Research Ethics Monthly
ISSN 2206-2483
Ethics review and self-censorship (Lisa Wynn)
June 27, 2015
5 Comments
When it comes to human research and ethics review, self-censorship comes in two forms. The first kind comes after ethics
Categories
Featured posts
A call for a national inquiry into the burden of research ethics and governance
May 22, 2019
1 Comment
Adrian Barnett, Queensland University of Technology . Do we need a national inquiry into
Plain English communications and the PICF – and beyond
March 6, 2020
No Comments
Bob Milstein See below For many of us, preparing the Participant Information and Consent
An ethics argument for data sharing
June 28, 2021
No Comments
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.
HREC decision-making about social research with children: the influence of payment, risk and method
April 21, 2022
No Comments
In her latest thought-provoking post Stephanie Taplin reflects on social research with children/young adults and the impact of offering them incentives in the form of payments.
These matters have been controversial for research ethics committee and resulted in a block of items in the review feedback from the reviewing committee/s.
Despite the authority provided by the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (NHMRC, 2007, updated 2018) HRECs can be nervous about approving such research with incentives.
Despite this difficulty for reviewers, incentives in the form of payments definitely increases the chances that a young person will respond to a recruitment strategy.
Stephanie’s work has highlighted the degree to which a review body may be more comfortable with the offer of a chance to win and an incentive in a prize draw, at values over ten times as high as the direct incentive payment.
Another area of tension between the preferences of review body and young people is the difference between face-to-face interviews and anonymous questionnaires.
In this post Stephanie reflects on why researchers should engage with HRECs on these matters, rather than choose a path most likely to be accepted immediately by a committee.