Research Ethics in Genomics Research: Feedback of Individual Genetic Data to Research Participants

2012 ◽  
pp. 127-136
Author(s):  
Annelien L. Bredenoord ◽  
Johannes J. M. van Delden
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Genetic Data ◽  
Research Participants ◽  
Genomics Research

Ethics and the Ruling Relations of Research Production

2003 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 70-80 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carole Truman
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Research Governance ◽  
Community Mental Health Service ◽  
Moral Obligations ◽  
Research Participants ◽  
Research Production ◽  
Health And Social Care ◽  
Ethical Approval

The role of research ethics committees has expanded across the UK and North America and the process of ethical review has become re-institutionalised under proposals for research governance proposed by government. Ethics committees have gained a powerful role as gatekeepers within the research process. Underpinning the re-constitution of ethical guidelines and research governance, are a range of measures which protect institutional interests, without necessarily providing an effective means to address the moral obligations and responsibilities of researchers in relation to the production of social research. Discussion of research ethics from the standpoint of research participants who in this paper, are service users within health and social care, provides a useful dimension to current debate. In this paper I draw upon experiences of gaining ethical approval for a research study which focused on user participation within a community mental health service. I discuss the strategies used to gain ethical approval and the ‘formal concerns’ raised by the ethics committee. I then describe and discuss ethical issues which emerged from a participants’ perspective during the actual research as it was carried out. These experiences are analysed using aspects of institutional ethnography which provides a framework to explore how the experiences of research participants are mediated by texts which govern the processes of research production. The paper highlights incongruities between the formal ethical regulation of research, and the experiences of research participants in relation to ethical concerns within a research process.

scholarly journals Research and Publication Ethics

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 198-207
Author(s):  
PO Olatunji
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Early Research ◽  
Publication Ethics ◽  
Research Participants ◽  
Research Findings ◽  
Research Period

Research is an effort to seek the truth and communicate it. In the process, participants or subjects of research must be recognised and respected, and the principles of research ethics must protect the vulnerable from exploitation. The researcher must do the reporting of research findings with honesty and professionalism. Non-adherence to the above principles in the early research period resulted in gross abuse of personality and autonomy. Research is now subjected to rigorous scrutiny to stem the tide of abuse and ascertain and guarantee the sanctity of the research participants, process and product. These are the fundamentals of the practice of ethics in both research and publication. In effect, this paper aims to address ethics and its application to research and publications.

scholarly journals Could providing financial incentives to research participants be ultimately self-defeating?

2016 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 137-148 ◽  
Author(s):  
TL Zutlevics
Keyword(s):  
Intrinsic Motivation ◽  
Research Ethics ◽  
Financial Incentives ◽  
Financial Incentive ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Ethical Guidelines ◽  
Research Participants ◽  
Human Research Ethics ◽  
Institutional Review ◽  
The Individual

Controversy over providing financial incentives to research participants has a long history and remains an issue of contention in both current discussions about research ethics and for institutional review bodies/human research ethics committees which are charged with the responsibility of deciding whether such incentives fall within ethical guidelines. The arguments both for and against financial incentives have been well aired in the literature. A point of agreement for many is that inducement in the form of financial incentive is permissible when the risk of harm to the individual is negligible in terms of degree and probability of occurrence. In the absence of harm to the individual, encouraging more people to participate in research would appear to be a good thing in so far as it will lead to statistically more robust research outcomes, which can then be translated into better healthcare and other practice. Whilst, on the face of it, this position seems highly defensible, I will explore the possibility that it is counterproductive – that is, providing individuals with financial incentives to become research participants may have the unintended outcome of reducing participation rates in some areas of research. In exploring this idea I will draw on empirical findings from the literature on crowding-out – the hypothesis that providing monetary incentives to people can backfire by overall reducing intrinsic motivation, in this instance intrinsic motivation to behave altruistically or undertake civic duties.

scholarly journals Improving dissemination of study results: perspectives of individuals with cystic fibrosis

