“Reminder about service options and an easy way to pay AHRECS,” we say… aware of how corporate sleazy that sounds
Dr Gary Allen, Senior Consultants AHRECS Prof. Mark Israel Prof. Colin Thomson AM . Just in time for the end of the
Research Ethics and the New Gene-editing Technology
Nik Zeps, Consultant, AHRECS Keywords: Ethical Review, International Guidelines, Gene editing technologies, It has now been over six months since
Requesting your input
We’re preparing to work on a new version of the subscribers’ area, so we’d appreciate hearing your thoughts and ideas.
Travelling Consultants and Professional Development Roadshows
Prof. Mark Israel plans to be in CANBERRA (2-3 April), SYDNEY (8-10 May), UK and Belgium (27 May-8 June), MELBOURNE (13 June) and Perth (22-26 April,
Interest in ‘self-plagiarism’
Mark Israel Mark Israel’s article in Research Ethics Monthly on ‘Self-plagiarism?’ has been receiving a little interest outside Australia and New Zealand.
We’re working with a talented animator
Gary Allen, Mark Israel, Colin Thomson We are pretty excited to be working with an animation company on a couple
Conducting research with (not on) consumers in health – exploring ethical considerations
Authors: Joan Carlini,1 Kristen Ranse,2 Noela Baglot,3 and Laurie Grealish2 1. Griffith Business School, Griffith University, Southport campus, Queensland. Email: J.Carlini@Griffith.edu.au. 2.
Sage Methods Minute. January Spotlight: Research Ethics
January’s Methods Minutes, a monthly newsletter produced by Sage Publishing, is a special issue focused on social research ethics. It reviews
Categories
Featured posts
Why human research ethics and research integrity aren’t fire blankets
Let’s start with fire safety. Used correctly, fire blankets (and other fire protection equipment) can manage a hazard and prevent increased harm. Institutions have a regulatory responsibility to make staff aware of standards by providing training in fire safety and correct behaviour.
SYNERGY ONE
While in Australia there is no human research ethics legislation, the National Statement is generally recognised as the national standard for human research ethics. The Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research is the national standard for research integrity. Similarly, researchers need to be aware of the institution’s and national policies, procedures and arrangements with regards to human research ethics/research integrity (NS 3.47, AC Researcher Responsibility 16).
“Reminder about service options and an easy way to pay AHRECS,” we say… aware of how corporate sleazy that sounds
Dr Gary Allen, Senior Consultants AHRECS Prof. Mark Israel Prof. Colin Thomson AM . Just in
Endometriosis, women’s health and the ‘hysteria myth’
Kate Young, Research Fellow, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University Profile
Should we accept funding for facial recognition research, and other dilemmas?
Gary Allen, Mark Israel and Colin Thomson|
PEER REVIEWED
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.
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.
Related Links
Research Ethics Monthly
No posts found.