As both a researcher and a research administrator in healthcare, one of the more vexing issues that I have to deal with on an almost daily basis is how to manage what are termed quality assurance, quality improvement and audit activities. In its 2014 publication entitled “Ethical Considerations in Quality Assurance and Evaluation Activities”, the NHMRC (NHMRC QA guidance) suggests that these can be loosely gathered together under an umbrella term of Quality Assurance (QA) and/or evaluation. I believe this construct is wrong and reinforces a longstanding approach to ethics review that relies on the category of an investigative activity to determine the level of review that is used. This approach is problematic and leads to some significant unintended consequences.
In this post, Gary, Mark and Kim refect on the draft update to Section 5 of the Australia’s National Statement.
“In recent years in Australia, we have seen some painful cases where research ethics review delegated to a non-HREC review body has failed to guard against projects that proved to be embarrassing for their host institution (see, for example, the ‘Racist bus driver’ and ‘Laughing at the disabled’ projects)….”
Katherine Christian, Carolyn Johnstone, Jo-ann Larkins, Wendy Wright and Michael Doran Katherine Christian, Federation University Australia Carolyn Johnstone, Federation University
Elle Loughran Student, Trinity College Dublin Elle Loughran is a Laidlaw scholar studying genetics at Trinity College Dublin in Ireland
Prof. Colin Thomson AM AHRECS Senior Consultant We at AHRECS, like all our friends, colleagues and clients, are becoming more
JC Gaillard School of Environment, The University of Auckland, New Zealand Unit for Environmental Sciences and Management, North-West University, South
Mark Israel (AHRECS and Murdoch University) and Farida Fozdar (The University of Western Australia). There is considerable momentum behind the
Dr Ann-Maree Vallence and Dr Hakuei Fujiyama College of Science, Health, Engineering and Education, Murdoch University, Perth, Australia http://profiles.murdoch.edu.au/myprofile/ann-maree-vallence/ http://profiles.murdoch.edu.au/myprofile/hakuei-fujiyama/
After a paper has been through peer review and has been published it is
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.
As a follow up on Strategies for resolving ethically ambiguous scenarios last month below is
What’s at risk? Who’s responsible? Moving beyond the physical, the immediate, the proximate, and the individual
Building the Conversation This month’s addition to the Building the Conversation series reflects upon