Skip to content

ACN - 101321555 | ABN - 39101321555

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

AHRECS icon
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Consultants
    • Services
  • Previous Projects
  • Blog
  • Resources
  • Feeds
  • Contact Us
  • More
    • Request a Quote
    • Susbcribe to REM
    • Subscribe to VIP
Menu
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Consultants
    • Services
  • Previous Projects
  • Blog
  • Resources
  • Feeds
  • Contact Us
  • More
    • Request a Quote
    • Susbcribe to REM
    • Subscribe to VIP
Exclude terms...
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
AHRECS
Analysis
Animal ethics
Animal Ethics Committee
Animal handling
Animal housing
Animal Research Ethics
Animal Welfare
ANZCCART
Artificial Intelligence
Arts
Australia
Authorship
Belief
Beneficence
Big data
Big data
Biobank
Bioethics
Biomedical
Biospecimens
Breaches
Cartoon/Funny
Case studies
Clinical trial
Collaborative research
Conflicts of interest
Consent
Controversy/Scandal
Controversy/Scandal
Creative
Culture
Data management
Database
Dual-use
Essential Reading
Ethical review
Ethnography
Euthanasia
Evaluative practice/quality assurance
Even though i
First People
Fraud
Gender
Genetics
Get off Gary Play man of the dog
Good practice
Guidance
Honesty
HREC
Human research ethics
Humanities
Institutional responsibilities
International
Journal
Justice
Links
Media
Medical research
Merit and integrity
Methodology
Monitoring
New Zealand
News
Online research
Peer review
Performance
Primary materials
Principles
Privacy
Protection for participants
Psychology
Publication ethics
Questionable Publishers
Research ethics committees
Research integrity
Research Misconduct
Research results
Researcher responsibilities
Resources
Respect for persons
Sample paperwork
sd
se
Serious Adverse Event
Social Science
SoTL
Standards
Supervision
Training
Vulnerability
x
Young people
Exclude news

Sort by

Animal Ethics Biosafety Human Research Ethics Research Integrity

Research Ethics Monthly

ISSN 2206-2483

  • Home
  • >
  • Vulnerable groups
The words, "RESEARCH ETHICS" with an empty pointed list on a notepad surrounded by circular tokens individual letters on each one.

Friend or foe? Building better relationships between HRECs and researchers

Dr Gary Allen February 2, 2023 No Comments
Read More
A ceramic pink Piggy bank money concept on dark blue background, stuffed with Australian cash, and female hand take one hundred dollar note.

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.

Read More
A diverse group of positive people

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…

Read More
The word "Translation" highlighted by a neon coloured highlighter pen

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…

Read More
Disabled male in a wheelchair meeting with his colleagues at a table

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…

Read More
Isolated AHRECS logo

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

Read More

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

Read More

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

Read More

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

Read More
Previous Page1 Page2 Page3 … Page5 Next

Categories

AHRECS Admin
17
Animal Ethics
5
Global Ethics
1
Human Research Ethics
168
Research Integrity
59
Services
31
Uncategorized
2

Featured posts

Tracing the Patterns of Research Ethics Regulation in Taiwan

April 23, 2019 No Comments

台灣的研究倫理規範之發展 甘偵蓉 Gan Zhen-Rong1 and 馬克·伊瑟利 Mark Israel2 Many commentators on research ethics have

Wordcloud around the concept of 'BEST PRACTICE'

A poor call and two missed opportunities, but otherwise not a bad proposed revision to NS s5

October 20, 2020 No Comments

In this post, Gary, Mark and Kim refect on the draft update to Section 5 of the Australia’s National Statement.

“In recent years in Australia, we have seen some painful cases where research ethics review delegated to a non-HREC review body has failed to guard against projects that proved to be embarrassing for their host institution (see, for example, the ‘Racist bus driver’ and ‘Laughing at the disabled’ projects)….”

Three books piled on a sheet with the words education and study visible

Research Ethics in Australia: A Story

July 30, 2018 No Comments

Have you ever needed to find a history of human research ethics, whether for

e learning- A stack of reference books with a mouse attached in front of a globe

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

November 21, 2018 No Comments

Every month we add at least two items to the subscribers’ area. These include

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.

  • Enter the answer as a word
  • Hidden
    This field is hidden and only used for import to Mailchimp
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Related Links

  • Comment Rules
  • Complaints against the Research Ethics Monthly
  • Request a Take Down
  • Submission guidelines
  • About the Research Ethics Monthly
  • About Subscribing to the Research Ethics Monthly

Research Ethics Monthly

  • November/December 2022
  • September/October 2022
  • August 2022
  • April/May 2022
  • January/February/March 2022
  • November/December 2021
  • September/October 2021
  • August 2021
  • June 2021
  • April/May 2021
Load More

Research Ethics Monthly Receive copies of the Research Ethics Monthly directly
by email. We will never spam you.

  • Enter the answer as a word
  • Hidden
    This field is hidden and only used for import to Mailchimp
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
  • Home
  • Services
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Home
  • Services
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Company
  • Terms Of Use
  • Copyright
  • Privacy Policy
  • Company
  • Terms Of Use
  • Copyright
  • Privacy Policy
  • Site Map
  • Site Map

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Facebook-f Twitter Linkedin-in