impacts of tobacco use and the degree to which the industry was muddying the waters of public debate with academic and clinical research questioning the veracity of the overwhelming body of evidence that clearly showed the dire dangers of activity such as smoking. While we continue to be shocked by cases such those like the research of Hans J Eysenck (and this), for the main it is accepted that receiving funding from the tobacco industry is not in the public’s best interest.
Close to the bottom of our revamped home page is a world map that tags the places we have been commissioned to conduct Human Research Ethics or Research Integrity work or where we have conducted philanthropic/academic/volunteer/unpaid work. Want to explore if we can do some work for you? Terrific! Drop us a line to firstname.lastname@example.org so we can discuss your ideas.
The publication of the Hong Kong Principles comes at a time when there has never been more scrutiny of research. In this pandemic, the importance of science has been reinforced time and time again, but the importance of efforts to enhance reproducibility and transparency in research has also come to the fore. What the Hong Kong Principles do is provide a framework whereby research practices that strengthen integrity in research – a core component of reproducibility and trustworthiness – can be recognised, supported and rewarded.
Nik Zeps, Consultant, AHRECS Keywords: Ethical Review, International Guidelines, Gene editing technologies, It has now been over six months since
台灣的研究倫理規範之發展 甘偵蓉 Gan Zhen-Rong1 and 馬克·伊瑟利 Mark Israel2 Many commentators on research ethics have been based in the Global North
In an institutional environment where researchers may be coming under increasing pressure to publish, the temptations to take short cuts
In the 1990s, I worked with many community groups and Native American/African-American communities on
Mark Israel Mark Israel’s article in Research Ethics Monthly on ‘Self-plagiarism?’ has been receiving a little
In this post, Dr Gary Allen (one of the senior consultants at AHRECS) discusses why resourcing reflective practice is a more reliable and effective/constructive way to manage institutional risk than fixating on compliance and using an enforcement and sanctions approach.
Approaching the serious risks from within the frame of resourcing practice treats the role of research ethics as being to facilitate research, rather than being an impediment to research.
This embeds research ethics as being a component of the design and conduct of quality research, not as something external to research.
Systems that promote ethical design and conduct, are also investments in quality research
Gary has worked in the human research ethics field since 1997. He has worked with committees in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK and Vietnam. He Chaired the Committee that drafted the new Chapter 3.1 of the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research.
Working flexibly through the Coronavirus: Continuing professional development in research integrity or human research ethics?
Research ethics and research integrity professional development works best as a long-term commitment to