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.
In this issue, we are publishing an account of an end-of-life project in whose design there are some features that
Red Thaddeus D. Miguel According to the Belmont Report (1979), respect for persons incorporates two ethical convictions: individuals are to be
Release of the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research 2007 (updated 2018) – With interview
The revised National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research 2007 (updated 2018) was released on 9 July 2018. .
This blog will provide a discussion of issues present in deidentifying marginalised research participants, or research participants who request to
What do HREC members think and do when deciding about children’s participation in social research? Results from the MESSI survey
In this guest post, Associate Professor Stephanie Taplin (UTS) reflects upon the reflections and attitudes of members of a research ethics committee when reviewing a project involving sensitive issues, where the participants are young people.
She reflects upon the degree that this consideration is based upon standards and expectations that are often not transparent to researchers and can be an impediment to useful/important research.
This post is based upon a longer research output that was about research exploring those attitudes.
This included whether there were topics that a research ethics committee member would never approve for a research project to explore with young people.
This work points to the need for specialist professional development for committee members relating to research on sensitive issues with young people.
This also raises the question of what guidance material institutions publish for researchers and for reference by research ethics reviewers.
To date, we are delighted to report the extended team is virus-free. Our best
Prof Colin Thomson AM Chairing an HREC can be complicated, demanding, stressful and tiring
In this post, Dr Gary Allen (one of the senior consultants at AHRECS) discusses why resourcing reflective practice is a more reliable and effective/constructive way to manage institutional risk than fixating on compliance and using an enforcement and sanctions approach.
Approaching the serious risks from within the frame of resourcing practice treats the role of research ethics as being to facilitate research, rather than being an impediment to research.
This embeds research ethics as being a component of the design and conduct of quality research, not as something external to research.
Systems that promote ethical design and conduct, are also investments in quality research
Gary has worked in the human research ethics field since 1997. He has worked with committees in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK and Vietnam. He Chaired the Committee that drafted the new Chapter 3.1 of the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research.