Research Ethics Monthly
ISSN 2206-2483
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.
Element Zero: What’s missing from the National Statement to support Consumer and Community Involvement in health research?
April 28, 2021
No Comments
In this great post, Mark, Deborah and Ciara discuss a useful new element for the National Statement that relates to genuine involvement, input and participation for consumers/community members.
Mark Israel, Deborah Hersh and Ciara Shiggins
Advocates in health research of Consumer and Community Involvement – a concept better known in the United Kingdom as Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) – argue that it offers a way of building knowledge that incorporates the experiences and perspectives of a range of stakeholders, including patients and members of the public. Such involvement can improve the experience for research participants, enhance the process of informed consent, aid research impact and dissemination. It might also avoid the waste of resources on findings that have little relevance to end users or that cannot be implemented…
Tongue in Cheek
March 22, 2021
No Comments
Farida Fozdar responds and reflects upon the February 2021 post by Gary Allen and Mark Israel.
Farida Fozdar
The Tower of Babel (Allen and Israel, 2021) is a compelling image when considering issues to do with translation and interpreting and the ethics of social research. Even when we speak the same language, we may not be ‘speaking the same language’, so to speak (excuse the triple metaphor). Talking past each other occurs in many ways but, in communicating the clear purpose and potential risks of one’s research, clarity is vital. Here, I outline a few issues from personal research experience, arguing that the communities themselves may be best placed to identify ethics issues and solutions to translation and interpreting dilemmas.
When working with those from a language different from that of the researchers, it may be the case that the idea of research is not well understood in the culture of origin…
Heeding our stories: Getting the most from a reference group in disability research
February 22, 2021
1 Comment
Gary Allen, Carolyn Ehrlich, Michael Norwood, Delena Amsters and Maddy Slattery’s post reflecting on great engagements with disability reference groups.
Here, we aim to share insights from a group of Griffith University researchers and a consumer reference group, who worked together on a research project during the development of materials and methods, as well as in the dissemination of research outcomes. The research project we conducted aimed to explore the research experience of people with acquired disability. We wanted to understand what researchers could do better to be more inclusive of people who are often described as vulnerable or marginalised by the National Statement and subsequently Human Research Ethics Committees. We wanted to know how to best include them as participants in, rather than subjects of, research.
This is not a post advocating for the use of reference groups for research involving those with disability and chronic health conditions. Calls for respectful inclusion have already been eloquently made…
Why autism research needs more input from autistic people
April 27, 2020
No Comments
Elle Loughran Student, Trinity College Dublin Elle Loughran is a Laidlaw scholar studying genetics at Trinity College Dublin in Ireland
Inclusion of Culturally and Linguistically Diverse populations in Clinical Trials:
December 4, 2019
No Comments
Nik Zeps AHRECS Consultant Clinical trials have enormous value to society as they provide the most robust means of working
Clergy service to HRECs: the useful paradox within secular governance of research involving human participants
November 3, 2019
No Comments
Aviva Kipen, Union for Progressive Judaism and Progressive Judaism Victoria. In 2015, I earned a Doctor of Ministry Studies degree
Empowering and enabling participation in human research: Reflections from two Queenslanders living with Multiple Sclerosis
October 1, 2019
1 Comment
Dr Gary Allen MS Qld Ambassador | AHRECS Senior Consultant | Member NS s4 review committee Natalie Walsh MS Qld
Categories
Featured posts
The need to seek institutional approval to survey staff – was this a misunderstanding of the purpose of Guideline 2.2.13 in the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research?
September 17, 2019
No Comments
Katherine (Kate) Christian, Carolyn Johnstone, Jo-ann Larkins and Wendy Wright Federation University We
HREC and AEC Workshops in Perth
October 25, 2021
No Comments
AHRECS is conducting Human Research Ethics and Animal Ethics workshops in Perth in November.
Wed 3 November 2021 – Animal Ethics workshop
The theme this year focuses on managing large groups of animals such as in laboratories, farms and in the wild. Researchers are adept at managing animals, but when the numbers become very large things can become ethically complex. For instance, how are the 3R principles being met?[iv] Further, when there is overlap between research and the management of a farm or when research is focused on the needs of wildlife the ethical complexities of managing animals as part of research can increase. What are the key issues an AEC needs to focus on and how is this best approached? Expert speakers will address these issues covering the ethical considerations of integrating research into large farm operations, the ethical issues of undertaking environmental research involving large numbers of animals, and a panel of experts will discuss the ethical issues encountered when managing large laboratory projects involving animals.
Wed 17 November – Human Ethics workshop
The theme this year focuses on “what I wish I knew before I started”. It is not uncommon for research to raise ethical questions that were not…
Consumer Co-design for End of Life Care Discharge Project
January 18, 2019
No Comments
In this issue, we are publishing an account of an end-of-life project in whose
Why do we need Category D appointments on HRECs and how should we find suitable people?
March 26, 2019
No Comments
Judith C S Redman The compulsory presence of the Category D members on Australian