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

Resource Library

Research Ethics MonthlyAbout Us

Research Ethics Committees

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

What’s at risk? Who’s responsible? Moving beyond the physical, the immediate, the proximate, and the individual0

 

Building the Conversation

This month’s addition to the Building the Conversation series reflects upon how we approach risks beyond those that are physical, harm people other than a project’s participants and harms that are not immediate.

To some extent, when researchers reflect upon those harms associated with a project, they may well limit their assessment of risk to the here and now and to identifiable individuals. In addition, for projects in the medical sciences, those risks were long understood as predominantly physical in the form of injury, infection or disability and related to direct participants (e.g. persons who received an experimental pharmacological agent). This limited vision is not particularly surprising. One of the perverse consequences of requiring researchers to reflect on whether the potential benefits of research justify risk to participants is that some researchers are dissuaded from looking too carefully for risks and therefore avoid developing strategies for minimising these risks and mitigating possible harms. Even more perversely, this reluctance can trigger in human research ethics committees an unrealistic level of risk aversion.

It is vital that we remember that it is primarily the responsibility of researchers to identify, gauge and weigh the risk. Research ethics review bodies have the role of providing feedback to researchers to facilitate projects, not catch out researchers and chastise them for neglecting a risk. This is especially true if we do not have resource material to assist researchers with regard to this wider focus.

We need to improve our understanding of the complexity of risks, extending our vision to look beyond the physical, the immediate, the proximate, and the individual risks. At the same time, we need to review our understanding of on whom the responsibility for the identification, mitigation ad management of all of these risks should fall.

In recent decades, national human research ethics frameworks, such as the Australian National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (National Statement) (NHMRC 2007a) have augmented their original interest in physical harm with a much broader set of psychological, legal, economic and social harms. Documents such as the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research (NHMRC 2007b) cast this net wider still to include societal and environmental risks. However, the likelihood of incidence, the significance of the harm and the timing of such harms can be harder to predict, quantify and mitigate.

We are fuelling the potential for an adversarial climate (Israel et al., 2016) if we fail to provide researchers and our research ethics reviewers with guidance on how to approach such matters.

Human research ethics committees, guided by the frameworks in which they function, focus on immediate risks directly to the participants in a project. For example, the National Statement requires committees to be satisfied that “the likely benefit of the research must justify any risks or discomfort to participants.” (NHMRC, 2007, 10). Committees can feel less equipped to tackle risks that can affect participants after the active phase of a project, such as harms to the reputation and standing of a group that can come from the research output that is distributed long after data collection and perhaps years after the research ethics review.

Harm can also impact upon populations and social/professional/community groups much wider than the actual participants. For, example, research into the academic performance of children from schools in a low socio-economic area if reported insensitively by researchers or, indeed by the media, can further stigmatise the kids, and harm the reputation of the schools and teachers. Again, work on the informal income of members of marginalised communities might be used subsequently by government to target tax avoidance by the already vulnerable. Lastly, research on the attitudes of residents in coastal communities to climate change and rising sea levels can detrimentally effect the value of surrounding land. Indeed, some review processes require researchers to consider the possibility of adverse findings (both medical and non-medical in nature). Although the National Statement, (NHMRC, 2007 p.13), recognises risks of this kind, it leaves unclear whose responsibility they are.

Focussing on the rights of individuals from a Western liberal democratic perspective is unlikely to be helpful in other contexts, such as an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community, in a cultural context where a Confucian approach would be more appropriate (Katyal, 2011), or even in some organisational settings where accountability is partly achieved through openness to external scrutiny in the form of research and evaluation. As a result, there have also been prompts to consider risks to identifiable third parties, groups, institutions, communities (Weijer et al., 1999). Values and Ethics and the Guidelines for Ethical Research in Australian Indigenous Studies (GERAIS) do recognise such matters might be considered by some potential participant pools on a collective basis and perhaps with an knowledge of a history of research abuse and exploitation of their communities and this attention to collective interests can be echoed in other work on research ethics and Indigenous peoples around the world (Israel, 2015).

This is perhaps one of the reasons why some minorities have produced their own research ethics guidance documents (for examples, see Hudson et al. (2010), Nordling (2017) and Islamic Council of Victoria (2017)). The value of this kind of guidan this on some for the moments that it clarifies that it is on researchers that the important responsibility lies to foresee, mitigate and manage these risks.