2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 1-14
Author(s):  
Emily Christofides ◽  
Karla Stroud ◽  
Diana Elizabeth Tullis ◽  
Kieran C. O’Doherty
Keyword(s):  
Cystic Fibrosis ◽  
Research Ethics ◽  
Research Results ◽  
Research Participants ◽  
Study Results ◽  
Research Findings ◽  
The Impact ◽  
To Receive ◽  
Accessible Format

The practice of communicating research findings to participants has been identified as important in the research ethics literature, but little research has examined empirically how this occurs and what research participants’ views are in this regard. We interviewed 21 adults with cystic fibrosis who had previously participated in research and 2 research coordinators at a cystic fibrosis clinic. We aimed to better understand research participants’ views on receiving research results, types of findings they are interested in, how they would like to receive this information, and the impact this might have on future participation. Participants reported that they do not generally recall receiving study findings, though many reported that they would like to receive them. While some participants were not interested in receiving results, all participants felt that these results should be provided when desired by participants and believed that receiving study findings would support future participation. Participants felt that an accessible format, such as a lay summary, would be most helpful. This study supports calls to make study findings available to participants, though the format in which they are provided requires consideration. Participants rarely recalled receiving findings despite the clinic in which this study was conducted returning them regularly. Therefore, questions pertaining to the provision of study findings must focus less on whether to share the findings and more on how to share them with participants most effectively. The logistics of providing study findings may be challenging in some cases, but participant support for the practice highlights its importance.

Protecting vulnerable research participants: A Foucault-inspired analysis of ethics committees

2011 ◽  
Vol 18 (5) ◽  
pp. 640-650 ◽  
Author(s):  
Truls I Juritzen ◽  
Harald Grimen ◽  
Kristin Heggen
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Academic Freedom ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Research Ethics Committees ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Research Participants

History has demonstrated the necessity of protecting research participants. Research ethics are based on a concept of asymmetry of power, viewing the researcher as powerful and potentially dangerous and establishing ethics committees as external agencies in the field of research. We argue in favour of expanding this perspective on relationships of power to encompass the ethics committees as one among several actors that exert power and that act in a relational interplay with researchers and participants. We employ Michel Foucault’s ideas of power as an omnipresent force which is dynamic and unstable, as well as the notion that knowledge and power are inextricably intertwined. The article discusses how research ethics committees may affect academic freedom. In addition it is pointed out that research participants could be harmed — not only by unfortunate research practices, but also by being subjected to the protective efforts of ethics monitoring bodies.

Payment of research participants: current practice and policies of Irish research ethics committees

2012 ◽  
Vol 39 (9) ◽  
pp. 591-593 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric Roche ◽  
Romaine King ◽  
Helen M Mohan ◽  
Blanaid Gavin ◽  
Fiona McNicholas
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Current Practice ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Research Ethics Committees ◽  
Research Participants

scholarly journals Informed consent in cluster randomised trials: a guide for the perplexed

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (9) ◽  
pp. e054213
Author(s):  
Hayden P Nix ◽  
Charles Weijer ◽  
Jamie C Brehaut ◽  
David Forster ◽  
Cory E Goldstein ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Informed Consent ◽  
Research Ethics ◽  
Randomised Trial ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Cluster Randomised Trial ◽  
Research Ethics Committees ◽  
Randomised Trials ◽  
Research Participants ◽  
Inappropriate Use ◽  
Cluster Randomised

In a cluster randomised trial (CRT), intact groups—such as communities, clinics or schools—are randomised to the study intervention or control conditions. The issue of informed consent in CRTs has been particularly challenging for researchers and research ethics committees. Some argue that cluster randomisation is a reason not to seek informed consent from research participants. In fact, systematic reviews have found that, relative to individually randomised trials, CRTs are associated with an increased likelihood of inadequate reporting of consent procedures and inappropriate use of waivers of consent. The objective of this paper is to clarify this confusion by providing a practical and useful framework to guide researchers and research ethics committees through consent issues in CRTs. In CRTs, it is the unit of intervention—not the unit of randomisation—that drives informed consent issues. We explicate a three-step framework for thinking through informed consent in CRTs: (1) identify research participants, (2) identify the study element(s) to which research participants are exposed, and (3) determine if a waiver of consent is appropriate for each study element. We then apply our framework to examples of CRTs of cluster-level, professional-level and individual-level interventions, and provide key lessons on informed consent for each type of CRT.

