ACN - 101321555 Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)
Search
Generic filters
Exact text matches only
Search into
Filter by Categories
Research integrity
Filter by Categories
Human Research Ethics

Resource Library

Research Ethics MonthlyAbout Us

Research Ethics Committees

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

It’s not too late to register for today’s free webinar about the 2018 update to the National Statement0

Posted by Admin in Human Research Ethics on November 21, 2018 / Keywords: , , ,
 

Details about the event below. While we hope to see you there in a few days we’ll add a recording of the event to our website.

To register for this event visit
https://zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_vwIWL16YT4S-lkMOXAxVtQ

DatePanel membersQuestions
National Statement 22/11/18
14:30 AEDT
MODERATOR
Mark Israel
.
Jeremy Kenner 
(NHMRC)
.
Wendy Rodgers (Chair NSRWG, Macquarie University)
.
Pamela Henry, ECU HREC Chair
.
Gary Allen (AHRECS, C0-chair of the committee that
drafted  the new Chapter 3.1 of the National
Statement)
 

.
1. Jeremy, what’s new and why does it matter?
.
2. Wendy, how could researchers use
and benefit from the changes?
.
3. Pam, how could HRECs use and
benefit from the changes?
.
4. Gary, what’s scary about the changes?

 

New South WalesThursday, 22 November at 2:30:00 pm AEDT UTC+11 hours
Western AustraliaThursday, 22 November at 11:30:00 am AWST UTC+8 hours
Australian Capital TerritoryThursday, 22 November at 2:30:00 pm AEDT UTC+11 hours
QueenslandThursday, 22 November at 1:30:00 pm AEST UTC+10 hours
South AustraliaThursday, 22 November at 2:00:00 pm ACDT UTC+10:30 hours
Northern TerritoryThursday, 22 November at 1:00:00 pm ACST UTC+9:30 hours
Victoria/TasmaniaThursday, 22 November at 2:30:00 pm AEDT UTC+11 hours
New ZealandThursday, 22 November at 4:30:00 pm NZDT UTC+13 hours

.
The panels run for 45 minutes. Each panellist has been asked to speak for five minutes on a particular question.

The panels will include a discussion of how institutions and researchers might best respond to the new Australian Code. The discussion will be partly based on

1. Questions submitted in advance to NSburningquestion@ahrecs.com – please consider doing so now, as it may allow panellists to provide you with better prepared answers

2. questions raised through the Q&A feature on Zoom

You’ll need to make sure that you have Zoom as an app on your device or access to Zoom on the internet. Login details will be sent to registrants.

You’ll have access to a website page after the seminar where panellists may leave further materials. We’ll also be distributing a questionnaire asking you about what worked, what didn’t work and what you’d like future sessions to cover.

I look forward to you joining the audience online.

Prof. Mark Israel
Moderator and AHRECS senior consultant

Get access to some great resources (two examples included in this post) and support events like the Constructive Voices panels0

 

Every month we add at least two items to the subscribers’ area. These include vignettes and other resources to use in your internally delivered professional development workshops. They are shared on a creative commons basis, so a nominated person can download selected material, load it onto a local server and use it within his or her own institution multiple times.(as long as they adhere to the CC license). Included here is a example pf a discussion item. We are currently working on a library of 26+ research integrity short audio snippets that could be incorporated into your internal research integrity workshops (example also attached). A library of these will be available from the subscribers’ area.

In addition to getting access to these great material, patrons are helping AHRECS cover the costs of events like the Australian Code= and National Statement Constructive Voices panel discussions webinars.

A Gold sponsorship (which costs US15/month) provides access to all materials. Subscriptions are paid via PayPal. We can provide a payment receipt after each monthly payment.

Too become a patron visit https://www.patreon.com/ahrecs.

Feel free to contact us on patron@ahrecs.com to discuss.

Constructive Voices Online Panels – National Statement session 22/11/2018 – Information for registrants0

Posted by Admin in Human Research Ethics on November 10, 2018 / Keywords: , , ,
 

To register for this event visit
https://zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_vwIWL16YT4S-lkMOXAxVtQ

DatePanel membersQuestions
National Statement 22/11/18
14:30 AEDT
MODERATOR
Mark Israel
.
Jeremy Kenner 
(NHMRC)
.
Wendy Rodgers (Chair NSRWG, Macquarie University)
.
Pamela Henry, ECU HREC Chair
.
Gary Allen (AHRECS)
.
1. Jeremy, what’s new and why does it matter?
.
2. Wendy, how could researchers use
and benefit from the changes?
.
3. Pam, how could HRECs use and
benefit from the changes?
.
4. Gary, what’s scary about the changes?