Another example of deleterious impacts from research that might not be immediately obvious to researchers, research ethics reviewers or research office staff arises in the category of ‘dual use’ research (Miller and Selgelid, 2007). This where a technique, technology or an apparently non-military discovery can be used for military or terrorist purposes – sometimes with devastating effect. Initially, the concern of biomedical scientists, the issue has also troubled anthropologists, geographers, sociologists, political scientists and international relations experts in the face of overt or covert funding by military or intelligence agencies (Israel, 2015). One of the growing challenges for a significant proportion of such work (e.g. quantum computing, computer security/intrusion/hacking, smart materials, computer vision and energy storage) is the work will not typically require research ethics or any other form of independent review. The existing model of human research ethics review is initially attractive as a response, but some reflection will quickly show that ethics committees are not likely to possess the expertise/information to identify the dual use and the work may be occurring in disciplines that have not built their capacity to think through the ethics of working with human participants.

Australia has a strengthened export control framework with regard to security classification, Defence Department permits/approvals and other requirements (e.g. data security). Many Australian universities have established dedicated teams and processes for this particular area of concern. It remains an area of community concern (see Hamilton and Joske, 2017). Such controls involve balancing academic freedom, a commitment to open science and the value of scientific discovery against (inter)national security, trade and diplomatic interests. Such a balancing exercise is plainly beyond the capacity required for human research ethics review, so that the responsibility needs to rely on another mechanism.

The implications of all of this are not trivial. This all requires a change in thinking for researchers, institutions, funding bodies, learned academies and regulators. Our attention to the potential harms from a project needs to encapsulate research outputs, impacts upon communities, persons who were not direct participants in the project as well as national interests. At the same time, the consideration of a project vis-à-vis the ethical principle of research merit needs to include broader societal benefits and contributions to knowledge that might also involve a much wider group and a longer timeframe than the ones to which we are accustomed. However, in order to reach a more sophisticated analysis of the balance between potential harms and benefits, we need to more clearly allocate responsibility for such risks and devise mechanisms that reassure the community that these responsibilities have been fulfilled.

In our view, merely widening the scope of the responsibilities of human research ethics committees to address all these risks could not only exacerbate the propensity for risk aversion, but could also distort their important focus on the welfare of research participants. The current review system needs to find ways of working constructively with other processes that build the capacity of researchers and their institutions to work with these broader risks and benefits.

Institutions must have resource materials for researchers and research ethics reviewers that have the primary objective of resourcing reflective practice and building expertise in risk assessment and mitigation. Researchers must recognise these matters as their primary responsibility and research ethics reviewers must focus upon facilitation not enforcing compliance. We have written about how institutions can implement such an approach (Israel and Allen, in press).

In short, we cannot afford to ignore these challenges. Instead, we should take innovation seriously and seek constructive solutions.

References

Allen, G. and Israel, M. (in press, 2018) Moving beyond Regulatory Compliance: Building Institutional Support for Ethical Reflection in Research. In Iphofen, R. and Tolich, M. (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research Ethics. London: Sage.

Hamilton, C. and Joske, A. (2017) Australian taxes may help finance Chinese military capability. The Australian. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/australian-taxes-may-help-finance-chinese-military-capability/news-story/6aa9780c6a907b24993d006ef25f9654 [accessed 31 December 2017).

Hudson, M., Milne, M., Reynolds, P., Russell, K. and Smith B. (2010) Te Ara Tika. Guidelines for Māori Research Ethics: A Framework for Researchers and Ethics Committee Members. http://www.hrc.govt.nz/sites/default/files/Te%20Ara%20Tika%20Guidelines%20for%20Maori%20Research%20Ethics.pdf (accessed 29 December 2017).

Islamic Council of Victoria (2017) ICV Guidelines for Muslim Community-University Research Partnerships. http://www.icv.org.au/new/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/ICV-Community-University-Partnership-Guidelines-Sept-2017.pdf (accessed 29 December 2017)

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

Israel, M., Allen, G. and Thomson, C. (2016) Australian Research Ethics Governance: Plotting the Demise of the Adversarial Culture. In van den Hoonaard, W. and Hamilton, A. (eds) The Ethics Rupture: Exploring Alternatives to Formal Research-Ethics Review. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. pp 285-316. http://www.utppublishing.com/The-Ethics-Rupture-Exploring-Alternatives-to-Formal-Research-Ethics-Review.html

Katyal, K.R. (2011) Gate-keeping and the ambiguities in the nature of ‘informed consent’ in Confucian societies. International Journal of Research & Method in Education 34(2): 147-159.

