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

Resource Library

Research Ethics MonthlyAbout Us

International

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Self-plagiarism? When re-purposing text may be ethically justifiable0

Posted by Admin in Research Integrity on January 19, 2019 / Keywords: , , ,
 

In an institutional environment where researchers may be coming under increasing pressure to publish, the temptations to take short cuts and engage in duplicate or redundant publication can be significant. Duplicate publication involves re-publishing substantially the same data, analysis, discussion and conclusion without providing proper acknowledgement or justification for the practice. Such behaviour is often condemned as ideoplagiarism or self-plagiarism, locating this practice as a parallel activity to that which appropriates other people’s ideas and words and reproduces them without due acknowledgement.

There are good reasons for censuring self-plagiarism – it distorts the academic record where meta-analyses are not aware of the duplicate publication, and provides an unfair advantage when academics’ track records are being compared. In an earlier publication (Israel, 2015), I detailed some examples of social scientists who engaged in self-plagiarism. However, I also argued that ‘It may be appropriate to publish similar articles in different journals in order to ask different research questions, link to different literatures or reach new and different audiences’ (p.163). I would like to explore some of the situations that I have encountered in the last few years where I believe re-use of text might not be inappropriate and, indeed, might actually be the ethical thing to do.

Global rankings and national assessments of universities are largely based on research inputs and outputs. Mostly, the output indicators privilege publications in international higher-ranking journals; the vast majority of those only publish in English. However, there are several good reasons why research outputs should also appear outside English-language journals. First, researchers may be funded by research councils from countries that are not Anglophone. Those research councils may indeed want to maximise their international impact by publishing in English. However, they may also recognise that they have an obligation to support researchers in their countries who are not fluent in English; indeed, they ought to be supporting the maintenance of their own languages and ensuring that scholarly discourse continues to be conducted in their native tongues. This is a policy supported by the National Committees for Research Ethics in Norway (2006), for example.

Second, researchers often have made a commitment to disseminate the results of their studies to participants or to policy-makers – where either of these communities are not English-speaking, republishing in a language other than English may be entirely appropriate.

So, revising a published paper and translating that into a language other than English might be a laudable way of preserving a research culture in a small language group, influencing policy-makers or returning a benefit to a low- or middle-income country (LMIC). This activity, of course, needs to be acknowledged and transparent and cannot be double-counted as a research output.

Following a roundtable discussion of social research ethics hosted by the University of Haifa, a chapter that I co-authored (Allen and Israel, 2017) was recently translated into Hebrew and published in an Israeli journal. Gary Allen and I a greed to do this in order to encourage further discussion of human research ethics in Israel. The decision was taken with the approval of our original editors and publishers.

In 2018, I co-authored an article on research ethics in Taiwan with a Taiwanese academic (Gan and Israel, in press). This will be published in Developing World Bioethics and we shall explore the possibility of modifying it for a Mandarin version aimed specifically at a readership of Taiwanese academics and policy-makers. While many senior Taiwanese academics are fluent in English, this is less likely to be the case among those who have not completed postgraduate qualifications in North America, Australasia or the United Kingdom. Publishing in Mandarin would extend access to our work (including allowing it to be found in a search using Traditional Chinese script), and may make it more readily available for undergraduate teaching. Sometimes, we can craft opportunities to help readers of other languages without translating the entire article. A recent article that I co-authored with Lisa Wynn (Wynn and Israel, 2018) took advantage of the American Anthropologist’s novel angle for each chapter when the briefs from commissioning editors are so similar policy of publishing all abstracts in both English and Spanish. At our request, the editors agreed to add abstracts in Arabic and French.

I wonder if fear of being seen as self-plagiarising also inhibits academics writing book chapters in research ecosystems where chapters do not count for much. I have repeatedly been invited to write chapters that give an overview of social research ethics. Initially, I tended to say yes. However, it is difficult to continually deliver a novel angle for such a chapter when the brief from the commissioning editor is so similar. I have collaborated with co-authors in order to develop new directions. However, sometimes this is not practicable and yet there may still be some value in repurposing existing text and tailoring it for a new audience. For a recent edited collection where I was invited to write a review of global regulation of human research ethics, the publishers as a matter of policy quite understandably challenged any article that relied on previously published work for more than ten per cent of its material. However, the editor had approached me looking for a synthesis of work that included, updated and condensed material that had already appeared in my single-authored book (Israel, 2015). I had raised the matter of overlapping text with him, and so he was able to persuade the publisher that a far larger fraction was warranted in this case. My book publisher also agreed.

