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
First People
Fraud
Gender
Genetics
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
Serious Adverse Event
Social Science
SoTL
Standards
Supervision
Training
Vulnerability
x
Young people
Exclude news

Sort by

Animal Ethics Human Research Ethics Research Integrity

Research Ethics Monthly | ISSN 2206-2483

When it comes to the approach to human research ethics, did we buy London Bridge thinking it was Tower Bridge?

Posted by Dr Gary Allen
in Human Research Ethics
on September 21, 2021
0 Comments
Keywords Ethical review,Good practice,Participant protection,Research Ethics Committees,Researcher responsibilities
Two 3d figures attempting to bridge a gap using jigsaw pieces

By Gary Allen and Kim Gifkins

A common urban myth when Robert McCulloch bought London Bridge in 1968 was that the millionaire thought he was buying the more iconic Tower Bridge. The US$2,460,000 he spent purchasing it, plus the expensive shipping and re-construction costs, were an example of the more money than sense approach that the Brits considered their US cousins to be plagued by.

The story was an urban myth; it was false.  McCulloch knew he was buying London Bridge and bought it for a very different purpose – to attract real estate investment.  Indeed, it was initially reconstructed in the US on land, with the ‘river’ beneath it only added later.

Nevertheless, it is perhaps a useful metaphor when we think about the typical national approach to the governance of ethical conduct in human research.

The atrocities perpetrated by Nazi scientists and the researchers behind Tuskegee (and the Guatemala STD research before that) were used to justify the Nuremberg Code, the Belmont Report and the Declaration of Helsinki – with all the national research ethics standards and regulations that have flown from them.

The costs of establishing and operating (as well as insuring) research ethics committees, the practicalities of operating research ethics review arrangements as well as the time and effort researchers expend obtaining ethics approval, were all justified so that we will not repeat the awful acts, crimes, the missteps, and mistakes of the past.

It is a worthy objective, where the cost, time and frustration are justified by the results.

But are we actually getting what we paid for? Are we justified in using this history in our approach to professional development for human research ethics?  McCulloch and his team were aware of the Tower Bridge rumour, but rather than countering it, viewed it as generating publicity for their endeavour.  Are we also guilty of using history to publicise why ethical conduct is a worthy goal?

Cases like Emotional Contagion, the Rogue Herpes Trial, OkCupid, Cambridge Analytica etc still happen. Indeed, genuinely bad actors may not even submit their work, or at least not honestly, for research ethics review.

Habitually referring to cases like Milgram, Stanley and Humphreys does not shock or motivate our researchers to regard ethical responsibilities as something they need to embed into their practice. They are cases that justify the establishment of research ethics processes and perhaps the time and effort they will need to expend obtaining ethics approval for their work. Use of these cases and the earlier atrocities ad nauseum to develop ethical thinking can be at best boring and at worst irrelevant and a distraction.

It is unlikely the majority of researchers will need to be convinced the historical bad acts were wrong and morally reprehensible.

But it is also unlikely that they would equate those acts, motives or behaviours to their own work and plans – or even their research discipline.

If we try to do so without thought, we are missing the mark, risk insulting responsible researchers and failing to do anything useful with everybody’s time.

Instead, our objective should be:

  1. Show how attention to the ethical principles will assist a researcher to conduct work that is respectful to, and inclusive of participants.
  2. How it can improve the impact of a project.
  3. How it can address structural inequalities, discrimination and exclusion.
  4. Show how it can enhance the perceived value of a project.
  5. Illustrate how it can reduce the chances participants and others complain about their research.
  6. How (and perhaps most significantly) it can improve the quality and the reliability of the data generated/collected/accessed.

The reason for the City of London selling the bridge was that it was unable to cope with the increased traffic and was sinking into the Thames.  Today, reconstructed in the US, it is part of a thriving community and Arizona’s third most popular tourist attraction.

So perhaps, the question is not whether we have bought the right bridge, it is the bridge’s purpose, and whether people use it to cross the river – or would prefer to take the ferry.

Reference

The bridge that crossed an ocean (And the man who moved it)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/the_bridge_that_crossed_an_ocean

This post may be cited as:
Allen, G. & Gifkins, K. (21 September 2021) When it come to the approach to human research ethics, did we buy London Bridge thinking it was Tower Bridge?. Research Ethics Monthly. Retrieved from: https://ahrecs.com/when-it-comes-to-the-approach-to-human-research-ethics-did-we-buy-london-bridge-thinking-it-was-tower-bridge/

Related reading

Internal Human Research Ethics annual reporting

Element Zero: What’s missing from the National Statement to support Consumer and Community Involvement in health research?

A rose by any other name….?

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

Is it time to extend the required membership of research ethics committees?

How we interpret the words ‘proportional review’

A checklist to assist a supervisor to check a candidate’s research ethics review application

Can I use your answers anyway?

A preliminary geneaology of research ethics review and Māori

Is it something I said (or the way I said it)?

A call for a national inquiry into the burden of research ethics and governance

Conducting research with (not on) consumers in health – exploring ethical considerations

Can Your HREC Benefit from Coaching?

Disaster Research and its Ethical Review

‘Don’t mention the c word: Covert research and the stifling ethics regime in the social sciences’

A place for expedited ethics review of time-critical above-low risk research

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

About the Corresponding Author

Gary Allen

Sp-user Link
Gary has been working in the human research ethics field since 1997. He is a senior consultant with AHRECS
Facebook-f Twitter Linkedin-in Sp-mail User

Other Authors

Kim Gifkins

Kim is an experienced Ethics Officer having worked in the university and health sector

Sp-user
Sp-mail

About the blog

The senior consultants started AHRECS in 2007. We were looking for a way of responding to requests for advice on research ethics and integrity from the government, health and education sectors read more…

Comment rules

We decided to include comment functionality in the Blog because we want to encourage the Research Integrity and Human Research Ethics communities to contribute to public discourse about resourcing and improving practice. read more…

Related Links

Complaints against Research Ethics Monthly

Request a Takedown

Submission Guidelines

About the Research Ethics Monthly

About subscribing to the Research Ethics Monthly

A smiling group of multi-racial researchers

Random selected image from the AHRECS library. These were all purchased from iStockPhoto. These are images we use in our workshops and Dr Allen used in the GUREM.

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
Menu
  • Home
  • Services
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Company
  • Terms Of Use
  • Copyright
  • Privacy Policy
Menu
  • Company
  • Terms Of Use
  • Copyright
  • Privacy Policy
  • Site Map
Menu
  • Site Map

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Facebook-f Twitter Linkedin-in