Skip to content

ACN - 101321555 | ABN - 39101321555

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

AHRECS icon
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Consultants
    • Services
  • Previous Projects
  • Blog
  • Resources
  • Feeds
  • Contact Us
  • More
    • Request a Quote
    • Susbcribe to REM
    • Subscribe to VIP
Menu
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Consultants
    • Services
  • Previous Projects
  • Blog
  • Resources
  • Feeds
  • Contact Us
  • More
    • Request a Quote
    • Susbcribe to REM
    • Subscribe to VIP
Exclude terms...
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
AHRECS
Analysis
Animal ethics
Animal Ethics Committee
Animal handling
Animal housing
Animal Research Ethics
Animal Welfare
ANZCCART
Artificial Intelligence
Arts
Australia
Authorship
Belief
Beneficence
Big data
Big data
Biobank
Bioethics
Biomedical
Biospecimens
Breaches
Cartoon/Funny
Case studies
Clinical trial
Collaborative research
Conflicts of interest
Consent
Controversy/Scandal
Controversy/Scandal
Creative
Culture
Data management
Database
Dual-use
Essential Reading
Ethical review
Ethnography
Euthanasia
Evaluative practice/quality assurance
First People
Fraud
Gender
Genetics
Good practice
Guidance
Honesty
HREC
Human research ethics
Humanities
Institutional responsibilities
International
Journal
Justice
Links
Media
Medical research
Merit and integrity
Methodology
Monitoring
New Zealand
News
Online research
Peer review
Performance
Primary materials
Principles
Privacy
Protection for participants
Psychology
Publication ethics
Questionable Publishers
Research ethics committees
Research integrity
Research Misconduct
Research results
Researcher responsibilities
Resources
Respect for persons
Sample paperwork
sd
Serious Adverse Event
Social Science
SoTL
Standards
Supervision
Training
Vulnerability
x
Young people
Exclude news

Sort by

Animal Ethics Human Research Ethics Research Integrity

Research Ethics Monthly

ISSN 2206-2483

  • Home
  • >
  • Participant protection
Ethics Honesty Responsibility Education Learning Business concept.

Effective use of research management systems

Dr Gary Allen April 28, 2022 No Comments
Read More
People thinking together as a diverse group coming together joining hands into the shape of an inspirational light bulb as a community support metaphor with 3D elements.

National Human Research Ethics Conference – an administrator’s perspective

April 16, 2022 No Comments

In this terrific post, Sara Gottliebsen reflects on the last few years’ experiences in organising the incredibly popular annual human research ethics webinar.

This free event was first conceived of by Gorden McGurk, who has organised the webinars over the last few years.

The Human Research Ethics conferences have established a very high standard for the design, execution, speakers and contents for such an event.

The event received very high praise and deserved to get it.

The itinerary of speakers, events and activities for a free event is simply remarkable and deserving of the highest praise.

Well done Gordon, Sara and the team.

AHRECS is proud to be one of the inaugural sponsors of this event and will be continuing our sponsorship in 2022.

Read More
Close up white keyboard button conceptual-Ethics

The challenge of being ‘fit for purpose’

April 10, 2022 No Comments

In this incredibly interesting post, Racheal Laugery reflects on an incredibly uncomfortable but very timely question.

Is the current approach to research ethics review fit for purpose?

In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, border closes and reduced international student income, insufficient government funding and a drive towards commercial research/commercialisation is our current approach to research ethics review Imbil and responsive enough?

What needs to be challenged and
changed? How can we get there? Who will need professional development and capacity building?

This requires an approach to reform that is focused on research ethics reviewers, researchers and research office staff.

Change won’t be quick and easy, but is absolutely necessary to ensure an institution’s arrangements are fit for the time.

Our approach will need to be interactive and responsive to problems that we can’t foresee yet.

Read More
A grinning guard troll typing

Investigating an ethical barrier – should HRECs require gatekeeper approval from universities before external research?

February 14, 2022 No Comments

Investigating an ethical barrier – should HRECs require gatekeeper approval from universities before external research? | In this traffic post, Kate Christian questions the elephant in the room when it comes to research about universities.

Why do ethics committees require the approval of the institution?

Especially when participants aren’t vulnerable.

Whose interests are they protecting and why?

For national research, the results can be time-consuming, frustrating and add a little to the research.

Early career researchers might meekly accept this but it sucks time, energy and resources. But research Ethics committees should ask themselves the questions: Is this efficient and is it fair? Insisting upon institutional approval may well be skewing the data and distorting the results?

Read More
Exam answer sheet or application paper blurry view on table in examination room with blur education background of school university students taking exam test writing answer in seat row with stress

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.

Read More
Empty executive chairs in a meeting room

Expertise in ethics, research ethics or review?

November 29, 2021 No Comments

In this terrific and thoughtful post, Colin Thomson AM, a Senior Adviser to AHRECS, reflects on what we mean when we talk about expertise i the context of Human Research Ethics Review.