I have not encountered much discussion of these matters in the published literature. But, I spend much of my time running professional development in research ethics. In these fora, I counsel researchers that when confronted by an ethical issue they ought to attempt to discern what might be an ethical response, act on that analysis and then publicly acknowledge and, where necessary, defend their actions.

There are several principles that might in some circumstances provide support for the argument that I have traced here. Of course, any strategy needs to be guided by the requirements of research integrity and so we should be citing and acknowledging any other work to which we refer appropriately and accurately (Researcher Responsibility 27, Australian Code, 2018).

The Global Code of Conduct for Research in Resource-Poor Settings (TRUST Project,2018) considers that fairness in research in low- and middle-income countries requires that:

Feedback about the findings of the research must be given to local communities and research participants. It should be provided in a way that is meaningful, appropriate and readily comprehended. (Article 3)

Similarly, the 2018 Australian Code places responsibility on researchers to ‘Disseminate research findings responsibly, accurately and broadly…’ (Research Responsibility 23). Any strategy should also be tested in Australia against the principles adopted by the National Statement (2007, updated 2018). In this context, the most pertinent of these are integrity, which would require honesty and commitment to recognised research principles, and justice which would require a fair distribution of the benefits of research. None of these codes or guidelines explicitly considers repurposing existing text, nor do they focus their discussion of dissemination on academic publications. Nevertheless, they do require us to consider what dissemination strategy might be most appropriate and this may well involve adapting and translating material for academic publication in order to reach new audiences.

So, here is my advice for those who are considering re-using text that they have previously published:

  1. Assess whether your reasons are ethically defensible;
  2. Seek the agreement of those involved in your first publication – co-authors, editors and publishers; in some cases, publishers will want a specific form of acknowledgement;
  3. Seek the agreement of those involved in the new publication that will be reproducing material – any co-authors, editors and publishers;
  4. Clearly acknowledge in the new publication that you are drawing on the earlier publication and do so with the agreement of the various parties, and
  5. Where it would be misleading not to do so, also note the relationship between publications in your CV and any job or grant applications.

References

Allen, G & Israel, M (2018) Moving beyond Regulatory Compliance: Building Institutional Support for Ethical Reflection in Research. In Iphofen, R & Tolich, M (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research Ethics. London: Sage. pp.276-288. Published in Hebrew as

גארי אלן ומארק ישראל 2018 מעבר לציות רגולטרי: בנית תמיכה מוסדית ברפלקציה אתית במחקר

The Study of Organizations and Human Resource Management Quarterly3(1). pp.16-30.

Gan, Z-R & Israel, M (in press) Transnational Policy Migration, Interdisciplinary Policy Transfer and Decolonization: Tracing the Patterns of Research Ethics Regulation in Taiwan. Developing World Bioethics.

Israel, M (2015) Research Ethics and Integrity for Social Scientists: Beyond Regulatory Compliance. London: Sage.

National Committees for Research Ethics in Norway (2006) Guidelines for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences, Law and the Humanities. Available at: https://www.etikkom.no/globalassets/documents/english-publications/guidelines-for-research-ethics-in-the-social-sciences-law-and-the-humanities-2006.pdf (accessed 15 January 2019).

National Health and Medical Research Council, Australian Research Council and Universities Australia (2007, updated 2018) National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research.Canberra. Available at: https://nhmrc.gov.au/about-us/publications/national-statement-ethical-conduct-human-research-2007-updated-2018 (accessed 16 January 2019).

National Health and Medical Research Council, Australian Research Council and Universities Australia (2018) Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research. Canberra. Available at: https://nhmrc.gov.au/about-us/publications/australian-code-responsible-conduct-research-2018 (accessed 16 January 2019).

TRUST Project (2018) Global Code of Conduct for Research in Resource-Poor Settings. Available at: http://www.globalcodeofconduct.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Global-Code-of-Conduct-Brochure.pdf (accessed 16 January 2019).

Wynn, LL & Israel, M (2018) The Fetishes of Consent: Signatures, Paper and Writing in Research Ethics Review. American Anthropologist 120(4) pp795–806.