scholarly journals How to navigate the application of ethics norms in global health research: reflections based on qualitative research conducted with people with disabilities in Uganda

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Muriel Mac-Seing ◽  
Louise Ringuette ◽  
Kate Zinszer ◽  
Béatrice Godard ◽  
Christina Zarowsky
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Data Collection ◽  
Global Health ◽  
Research Ethics ◽  
Health Research ◽  
People With Disabilities ◽  
Global Health Research ◽  
Research Participants ◽  
Research Ethics Boards ◽  
Study Participants

Abstract Background As Canadian global health researchers who conducted a qualitative study with adults with and without disabilities in Uganda, we obtained ethics approval from four institutional research ethics boards (two in Canada and two in Uganda). In Canada, research ethics boards and researchers follow the research ethics norms of the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (TCPS2), and the National Guidelines for Research Involving Humans as Research Participants of Uganda (NGRU) in Uganda. The preparation and implementation of this qualitative research raised specific ethical issues related to research participant privacy and the importance of availability and management of financial resources. Main body Our field experience highlights three main issues for reflection. First, we demonstrate that, in a global health research context, methodological and logistic adjustments were necessary throughout the research implementation process to ensure the protection of study participants’ privacy, especially that of people with disabilities, despite having followed the prescribed Canadian and Ugandan ethics norms. Data collection and management plans were adapted iteratively based on local realities. Second, securing financial support as a key aspect of financial management was critical to ensure privacy through disability-sensitive data collection strategies. Without adequate funding, the recruitment of research participants based on disability type, sex, and region or the hiring of local sign language interpreters would not have been possible. Third, although the TCPS2 and NGRU underscore the significance of participants’ privacy, none of these normative documents clearly express this issue in the context of global health research and disability, nor broadly discuss the ethical issue related to financial availability and management. Conclusions Conducting research in resource limited settings and with study participants with different needs calls for a nuanced and respectful implementation of research ethics in a global health context. We recommend a greater integration in both the TCPS2 and NGRU of global health research, disability, and responsible conduct of research. This integration should also be accompanied by adequate training which can further guide researchers, be they senior, junior, or students, and funding agencies.

scholarly journals Participant voice first: the Busara research agenda on ethical research in the Global South

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
JOEL MUMO ◽  
Busara Lab Busara Lab ◽  
Tom Wein ◽  
Nicholas Calbraith Owsley
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Empirical Study ◽  
Research Ethics ◽  
Research Agenda ◽  
Ethical Practice ◽  
Quality Research ◽  
Research Participants ◽  
The World ◽  
Closing The Loop ◽  
Protection Of Participants

The use of experiments in social science has brought huge gains in our knowledge of the world. However, in recent debates, sharp critiques of the power imbalances of the discipline have been made. There have been some responses on how we can improve our approach to be more ethical. These responses have often conceived of research ethics rather narrowly, and not included wider responsibilities beyond the protection of participants. Often missing from both sides has been empirical study of the preferences of those research participants, and the societies they belong to. As part of our commitment to racial, gender and wider social justice, commitment to advancing the voices of research participants, and under the banner of our values of respect and purpose, Busara proposes to organise and formalise its agenda on research ethics. We will combine past learnings with new studies over the next three years, to deeply understand the experiences of research participants, and find better ways of closing the loop in communication with those participants. From there, we will co-create, test and disseminate changes to research processes and practices that improve participant welfare and uphold ever-higher standards of ethical practice. We believe that this is both more just, and likely to produce better quality research.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document