 

New South WalesThursday, 22 November at 2:30:00 pm AEDT UTC+11 hours
Western AustraliaThursday, 22 November at 11:30:00 am AWST UTC+8 hours
Australian Capital TerritoryThursday, 22 November at 2:30:00 pm AEDT UTC+11 hours
QueenslandThursday, 22 November at 1:30:00 pm AEST UTC+10 hours
South AustraliaThursday, 22 November at 2:00:00 pm ACDT UTC+10:30 hours
Northern TerritoryThursday, 22 November at 1:00:00 pm ACST UTC+9:30 hours
Victoria/TasmaniaThursday, 22 November at 2:30:00 pm AEDT UTC+11 hours
New ZealandThursday, 22 November at 4:30:00 pm NZDT UTC+13 hours

.
The panels run for 45 minutes. Each panellist has been asked to speak for five minutes on a particular question.

The panels will include a discussion of how institutions and researchers might best respond to the new Australian Code. The discussion will be partly based on

1. Questions submitted in advance to NSburningquestion@ahrecs.com – please consider doing so now, as it may allow panellists to provide you with better prepared answers

2. questions raised through the Q&A feature on Zoom

You’ll need to make sure that you have Zoom as an app on your device or access to Zoom on the internet. Login details will be sent to registrants.

You’ll have access to a website page after the seminar where panellists may leave further materials. We’ll also be distributing a questionnaire asking you about what worked, what didn’t work and what you’d like future sessions to cover.

I look forward to you joining the audience online.

Prof. Mark Israel
Moderator and AHRECS senior consultant

The value of respect in human research ethics: a conceptual analysis and a practical guide0

 

Pieper, I J and Thomson CJH The value of respect in human research ethics: a conceptual analysis and a practical guide Monash Bioeth. Rev. (2014) 32:232–253

A Series on the Four Principles of the Australian National Statement on Ethics Conduct in Human Research

In this issues of the Research Ethics Monthly, Ian Pieper and Colin Thomson continue their series of short summaries of each of their four co-authored articles on the principles that underpin the Australian National Statement, namely, research merit and integrity, justice, beneficence and respect.

The articles were originally published in the Monash Bioethics Review and remain available to subscription holders to that journal. The publisher, Springer, has generously agreed to place each of the four articles on Free Access for one month after the corresponding short summary is published in the Research Ethics Monthly. Last month they revisited their paper entitledBeneficence as a Principle in Human Research.  This month they revisit the paper exploring the principle of respect for humans in the context of human research. The full paper can be found here.

Respect for human beings is an essential component of human research ethics.  It was emphasised in the Nuremberg code and has been continually recognised in all authoritative international and national guidelines since then.

Although primarily reflected in requirements for consent, the central concept is respect for personal autonomy, that is, for the capacity of individuals to be able to put their principles and values into practice. Sometimes the concept of dignity is added, recognising respect for a person’s ability to live in accordance with their desires and values and requiring more than a focus merely on consent.

Individual autonomy has both a volitional component, requiring a decision to be voluntary and not made under compulsion, threats or coercion, and a cognitive component requiring a decisionmaker to have both the capacity and sufficient information to make a decision.  It is important that all stakeholders involved in assessing consent in human research understand these foundational elements of ethically sound consent.

 

This paper outlines and discusses the guidance provided within the National Statement around what is sufficient information and how that should be disclosed, the need for adequate understanding, the assessment of capacity and the requirement of voluntariness including the relevance to decision-makers of relationships with others. The discussion of capacity includes consideration of circumstances involving children, people dependent on medical care or who may have cognitive impairments.

The requirement of voluntary choice and possible impacts from coercion, inducement, dependency, and vulnerability are examined.   In this context, the paper offers a reminder that respect requires more than a focus on consent.  It explores circumstances where a limited disclosure or waiver of the requirement for consent can be granted in order to facilitate important research in ways that are ethically justified.

Ian and Colin have produced an activity sheet to accompany this post. It can be found in the subscribers’ area (https://www.patreon.com/ahrecs). A subscription of only USD15/month (approx AUD21/month) provides access to a growing library of activity items, reflections on papers and news, and other resource items. At least two items are added to the library every month.  These are shared on a creative commons basis, so you are free to use them internally without otherwise engaging AHRECS. These items would ordinarily cost more than AUD500. So becoming an AHRECS patron not only helps AHRECS stay a constructive voice for change it’s a way to get access some terrific items for a great price.

Email gary.allen@ahrecs.com for further information.

Contributors:
Ian Pieper, AHRECS Consultant, Ian’s AHRECS profile
Colin Thomson AM, AHRECS Senior Consultant, colin.thomson@ahrecs.com | Colin’s AHRECS profile

This post may be cited as:
Pieper, I & Thomson C. (25  October 2018) The value of respect in human research ethics: a conceptual analysis and a practical guide. Research Ethics Monthly. Retrieved from: https://ahrecs.com/human-research-ethics/the-value-of-respect-in-human-research-ethics-a-conceptual-analysis-and-a-practical-guide

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