Contributor
Dr Mark Israel, Senior Consultant AHRECS | Profile | mark.israel@ahrecs.com

This post may be cited as:
Israel, M. (20 January 2018) Self-plagiarism? When re-purposing text may be ethically justifiable. Research Ethics Monthly. Retrieved from: https://ahrecs.com/research-integrity/self-plagiarism-when-re-purposing-text-may-be-ethically-justifiable

Are we missing the true picture? Stop calling a moneybox, a fishing hook0

 

It can be pleasing to see mainstream media taking an interest in research integrity, particularly when misconduct involving you or your institution is not the focus of the story. Advising HDR candidates, new supervisors and other early career researchers about predatory publishers can feel like a public service and is something that can shock your audience into paying attention.

But could the label predatory publishers be concealing a more complex picture?

The binary notion of prey and predator; a trusting but naive researcher and a greedy con-artist; and the white hats and black hats of old-fashioned westerns can feel authentic, real and dangerous.

However, it might just be that we’re missing the collective long-con.

Rather than hapless and tricked researchers, there is data and commentary to suggest at least some experienced researchers are gaming the system and using the non-existent peer review of illegitimate publishers to add a paper to their publication track record.

In the subscribers’ area, AHRECS senior consultant Gary Allen reflects on how we should be talking about the very real problem – A rose thorn by any other name?

Contributors:
Gary Allen, AHRECS Senior Consultant, gary.allen@ahrecs.com | Gary’s AHRECS profile

This post may be cited as:
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

We invite debate on issues raised by items we publish. However, we will only publish debate about the issues that the items raise and expect that all contributors model ethical and respectful practice.

Undue Influence in Research Between High-Income and Lower-Income Countries3

 

Red Thaddeus D. Miguel

According to the Belmont Report (1979), respect for persons incorporates two ethical convictions: individuals are to be treated as autonomous agents, and those with diminished autonomy are entitled to protection.

It is because of these guiding principles that we, researchers and health practitioners, are extremely careful in planning and designing our research on populations who are more likely to have diminished autonomy. We endeavour to protect vulnerable groups in our studies because their circumstances make them more susceptible to being taken advantage of. To do otherwise, according to Gillet (2008), would simply be selfish and would be acting in bad faith. In fulfilment of their mandate, ethics review boards likewise have clear guidelines in the protection of vulnerable populations. Unlike protocols for the protection of minors, pregnant women, prisoners, terminally ill, intellectually challenged, and militarized to name some of the most common guidelines for vulnerable populations, guidelines for impoverished population may be more difficult to construct. As laid out by the Guidelines for Good Clinical Practice (1996, p.8), impoverished persons may have the propensity to be unduly influenced by the expectations of benefits associated with participation. But how does one judge whether a token for participation is enough to influence the decision of a person? For children, for example, being below a certain age is understandably a reason to protect the child’s interest and warrants the use of assent forms. However, for the economically disadvantaged drawing the line is more difficult to assess.

Some studies have questioned whether incentives impair the ability of participants to make decisions about risk. These claims have cited the studies of Halpern et al. (2004) and Bentley and Thacker (2004), which find participants are not likely to forego the risks of participation when offered greater compensation.However, these findings were based on hypothetical enrolment and were done with small sample sizes. More important for this discourse, however, is that these studies were done in developed countries. In a study by Kass et al.(2005), participants of studies implemented in developing countries (LMICs) were noted not only to be facing challenges in understanding the study protocol thus affecting their autonomous decision making, but were also noted to participate primarily because of the incentives presented.As Benatar (2002) notes great disparities exist in health and wealth between developed and developing countries and therefore ethical standards must take into consideration the differences and adapt to the rising level of research in developing countries.

Recognizing the imbalances of power, resources, and knowledge that exist in the setting of research between high-income and lower-income, the Global Code of Conduct for Research in Resource-Poor Settings (2018) outlines guidelines to avert ethics dumping in lower-income setting. Article 6 of the guidelines tackle specifically the topic of compensation and benefits, ‘Researchers from high-income settings need to be aware of the power and resource differentials in benefit-sharing discussions, with sustained efforts to bring lower-capacity parties into the dialogue’.

Coming from an LMIC, I could not agree more with the guidelines set. In gauging the amount for benefits, one has to be careful with the amount being paid to participants for their involvement so as not to cause undue influence to those who wish to participate in the study; including the local parties into the dialogue is therefore vital to upholding ethical standards. What is acceptable in one country may cause undue influence in another, especially to economically disadvantaged persons in LMICs. Moreover, even within the LMIC itself, interactions between researchers from a high-income region and participants from a low-income area likewise pose some problems and therefore knowing the local factors that could cause undue influence is important.

