scholarly journals Aboriginal Human Research Ethics Committees ensuring culturally appropriate research

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
S Finlay ◽  
V Keed ◽  
D Kelly ◽  
M Cashman ◽  
S Green
Keyword(s):  
Medical Research ◽  
Indigenous People ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Medical Research Council ◽  
New South ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Ethics Committee ◽  
Culturally Appropriate ◽  
Human Research Ethics ◽  
South Wales

Abstract Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, Australia's Indigenous peoples, make up three percent of the population of Australia. Like many other Indigenous peoples in colonised countries, they suffer the worst health and social status of any population group. Australian Indigenous people have a lower life expectancy (8.6 years lower for men and 7.8 years for women) compared with other Australians (ABS 2018a). The reasons for the poorer health outcomes are complex and include historical, political and social factors (AIHW 2015a). The health disparity has driven a high number of research projects with a focus on Australian Indigenous people or mainstream research projects where Australian Indigenous people are overrepresented. Given the uniqueness of Australian Indigenous cultures as well as the historical, political and social context, in 1998, the Aboriginal Health and Medical Research Council of New South Wales (AH&MRC) established an Australian Indigenous-specific human research ethics committee (HREC). The AH&MRC is the Indigenous peak health body of New South Wales. This presentation will outline the role and benefit of the AH&MRC HREC as a specialised HREC. The AH&MRC HREC is fully constituted and registered under the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). The NHMRC is the leading expert body in health and medical research in Australia and develops health research guidelines. The AH&MRC HREC is one of three AHRECs in Australia. The AH&MRC Ethics Committee not only guarantees that research is conducted ethically but also ensures research involving Indigenous people is undertaken in a culturally appropriate manner. One of the key elements required by the AH&MRC is that researchers consult Indigenous communities across all stages of the project from the design, implementation, analysis and write up. The AH&MRC HREC is essential, ensuring the research is of benefit to the Indigenous community in NSW and is conducted in a culturally safe manner. Key messages Specialised Indigenous human resarch ethics committees are vital to enuring research is culturally appropriate. Spscialised human resarch ethics committees can be of benefit for other disctinct populations.

Ethics and Australian mammalogy: reflections on 15 years (1991 - 2006) on an Animal Ethics Committee

2012 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Lunney
Keyword(s):  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Animal Rights ◽  
Animal Ethics ◽  
New South ◽  
New South Wales ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Ethics Committee ◽  
Animal Research ◽  
Animal Protection ◽  
South Wales

This essay on field mammalogy and research ethics presents my reflections on 15 years as a researcher sitting on an Animal Ethics Committee in New South Wales. It outlines the community debate on animal welfare and the ethics of research on animals, how government has responded, and how wildlife researchers can move forward in this arena. Three schools are identified within the animal protection movement: ‘animal welfare’ holds that it is legitimate to use animals as a resource, so long as that use is ‘necessary’ and the animal’s suffering ‘minimised’; ‘animal liberationists’ are likely to oppose most animal research; the ‘animal rights’ position is firmly abolitionist. The instruments that regulate research involving animals are examined, in particular the New South Wales Animal Research Act 1985, the Australian code of practice for the care and use of animals for scientific purposes, and Animal Ethics Committees. Examples of ethical dilemmas involving both native and non-native animals are discussed. The debate over animals in research will continue, and it is clear that far more can be gained by engaging in the debate than avoiding it. It is in researchers’ interests to publicly defend the essential role of science in conserving our native fauna, and to conduct our work within a well managed welfare framework.

scholarly journals Assessing societal and offender perspectives on the value of offender healthcare: a stated preference research protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. e024899
Author(s):  
Stella Nalukwago Settumba ◽  
Marian Shanahan ◽  
Georgina, M Chambers ◽  
Peter Schofield ◽  
Tony Butler
Keyword(s):  
Stated Preference ◽  
New South ◽  
New South Wales ◽  
Aboriginal Health ◽  
Ethics Committee ◽  
Violent Offender ◽  
Offender Treatment ◽  
Human Research Ethics ◽  
South Wales ◽  
Economic Methods

IntroductionThe increasing burden that offenders place on justice and health budgets necessitates better methods to determine the benefits of and value society places on offender programmes to guide policy regarding resource allocation. The aim of this paper is to demonstrate how economic methods will be used to determine the strength of preferences and value of violent offender treatment programmes from the perspectives of offenders, their families and the general population.Methods and analysisTwo stated preference economic methods, discrete choice experiment (DCE) and contingent valuation (CV), will be used to assess society’s and offenders' value of treatment programmes. The mixed methods process involves a literature review and qualitative methods to derive attributes and levels for the DCE and payment card values for the CV. Consensus building approaches of voting, ranking and the Delphi method will be used to further refine the findings from the qualitative phase. Attributes and their levels will be used in a D-efficient Bayesian experimental design to derive choice scenarios for the development of a questionnaire that will also include CV questions. Finally, quantitative surveys to assess societal preferences and value in terms of willingness to pay will be conducted.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval for this study was obtained from the University of New South Wales (UNSW) Human Research Ethics Committee, Corrective Services New South Wales Ethics Committee and the Aboriginal Health and Medical Research Council ethics committee. The findings will be made available on the Kirby Institute UNSW website, published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at national and international conferences.

Drysdale, Russell (1912–1981)

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne Gray
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
Indigenous People ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
New South ◽  
New South Wales ◽  
World War ◽  
Railway Stations ◽  
South Wales ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The 1960S

Russell Drysdale was an Australian artist who created an original vision of the Australian landscape from the 1940s to the 1960s, portraying the emptiness and loneliness of the Australian outback and country townships in his paintings, drawings, and photographs. During World War II, he depicted everyday subjects, including groups of servicemen waiting at railway stations. He traveled numerous times to the interior of Australia, including a trip to record the drought devastation in South Western New South Wales in 1944, where he created images that convey the environmental degradation of the landscape. In 1947, he explored the Bathurst region with Donald Friend where he discovered Sofala and Hill End, an area that served as the subject matter for his art for a number of years. Drysdale painted many images of deserted country towns as well as brooding landscapes peopled with stockmen and station hands. In his paintings of Aborigines, Drysdale expressed a deep concern for the Indigenous people, often placing them within his paintings in a manner that conveys a sense of dispossession. His work was singled out by Kenneth Clark in 1949 as being among the most original in Australian art, and his exhibition at the Leicester Galleries, London, in 1950 convinced British critics that Australian artists had an original vision.

scholarly journals Injury profiles of Indigenous and non‐Indigenous people in New South Wales

2006 ◽  
Vol 184 (5) ◽  
pp. 217-220 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathleen F Clapham ◽  
Mark R Stevenson ◽  
Sing Kai Lo
Keyword(s):  
Indigenous People ◽  
New South ◽  
New South Wales ◽  
South Wales
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document