An ethics argument for data sharing
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.
Should we accept funding for facial recognition research, and other dilemmas?
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.
Can I use your answers anyway?
Dr Gary Allen AHRECS Senior Consultant Many national frameworks for human research ethics, such as the National Statement (2007 updated
Plain English communications and the PICF – and beyond
Bob Milstein See below For many of us, preparing the Participant Information and Consent Form (PICF) for a research project
The Ethics and Politics of Qualitative Data Sharing
Mark Israel (AHRECS and Murdoch University) and Farida Fozdar (The University of Western Australia). There is considerable momentum behind the
The research use of online data/web 2.0 comments
Does it require research ethics review and specified consent? Dr Gary Allen AHRECS Senior Consultant The internet is a rich
Ethics, Security and Privacy – the Bermuda Triangle of data management?
Malcolm Wolski and Andrew Bowness Griffith University To manage sensitive research data appropriately, ethics, security and privacy requirements need
Complainant anonymity in misconduct proceedings depends on the forum
Prof. Colin Thomson AM, Senior Consultant, AHRECS This news item, while identifying the fact that the decision relates to court proceedings
How do we ‘do’ consent?
This blog post expands on ideas from our recent publication: McWhirter, R. E., &
Undue Influence in Research Between High-Income and Lower-Income Countries
Red Thaddeus D. Miguel According to the Belmont Report (1979), respect for persons incorporates two
When it comes to the approach to human research ethics, did we buy London Bridge thinking it was Tower Bridge?
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.
How we interpret the words ‘proportional review’
Dr Gary Allen AHRECS Senior Consultant Over the last decade, AHRECS has worked with