In the Philippines for example, a number of factors are involved when it comes to deciding the amount of compensation. For example, the daily minimum wage in one area of the Philippines is 265.00 Philippine Pesos (~AUD7), while in other areas this could be as high as 512.00 Philippine Pesos (~AUD13). For this reason, I have been involved in a study that handed out supplies worth 40 Philippine Pesos (~AUD1), yet in another study we thought it was appropriate to hand out 1,000 Philippine Pesos (~AUD25). In making our decision as to how much to pay participants, we conduct our research based on the principles set forth by the Philippine Health Research Ethics Board’s National Ethical Guidelines for Health and Health-Related Research (2017, p.20):

35.4 Research participants shall be reimbursed for lost earnings, travel costs, and other expenses incurred when taking part in a study. Where there is no prospect of direct benefit, participants may be given a reasonable and appropriate incentive for inconvenience. The payments shall not be so large as to induce prospective participants to consent to participate in the research against their better judgment (undue inducement).

With this we make sure that our computation includes all the components set forth by this guideline, thus we try to include lost earnings, reimbursement for travel, incentives, and other expenses incurred by the respondent. In valuing exactly how much each of these costs, we don’t have a memorandum on the exact cost to follow instead we rely heavily on the nature, population, and area of the study.

Upon discussing this topic with two of my colleagues I find that we share similar techniques in estimating the value of each of the cost. Other researchers in the country may have different techniques, but the following are a few of the methods I have compiled from discourse with my colleagues on how to approximate the amount to compensate the participants.

  1. First, we get to know the population of interest very well. This includes taking into consideration the cultural, historical, and geographic background of the region, province, city, municipality, and town. Towns inhabited by people of a certain religion for example should not be brought a specific type of food. Another example could be that because of the terrain of a certain town, getting to the interview may mean riding a motorcycle for an hour. Knowing this we will be able to estimate the reimbursement of travel better.
  2. Different areas at different times of the year will have different needs as well. Therefore, we make sure to take this into consideration. For example, if we know that classes are about to start in one area, we might offer school supplies to participants. Similarly, if it is the rainy season, one could probably give out umbrellas to respondents.
  3. Knowing the region, a general rule of thumb one of my colleagues utilizes is to base his computation on the regional minimum wage published and updated by the Department of Labor and Employment. Using the published minimum wage, he then computes the hourly wage and makes this the maximum compensation for every hour of participation.
  4. Another practice done is to discuss the amount with local government units. Talking to the officials in the town, we are able to gauge the average income of their residents as well as the usual occupation in the area.
  5. We also take into consideration the type of study being done and the inconvenience it could cause. For example, a more difficult questionnaire asking very specific points in the timeline of the patient’s disease may warrant higher compensation than a simple demographic survey.
  6. We talk to researchers or local data collectors who have done studies with the same population, or who have undertaken the same method. Knowing how the respondents reacted to a specific amount of bother fee in the past gives us a benchmark for our studies.
  7. During the conduct of pre-testing our tools, we likewise ask our colleagues for an estimate that they believe would be a reasonable compensation for participants who would answer the questionnaire.

After we have the appropriate ‘bother fee’ in mind, we then submit this to the research ethics committees responsible for the study area. We are then given feedback whether the amount is appropriate and reasonable.

This system seems to be working largely because of the safeguards and competency of local research ethics committee and partly because of our familiarity with the system being locals ourselves. However, I cannot help but wonder how the increasing number of research projects in developing countries can affect this process. With more studies being done in LMICs maybe there is now a need to perform research into this area specifically on the exact amount or situations wherein undue influence can unintentionally occur. For example, with the theories of colonial mentality, does research done by non-Filipinos affect the responses or even influence the participation of respondents in studies done in the Philippines? Due to the volatile weather in the Philippines affecting the prices of commodities every month, does the bother fee deemed appropriate in one month still assure that there won’t be undue influence in the other months? Does the status of diplomatic relations between other countries and the Philippines affect the decision of participants when dealing with researchers from another country? Are there undue influences caused by the perception of Filipinos about certain companies funding the studies?  Will the reputations of certain institutions or organizations leading the study cause participants to participate even if normally they would not have agreed to do so? Could certain areas in the Philippines be more susceptible to undue influence than other areas due to the large gaps in income and health services between regions? Knowing these may be helpful to local researchers and those who wish to do studies locally by providing us with evidence-based standards that could guide our data collection process away from undue influence.

The author declares that he has no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with either financial or non-financial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript. The author has no conflict of interest.

Bibliography

Benatar SR (2002) ‘Reflections and recommendations on research ethics in developing countries’, Social Science & Medicine,1131–1141.

