The Impact of the Introduction of the Ethical Review process for Research using Animals in the UK: Attitudes to Alternatives among those Working with Experimental Animals

2001 ◽  
Vol 29 (6) ◽  
pp. 727-744 ◽  
Author(s):  
Iain F.H. Purchase ◽  
Maria Nedeva
Keyword(s):  
Review Process ◽  
Ethical Review ◽  
Experimental Animals ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Ethical Review Process ◽  
The Impact

Tackling conservation/welfare conflicts in the management of wild animals

2002 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 36 ◽  
Author(s):  
James K. Kirkwood
Keyword(s):  
Review Process ◽  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Species Conservation ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Ethical Review ◽  
Benefit Analysis ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Ethical Review Process

During the last century there were two distinct and profound changes in attitudes to animals. First, it became widely understood that human activities and anthropogenic changes to the environment present a serious threat to biological diversity. In response to this many programmes to protect habitat and to conserve species have been launched. Second, advances in various fields of science led to a strengthening belief in many societies that a wide range of animals may have the capacity for consciousness and thus suffering. This has led to growing concern for the welfare of animals - the quality of their lives - and to the development of extensive bodies of welfare legislation in many countries. Concerns for species conservation and concerns for individual animal welfare do not always pull in the same direction. Around the world, conflicts are becoming commonplace between those who believe it can be justifiable to compromise the interests of individual animals in order to prevent species extinctions and those who do not. Such conflicts may be addressed and hopefully avoided or minimized through use of an ethical review process in which conservation benefits and welfare costs are carefully identified, considered and weighed in a cost/benefit analysis. A second function of this review process is to ensure that, where the decision is taken to proceed with a conservation programme that may adversely affect the welfare of some individuals, all necessary steps are taken to minimize these threats and their possible impacts.

scholarly journals The importance of the Ethical Review Process (ERP) in Conservation

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barbara de Mori ◽  
Linda Ferrante ◽  
Gregory Vogt ◽  
Simona Normando ◽  
Daniela Florio
Keyword(s):  
Review Process ◽  
Ethical Review ◽  
Ethical Review Process

Bureaucracy and Beyond: The Impact of Ethics and Governance Procedures on Health Research in the Social Sciences

2007 ◽  
Vol 12 (5) ◽  
pp. 80-84 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kate Reed
Keyword(s):  
Health Research ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Social Research ◽  
Social Science Research ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Research Governance ◽  
Ethical Review ◽  
Recent Experience ◽  
Culture Of Fear ◽  
The Impact

This piece has been written in response to a recent article published in the Times Higher Education Supplement (THES) which exposed the red tape restricting health research in the UK's National Health Service (NHS). Whilst the THES article was critical of NHS ethical review and research governance, it still views a streamlined version of the process as necessary for the protection of researchers and respondents. Drawing on the recent experience of applying for ethical approval and research governance for a qualitative study on gender and genetics, this paper examines the review process and the restrictive paperwork and procedures that surround it, focusing in particular on the impact this has on social science research. The argument will be put forward that while all research, whether clinical or social, is hampered by the bureaucracy surrounding the review process, social research is further alienated by it. This is because the paperwork and processes involved are set up to evaluate clinical, not social, research. Furthermore, the process is caught up in a culture of fear that breeds mistrust towards ‘outsiders’ wishing to conduct research in the NHS. The revision of NHS ethical review has to go further than mere bureaucratic streamlining - it needs to be made more relevant and accessible to health researchers working across a range of disciplines.

scholarly journals Ethical challenges in researching and telling the stories of recently deceased people

2020 ◽  
pp. 174701612095250
Author(s):  
Glenys Caswell ◽  
Nicola Turner
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Extended Period ◽  
Ethical Review ◽  
Ethical Challenges ◽  
Decision Making Processes ◽  
The Dead ◽  
Conducting Research ◽  
Ethical Review Process ◽  
Deceased People

This paper explores ethical challenges encountered when conducting research about, and telling, the stories of individuals who had died before the research began. Cases were explored where individuals who lived alone had died alone at home and where their bodies had been undiscovered for an extended period. The ethical review process had not had anything significant to say about the deceased ‘participants’. As social researchers we considered whether it was ethical to involve deceased people in research when they had no opportunity to decline, and we were concerned about how to report such research. The idea that the dead can be harmed did not help our decision-making processes, but the notion of the dead having limited human rights conferred upon them was useful and aided us in clarifying how to conduct our research and disseminate our findings.

Perceptions of Stress among Students Participating in Psychology Research: A Canadian Survey

2007 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 61-67 ◽  
Author(s):  
David C. Flagel ◽  
Lisa A. Best ◽  
Aren C. Hunter
Keyword(s):  
Review Process ◽  
Learning Experience ◽  
Research Participation ◽  
Ethical Review ◽  
First Year ◽  
Minimal Risk ◽  
Research Participants ◽  
Psychology Courses ◽  
Personal Performance ◽  
Ethical Review Process

It has been shown that properly conducted interviews in sensitive clinical contexts are negligibly stressful. The present study sought to extend these results and determine the perception of stress by research participants in nonclinical settings. Students enrolled in first year psychology courses typically have the option to receive class credit for research participation in studies assumed to pose minimal risk to participants. The perceptions of 101 student volunteers were examined to determine if they felt that research participation was stressful and, if so, what components of the process caused their stress. Participants completed a short survey indicating the reasons they served as research participants and the degree to which participation was stressful. They indicated that research participation was a valuable learning experience and the majority felt no stress associated with participation. Stress was reported by some due to concerns about confidentiality and evaluation by others of their personal performance. In addition, the majority of students reported having no knowledge of the ethical review process that preceded their participation. It is suggested that students should be informed of the ethical review process.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document