Miller, S. and Selgelid, M. (2007) Ethical and philosophical consideration of the dual use dilemma in the biological sciences. Science and Engineering Ethics 13: 523-580.

NHMRC (2007a) National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research. http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines-publications/e72 (accessed 29 December 2017).

NHMRC (2007b) Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research. http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines-publications/r39 (accessed 29 December 2017).

Nordling, L. (2017) San people of Africa draft code of ethics for researchers. Science, March 17. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/san-people-africa-draft-code-ethics-researchers (accessed 29 December 2017).

Weijer, C., Goldsand, G. and Emanuel, E.J. (1999) Protecting communities in research: Current guidelines and limits of extrapolation. Nature Genetics 23: 275-280.

Contributors
Dr Gary Allen
Senior consultant | AHRECS | Gary’s AHRECS biogary.allen@ahrecs.com

Prof. Mark Israel
Senior consultant | AHRECS | Mark’s AHRECS biomark.israel@ahrecs.com

This post may be cited as:
Allen G. and Israel M. (2018, 1 February 2018) What’s at risk? Who’s responsible? Moving beyond the physical, the immediate, the proximate, and the individual. Research Ethics Monthly. Retrieved from: https://ahrecs.com/human-research-ethics/whats-risk-whos-responsible-moving-beyond-physical-immediate-proximate-individual

Use of Imported Human Biospecimens in Research0

 

The use of biospecimens in research is a vital tool in the development of knowledge and innovation in biomedical research. There are a number of established biobanks, local and international, that offer a rich resource of human biospecimens for research purposes[1]. In most cases these resources are linked with genetic and/or other personal health information.

There is a vast amount of literature that comments on the ethical and legal challenges involved in biobanking, including the collection, processing and sourcing of biospecimens[2]. This blog post addresses the types of information that Australian HRECs and researchers require to establish the ethical acceptability of research involving the use of biospecimens, particularly where the samples are sourced and imported from an international supplier.

In Australia, the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research, 2013 (National Statement), Chapter 3.4 on Human Biospecimens in Laboratory Based Research’, refers to human biospecimens as ‘any biological material obtained from a person including tissue, blood, urine, sputum and any derivative from these including cell lines‘ and outlines the ethical considerations for the collection, storage and use of biospecimens in research.

Specifically, for imported samples, Chapter 3.4.13 holds that ‘researchers must establish whether these human biospecimens were obtained in a manner consistent with the requirement described in the National Statement and relevant Australian legislation.’ Where it cannot be established that specimens were obtained in a ‘manner consistent with the requirements described in the National Statement and relevant Australian legislation the biospecimens should not be used for research in Australia.’

Determining whether the imported biospecimens were obtained in a way that satisfies the principles of the National Statement and conforms to Australian legislation requires information relating to the provenance of the biospecimen/s. Provenance is a broad term that generally means where something comes from, its origins and the ‘process or methodology by which it is produced‘[3].

Establishing the provenance of samples is important because it goes to the heart of understanding how samples were first obtained and from where they were derived, rather than merely how the current researchers obtained them; and because the laws and ethical guidance in different countries may differ from those applicable in Australia. These factors can reveal a potential conflict between the manner in which samples have been obtained abroad and the ethical principles set out in the National Statement. In addition, Australian laws and other national guidance prohibit the sale or exchange of human tissue, effectively calling in to question the use of samples sourced from an overseas supplier who may accrue profits from their sale or exchange[4].

In some cases, commercialisation of biospecimens by third party suppliers may include biobanks or biospecimen repository centres which may gain income from the manufacture, supply and distribution of biospecimens. In this circumstance, it is not always clear to what extent there has been a passage of responsibility for prior undertakings made with the donor to the wholesaler to ensure the type or quality of the activity subsequently conducted with the samples. This may not pose a problem for the researcher but may pose a problem for the host institution.

A further concern that is frequently unclear is whether the donor was aware of, or consented to, the use as proposed in the current research. Determining the nature of consent for collection, re-distribution and research use from such suppliers is difficult. Information may not be provided on the jurisdictional regulations applying to donation and subsequent research use. Instead the only indication of practice pertaining to specimen collection and when it occurred is generalities about compliance with such regulations, rather than the specifics of what they were at the time, and how they may concur with previous and current Australian guidance.

