Gary Allen
Some recent news stories have highlighted the need for ethical guidance for research projects beyond those that are typically submitted to research ethics committees or animal ethics committees.
This first item about the Kennewick Man and the ancient DNA (aDNA) furore it prompted highlights the need for research ethics guidelines for work with ancient remains and ancient DNA.
In the case of First Nation remains, there is a strong argument for the inclusion of community members as co-researchers or at least on a reference group that shapes the research design and the sharing of results.
This is about far more than consent and ownership, it covers data sovereignty, respect, justice and engagement. These matters are far more usefully approached from an Indigenous frame rather than a Western perspective.
Clearly, this is not human research as defined by documents such as the National Statement, but there are very human consequences of the scientific work and the outputs that arise from it.
Karl Andersson is a first year PhD student at the University of Manchester. His disquieting autoethnography on cartoon child porn raised loud questions about ethics oversight for work but could have serious public safety implications.
The ‘research’ activity was criticised for its apparent support for paedophilia.
Again, there were no human participants in the work but there was serious potential for public harm and legitimate public interest in whether such work should be conducted under the auspices of a UK university.
There has been a ‘gold rush’ for amber samples from Myanmar containing remains of potential interest to palaeontology researchers. The commentary has raised questions about law, human rights abuses and where the benefit flow.
This raises the question, should they be considered ‘blood amber’, in the same way that diamonds from conflict zones are blood diamonds?
This is another instance where it is not human research, but where the research may have a significant impact on human lives.
This story relates to the call for the ethics review of Artificial Intelligence research, including engaged public reflection on the risks and consequences of AI in public life.
In recent years, we have seen discussion about the misuse of facial recognition and the public surveillance of communities as well as decision making on sentencing, job applications, parole and academic course admissions being outsourced to Artificial Intelligence, with biased outcomes.
This item suggests there be a reflection on the useful form of this review and how it could inform practice.
None of these cases required research ethics review, but it is not unreasonable to ask whether there should be some form of guidance on the ethics of such work? In Australia, the existing structure of HRECs does not equip them to review such matters. Indeed, it seems unlikely already busy committees would have time to take on this extra work or that the dominant form of HREC review and feedback would be helpful.
I am not suggesting we need more committees, but I do believe we need some new standards to inform the ethical designing and conduct of such work.
Our approach needs to include community involvement, technical expertise and draw upon a wide range of expertise.
This post may be cited as:
Allen, G. (12 January 2023) The need for ethical guidance for research other than human research or animal-based scientific work. Research Ethics Monthly. Retrieved from: https://ahrecs.com/the-need-for-ethical-guidance-for-research-other-than-human-research-or-animal-based-scientific-work/