Do we mean expertise in ethics, research ethics or ethics review or a combination?

Do they fit together seamlessly and easily or is there an incongruence?

He frames these matters, when talking about research ethics committee members and research ethics reviewers across ten important categories.

He then suggests ten tests that could be usefully applied to evaluate the quality of review feedback.

How your institution’s research ethics committee and its review feedback fare if judged against this criteria?

Is it time they had some professional development? Does the Committee’s standard operating procedures need to be updated?

This is a valuable read for research ethics committee Chairs, Secretaries and members.

Read More
Error of judgment! Handwritten message on a white background.

Unnatural justice: Public allegations could cause significant harm to vital clinical trial activity

October 25, 2021 No Comments

In this thought-provoking post, Nik Zeps (a consultant with AHRECS and a partner at Chrysalis) discusses the serious harm (in terms of reputation and career, as well as lost useful lines of inquiry) when there are complaints that allege ethical problems with clinical research.

These relate to situations where the clinical research is evaluating different kinds of intervention, where the evidence for the ‘accepted’ treatment might not be clear.

A misunderstanding of such research designs and a visceral reaction to apparent breaches aren’t helpful.

When such allegations are made, the researchers are rarely afforded an opportunity to respond and explain. If they were, one assumes that the manner could be easily cleared up.

We are embarrassed to admit in our own reporting of the cited case we really didn’t grasp the realities of what occurred or called out the very emotive reaction.

Read More
Two 3d figures attempting to bridge a gap using jigsaw pieces

When it comes to the approach to human research ethics, did we buy London Bridge thinking it was Tower Bridge?

September 21, 2021 No Comments

In this post, two experienced research ethics officers risk being decried as heretics by reflecting upon the justifications that are used for the current Human Research Ethics arrangements in countries around the world.

They use the sale of London Bridge in the Sixties and the urban myth that the US millionaire who bought it thought he was buying Tower Bridge, to ask, given the time, effort and resources expended on research ethics review, are we getting what we paid for?

There are genuine benefits that can flow from a well-conducted review process and they do justify the existence of those processes, but we should stop claiming those processes safeguard us against the criminal, unethical and reckless behaviour of the past.

They don’t and we should stop claiming in our professional development activities and resource material they do.

Read More
Yellow tape blocks off a crime scene with broken glass

Why resourcing practice is a better option for institutions than policing compliance

July 25, 2021 No Comments

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.

Read More
Previous Page1 Page2 Page3 … Page11 Next

Categories

AHRECS Admin
17
Animal Ethics
2
Global Ethics
1
Human Research Ethics
160
Research Integrity
57
Services
27
Uncategorized
2

Featured posts

Ten ways of ensuring affordable professional development in your institution

December 20, 2018 No Comments

Research institutions have a responsibility under the Australian Code to ‘Provide ongoing training and education

Interest in ‘self-plagiarism’

March 27, 2019 1 Comment

Mark Israel Mark Israel’s article in Research Ethics Monthly on ‘Self-plagiarism?’ has been receiving a little

Question for Research Ethics Monthly readers: Win for your institution a new 12-month subscription to https://www.ahrecs.vip

December 23, 2019 No Comments

Prof. Mark Israel and Dr Gary Allen We would like to encourage institutions to

A row of dice sitting on the trigger of a metal trap displaying the word "RISK"

A big bear trap on the horizon

January 27, 2021 No Comments

Many Australian research bodies link to the National Statement. They do so through websites, policy documents, professional development material and other resources.

This is logical and makes it easier for researchers and others to access the national policy/guidance material.

Another reason to do this is that it makes it easier for researchers to see the external impetus for the institution’s arrangements and provides a source of further information and guidance.

Subscribe to newsletter

The Research Ethics Monthly is a free monthly publication about human research ethics and research integrity. It is emailed to our subscribers generally towards the end of every month.

  • Enter the answer as a word
  • Hidden
    This field is hidden and only used for import to Mailchimp
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Related Links

  • Comment Rules
  • Complaints against the Research Ethics Monthly
  • Request a Take Down
  • Submission guidelines
  • About the Research Ethics Monthly
  • About Subscribing to the Research Ethics Monthly

Research Ethics Monthly

  • April/May 2022
  • January/February/March 2022
  • November/December 2021
  • September/October 2021
  • August 2021
  • June 2021
  • April/May 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
Load More

Research Ethics Monthly Receive copies of the Research Ethics Monthly directly
by email. We will never spam you.

  • Enter the answer as a word
  • Hidden
    This field is hidden and only used for import to Mailchimp
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
  • Home
  • Services
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
Menu
  • Home
  • Services
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Company
  • Terms Of Use
  • Copyright
  • Privacy Policy
Menu
  • Company
  • Terms Of Use
  • Copyright
  • Privacy Policy
  • Site Map
Menu
  • Site Map

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Facebook-f Twitter Linkedin-in