Bentley JP and Thacker PG (2004) ‘The influence of risk and monetary payment on the research participation decision making process’, Journal of Medical Ethics,200430293–298.

Gillett G (2008) ‘Autonomy and selfishness’Lancet, 372(9645):1214-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61507-X

TRUST Project (2018) Global Code of Conduct for Research in Resource-Poor Settings.http://www.globalcodeofconduct.org/ (Accessed September 8, 2018).

Halpern SD, Karlawish JHT, Casarett D, Berlin JA and Asch DA (2004) ‘Empirical assessment of whether moderate payments are undue or unjust inducements for participation in clinical trials’, Journal of the American Medical Association Internal Medicine, 164801–803.

International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human use (June 10, 1996)ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline, Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R1) Current Step 4 version. Available at: https://www.ich.org/fileadmin/Public_Web_Site/ICH_Products/Guidelines/Efficacy/E6/E6_R1_Guideline.pdf (Accessed September 8, 2018).

Kass NE, Maman S and Atkinson J (2005) ‘Motivations, Understanding, and Voluntariness in International Randomized Trials’, IRB: Ethics & Human Research, 27(6):1-8.

National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research (1978) The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. Bethesda, Md.: The Commission. Available at: https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/read-the-belmont-report/index.html (Accessed August 20, 2018).

Philippine Health Research Ethics Board (2017) National Ethical Guidelines for Health and Health-Related Research, Department of Science and Technology – Philippine Council for Health Research and Development, p.20. Available at: http://www.ethics.healthresearch.ph/index.php/phoca-downloads/category/4-neg?download=98:neghhr-2017 (Accessed September 8, 2018).

Contributor
Red Thaddeus D. Miguel, Health Policy Researcher, Ontario, Canada
LinkedIn profileredasmph@gmail.com

This post may be cited as:
Miguel, Red TD. (27  September 2018) Undue Influence in Research Between High-Income and Lower-Income Countries. Research Ethics Monthly. Retrieved from: https://ahrecs.com/human-research-ethics/undue-influence-in-research-between-high-income-and-lower-income-countries

We invite debate on issues raised by items we publish. However, we will only publish debate about the issues that the items raise and expect that all contributors model ethical and respectful practice.

The complex art of benefit-sharing0

 

In community-based participatory action programs (programs which have a research component but which are also focussed on community development and empowerment), it might be possible to identify a link between a research project and a benefit to the participating community. Over and above conducting the study, in research on domestic violence, studies have provided emotional and practical support for victims, offering information about, and organizing access to, formal and informal services, providing feedback to the study community and relevant agencies, and supporting or engaging in advocacy on behalf of abused (Usdin et al. 2000). Work on victims of state violence has also advocated for broader political change (Stanley 2012).

However, in other circumstances it may be far more likely that participants may contribute to research but gain very little direct or even no benefit from it. The lack of reciprocity may be particularly problematic if participants are drawn from vulnerable groups.

For example, members of poorer communities have a right to feel aggrieved if research undertaken in their communities is only likely to be of benefit to wealthier societies. This is most obviously the case where multinational pharmaceutical corporations trial drugs or procedures in the Global South that are in the end likely to be priced out of the reach of participant communities or which were never relevant to their needs. Not surprisingly, therefore, the concept of benefit-sharing has been most widely developed in discussions of health and genetic research.

In response, international agreements and statements related to biomedical research such as the Declaration of Helsinki (from 2000 onwards) and non-human genetic and bioprospecting research such as the legally-binding Convention on Biological Diversity (1992), formalised in the Nagoya Protocol (Convention on Biological Diversity, 2010), instituted obligations relating to benefit-sharing for projects that fell within their jurisdiction. These agreements recognised that:

Those who contribute to developments in science and technology ought to share in the benefits, so if those benefits are not shared with the contributors to scientific advancement, that advancement is exploitative. (Arnason and Schroeder, 2013, p. 21)

As a result, the Nagoya Protocol pointed to the principle that research projects should offer benefits to participants. Non-financial benefits might include: sharing research results; collaboration, cooperation and contribution in research and development programmes, education and training; institutional capacity-building; contributions to the local economy; research directed towards priority needs of the participating community; institutional and professional relationships that can arise from an access and benefit-sharing agreement and subsequent collaborative activities; livelihood security benefits; and, social recognition. It is easy to imagine how such benefits, in the context of biomedical research, can be applied to social research; or, at least, it would be if social researchers were funded at the same level as biomedical researchers.