The following information relating to sample provenance can assist researchers and HRECs to determine if the biospecimens were collected in an ethically acceptable manner and that their proposed use is respectful of donor expectations:

  • Evidence of donor informed consent for the use of their biospecimen/s is a paramount consideration for HRECs and is a primary indicator for how the biospecimen can be used in later research. Importantly, evidence of consent will indicate: whether the donors agreed to the scope and/or nature of subsequent research; how samples would be managed; and whether they were aware they would have no claims to any commercial gain from discoveries made by researchers or research organisations. In addition, such documents allow assessment of undertakings, if any, for researchers to feed-back findings that may be important for the donor’s blood relatives or community, particularly in the context of health research.
  • Information relating to the approval for and level of oversight and custodianship of the original biospecimen resource (obtained from a commercial company, biobank or research colleague/partner), and how this is passed to researchers gaining access to samples. Ensuring that appropriate custodianship arrangements are in place for the biospecimen/s can provide assurance on the way in which the biospecimen/s were obtained.

Custodianship arrangements may include transparent policies for the maintenance of the privacy and confidentiality of research participants, protocols for the distribution of samples to researchers and records pertaining to the informed consent and the identity of research participants.

Finding information relating to the provenance of samples for some overseas suppliers can be difficult and is generally limited to information accessible on supplier websites. Often it is not always obvious or clear how suppliers have obtained biospecimens. Often a Materials Transfer Agreement (MTA) is all that exists. This may contain provisions restricting how the biospecimen/s are used and for what purposes, and are generally understood as being indicative of the custodianship arrangements put in place to protect donor expectations.

In the absence of any information relating to the provenance of imported samples, HRECs and researchers may consider the use of biospecimens under a ‘Waiver of consent’ (National Statement, 3.4.12). This generally applies to situations where it is at least known that samples were collected during clinical procedures and stored in pathology facilities. Because no prior consideration was given to research use, no consent has been obtained from donors. Under such circumstances, because of the time since collection, and the numbers of samples, it may be impracticable to return to patients to inform them of the potential research use and to gain consent. The HREC must satisfy itself that the conditions for a valid waiver from the requirement for consent apply. This is a judgement based on the level of risk for, and reasonable expectations of, the original donors, management of samples and data, the merits of the study and potential benefits for others such as the community at large from undertaking the research.

Establishing the ethical acceptability of imported biospecimens is challenging for researchers and HRECs. Until such time as there is harmonisation of global biobanking standards, greater engagement of donors in understanding the community benefits accruing from biospecimen research, and increased awareness of the ethical issues underlying the collection and transfer of samples, all available information relating to sample provenance must be provided for scrutiny by reviewing HRECs[5].

Notes

1. An example of a list of international biobanks can be found at http://specimencentral.com/biobank-directory/

2. See for example, Caulfield T, Murdoch B (2017): Genes, cells, and biobanks: Yes, there’s still a consent problem. PLos Biol 15(7): e2002654. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2002654 and Don Chalmers et al. (2016) ‘Has the biobank bubble burst? Withstanding the challenges for sustainable biobanking in the digital era.’ BMC Medical Ethics 17:39 https://bmcmedethics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12910-016-0124-2.

3. The Australian National Data Service (ANDS) defines ‘Data Provenance’ as ‘to document where a piece of data comes from and the process and methodology by which it is produced’. <https://www.ands.org.au/partners-and-communities/ands-communities/data-provenance-interest-group>.

4. See Transplantation and Anatomy Act 1979 (Qld) s 40(1) and cognate state and territory legislation and discussion in the now revoked NHMRC, ‘Ethics and the Exchange and commercialisation of products derived from human tissue’ (Background and Issues Paper, NHMRC, October 2011) https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/file/health_ethics/ethcial_issues/e103_ecpd_humantissue_111019.pdf.

5.  See example of donor awareness at HTA Human Tissue Authority The Regulator for human tissue and organs, Donating your tissue for research FAQs < https://www.hta.gov.uk/faqs/donating-your-tissue-research-faqs>.