Unfortunately, the art of benefit-sharing has proved to be complex.

First, it might not be straightforward to identify what constitutes a benefit, particularly at the beginning of a researcher’s engagement with a new community. In her recent critique of transnational Feminist researchers, Rajan (2018) portrayed some external attempts at intervening in support of women’s rights in the Global South as ‘unfairly patronizing, or alternatively… ill-advised and characterized by a lack of sufficient knowledge of local context and concerns’ (p.271).

Second, it may not always be easy to work out what a particular community might regard as a fair way of sharing benefits. Even those projects that have sought to implement formal benefit-sharing arrangements have struggled to achieve a just and equitable distribution of benefits. For example, there is evidence that women have been marginalized in the negotiation and implementation of benefit-sharing arrangements, despite (and indeed because of) their additional susceptibility to exploitation within vulnerable communities. In addition, it is possible that some benefits aimed at individual participants might undermine commitments to respond to injustice at a macro-level and might even cause intra-community conflict. For instance, providing a participant family with additional food in a village where food is scarce may cause resentment among neighbours.

Third, some disciplines are less likely than others to generate tangible benefits and, even if they can, researchers may not be able to assure that the intended benefits of a research project will flow to participants. They may be particularly powerless in the face of powerful institutions whose job it is to restrict the freedom of participants. Zion et al. (2010), for example, argued that researchers seeking to work on projects on self-harm by asylum seekers funded by the Australian Commonwealth government were likely to be compromised. As asylum seekers are subjected to indefinite mandatory detention in Australia, Zion and her colleagues concluded that even projects aimed at improving the mental wellbeing of detainees risk legitimizing a detention regime that inevitably breached human rights.

Finally, acceptance of the importance of benefit-sharing arrangements is not universal. In 2008, the United States effectively opted out of the provisions of the Declaration of Helsinki that relate to ensuring that research participants must be allowed access to tested clinical interventions that were found to be successful and that research in low and lower middle-income countries must be designed to benefit local communities. Even before that time, there was little evidence that Institutional Review Boards in the US were taking the requirement seriously (Macklin, 2004).

So, benefit-sharing offers a way of directing both the outcomes and the process of research towards the pursuit of global and social justice. Unfortunately, a broader range of disciplines need to do more to develop and share strategies of benefit-sharing before we can have confidence that it has found a place in across our research programs.

Acknowledgements:

This article further develops an argument that will appear in Israel, M. & Fozdar, F. (in press) The ethics of the study of ‘Social Problems’ . In Treviño, J. & Marvasti, A. (eds) Researching Social Problems. New York: Routledge.

Bibliography

Arnason, G. and Schroeder, D. (2013) Exploring Central Philosophical Concepts in Benefit Sharing: Vulnerability, Exploitation and Undue Inducement. In Schroeder, D. and Lucas, J.C. (eds.) Benefit Sharing: From Biodiversity to Human Genetics. Springer. pp.9-31

Convention on Biological Diversity (2010) Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization to the Convention on Biological Diversity. http://www.cbd.int/abs/doc/protocol/nagoya-protocol-en.pdf

Macklin, R. (2004) Double Standards in Medical Research in Developing Countries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rajan, H. (2018) ‘The Ethics of Transnational Feminist Research and Activism: An Argument for a More Comprehensive View’, Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 43(2): 269-300.

Stanley, E. (2012) ‘Interviewing Victims of State Violence’ in Gadd, D., Karstedt, S. and Messner, S.F. (eds) The Sage Handbook of Criminological Research Methods. Sage: London. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446268285.n15

Usdin, S., Christfides, N., Malepe, L. and Aadielah, M. (2000) ‘The value of advocacy in promoting social change: implementing the new Domestic Violence Act in South Africa’, Reproductive Health Matters, 8(16): 55–65.

Zion, D., Briskman L. and Loff, B. (2010) ‘Returning to History: The Ethics of Researching Asylum Seeker Health in Australia’, The American Journal of Bioethics, 10(2): 48-56. DOI: 10.1080/15265160903469310

Contributor
Prof. Mark Israel
Senior consultant AHRECS – AHRECS Profile | mark.israel@ahrecs.com

This post may be cited as:
Israel M. (24 July 2018) The complex art of benefit-sharing. Research Ethics Monthly. Retrieved from: https://ahrecs.com/human-research-ethics/the-complex-art-of-benefit-sharing

We invite debate on issues raised by items we publish. However, we will only publish debate about the issues that the items raise and expect that all contributors model ethical and respectful practice.

0