Contributors
Ms Anne Walsh,
Manager Research Ethics and Integrity,
Office of Research Ethics and Integrity,
Division of Research and Commercialisation,
Queensland University of Technology
Anne.Walsh@qut.edu.au

Adjunct Professor Conor Brophy
Chair, University Human Research Committee (UHREC)
Division of Research and Commercialisation
Queensland University of Technology
Conor.brophy@qut.edu.au

Dr Conor Brophy
Conor has been a member of human research ethics committees in UK and Australia for 20 years. She chairs the Mater Misericordiae Ltd HREC and the Queensland University of Technology HREC, reviewing human research from all faculties. She has degrees in medicine, bioethics and clinical research and previously worked in health and pharma research and clinical governance.

Ms Anne Walsh
For 15 years, Anne has worked in a number of roles relating to clinical and research ethics and research governance and integrity. She has been a member of human research ethics committees in the public and private health sector. Anne has degrees in science, philosophy and law. She is currently a PhD scholar in the Law Faculty, QUT.

Acknowledgments:
Thanks to Dr Jane Jacobs, Director Office of Research Ethics and Integrity and
Dr Nicola Pritchard, Research Ethics Coordinator, Office of Research Ethics and Integrity, for review and input.

This post may be cited as:
Walsh A. and Brophy C. (2017, 1 February 2018) Use of Imported Human Biospecimens in Research. Research Ethics Monthly. Retrieved from: https://ahrecs.com/human-research-ethics/use-imported-human-biospecimens-research

Ethical use of social media as a recruitment tool0

 

Building the Conversation

From this month we will start including posts about the ethical design of human research. Our intent is not to present these ideas as the definitive or only way to approach a particular challenge/need but instead as prompts to get us all – participants, researchers, reviewers, regulators, administrators and other stakeholders – discussing useful and helpful approaches to the design, research ethics review and conduct of human research.

There are numerous reasons why social media can appear an attractive way to reach potential participants – it may be free or at least relatively inexpensive, it is increasingly ubiquitous across a range of Australian age groups (Sensis, 2017), and can be a powerful way to build an ongoing connection with a cohort of potential participants.

A recent issue of The American Journal of Bioethics focussed on the ethics of using social media as research platforms. An article by Luke Galinas and his colleagues (Galinas et al., 2017) noted the lack of resources and regulatory guidance in the United States on the use of social media as a recruitment tool. They concluded that this was a significant problem since, for all its benefits, use of social media is not without ethical and practical challenges and traps. Fortunately, these are not insurmountable. Galinas’ article explored how biomedical researchers might respond in the United States by attending to the issues of researcher transparency and respect for the privacy of participants; in this blog post, we provide advice for Australian researchers and reviewers in an effort to stimulate further discussion between them.

Excluding some potential participants – The penetration of social media platforms across all age groups of the Australian population over the last ten years has been truly remarkable. There do remain, however, some significant differences on the extent of usage depending on age, geographic location and socio-economic status. Consequently, open recruitment via social media may skew a participant pool towards area where social media use is more prevalent and may inadvertently exclude some groups of people with perspectives, views or voices that might undermine the value of a project’s finding.

Platform differences and exclusion – Not every social media platforms had the same user demographics; someone who uses social media 15 times per day may only be frequenting one platform. There is no single platform that is used by most social media users. Indeed, even platforms such as Facebook seem to be used more by a particular age-range of people within the Global North. Other countries have their own platforms that are heavily used within the region (e.g. China – WeChat (微信; Wēixìn) and Russia – VK social media (Vkontakte) and Odnoklassniki), but hardly ever by people outside that region.

Privacy rules and concerns – Privacy concerns are amongst the more significant reasons why some people do not currently use social media (Sensis, 2017). Indeed, many users do not understand the privacy rules of their preferred platform(s) and remain concerned about privacy. One large survey conducted by Evans et al. (2015) suggested that concern was greater among younger and more frequent users.

Comments from participants and others – Enabling participants to comment on the recruitment social media pages for a project might be an effective way to engage with potential participants. However, there are important reasons for caution about allowing participants to comment on such pages as they might expose themselves to risk. Individuals might divulge whether they are participants or were excluded by the screening tool. In addition, they might distort the data collected from others by prompting particular responses to their own comments.

Pseudonyms and de-identification –The presumptive remedy to many social media challenges is to delete, modify or otherwise obfuscate personal identifiers such as user names. However, some platform rules often specifically preclude such an approach (e.g. Twitter treats any such de-identification as a copyright concern). Furthermore, modifications of comments or descriptions raises at least the possibility the researcher fabricated or falsified data (much as occurred in Alice Goffman’s offline study, see Neyfakh, 2015).

Recruitment materials – Many national human research ethics arrangements, such as Australia’s National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research specify that review bodies must consider and first approve recruitment materials, including the text of posts to go on a social media page. In most cases, this role will be delegated to the Chair (for executive review) or the Ethics Officer (for administrative review). The rigour and substance of this review should be proportionate to the risks and ethical sensitivities of a project. The need and purpose of this review reflects the potential for risks, privacy and other human research ethics matters that can be associated with a project’s recruitment strategy.

The application for research ethics review should cover the above matters and explain why the applicant believes the proposed approach is ethical, appropriate, respectful and justified. Such matters may also need to be discussed in the consent (if not the recruitment) materials. Similarly, research ethics reviewers should expect such a justification to be provided, be open to and accepting of innovation, offer praise where due, and share their thinking where uncomfortable with a proposed approach.

Like most topics in human research ethics, there is no single ‘correct’ approach with regard to recruitment and social media. Ethical research may be best pursued through reflection and collegial discussion.

References

Evans H, Ginnis S and Bartlett J (2015) #SocialEthics: A guide to embedding ethics in social media research.

Gelinas L. et al. (2017) Using Social Media as a Research Recruitment Tool: Ethical Issues and Recommendations. The American Journal of Bioethics, Vol. 17, No. 3. DOI: 10.1080/15265161.2016.1276644

Neyfakh, L. (2015) The Ethics of Ethnography. Slate Magazine. Retrieved 8 November 2017, from http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2015/06/alice_goffman…

NHMRC (2007) National Statement on ethical conduct in human research. http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines-publications/e72.

Sensis (2017) Social Media Report 2017. Retrieved from: https://www.sensis.com.au/asset/PDFdirectory/Sensis_Social_Media_Report_2017-Chapter-1.pdf (accessed 7 November 2017)

Other reading

Chamber C (2014, 1 July) Facebook fiasco: was Cornell’s study of ‘emotional contagion’ an ethics breach? The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/science/head-quarters/2014/jul/01/facebook-cornell-study-emotional-contagion-ethics-breach (accessed 8 November 2015)

Leetaru K (2016, 17 June) Are Research Ethics Obsolete in the Era of Big Data? Forbes/Tech
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/06/17/are-research-ethics-obsolete-in-the-era-of-big-data/#1a083ad31cb9

Contributors
Dr Gary Allen | Senior Consultant AHRECS | Gary’s AHRECS biogary.allen@ahrecs.com

Prof. Mark Israel | Senior Consultant AHRECS | Mark’s AHRECS biomark.israel@ahrecs.com

This post may be cited as:
Allen G. and Israel M. (2017, 20 November 2017) Ethical use of social media as a recruitment tool Research Ethics Monthly. Retrieved from: https://ahrecs.com/human-research-ethics/ethical-use-social-media-recruitment-tool

Professional Development across the Term of an HREC Committee Member0

 

AHRECS has considerable experience working with universities, hospitals, research institutions, government and non-government organisations to care for and build the capacity of its HREC Committee members across the entire term of their appointment. We start with the needs of our clients and offer support from recruitment all the way through to running an exit interview.

Many HRECs have quite simple manual-based inductions; we help HRECs to create something more welcoming and interactive that takes members from first contact to the point where they can contribute effectively to a committee. There is a significant difference between delivering a single ‘training session’ and creating a suite of professional development activities over two to three years, that covers committee members’ terms, and that might include dedicated annual PD and Strategy sessions and incorporate ongoing PD into each HREC meeting.

We can:

  • help recruit expert external members to meet the needs of specific HRECs
  • create interactive and multi-media induction and orientation materials
  • introduce members to the broader literature on research ethics
  • create material and run professional development sessions tailored to the specialist roles of particular HRECs
  • evaluate the performance of the HREC and provide feedback to the HREC and its host institution
  • offer exit interviews to HREC members stepping down from their role, and then….
  • help recruit replacement members to HRECs

We have provided elements of such services in Australia, Canada, Mauritius, New Zealand, Taiwan, United Kingdom, United States and Vietnam for new and established, small and large institutions and consortia of research organisations.

Contributor
Prof. Mark Israel, AHRECS senior consultant
AHRECS profile page
mark.israel@ahrecs.com

This post may be cited as:
Israel M. (2017, 22 June) Professional Development across the Term of an HREC Committee Member. Research Ethics Monthly. Retrieved from: https://ahrecs.com/services/professional-development-across-term-hrec-committee-member

0