scholarly journals Research and Experimentation in Teaching Effectiveness: The Ethical Review Process and the IRB

2008 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip Pecorino ◽  
Shannon Kincaid
Keyword(s):  
Teaching Effectiveness ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Ethical Review ◽  
Ethical Review Process

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

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.

scholarly journals The Ethics of Innovation: Ethical Decision-Making and Review for Field Studies and Projects Targeting Dogs and Cats

Animals ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (12) ◽  
pp. 3579
Author(s):  
Valerie A. Benka
Keyword(s):  
Animal Welfare ◽  
Ethical Decision ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Ethical Decision Making ◽  
Field Studies ◽  
Ethical Review ◽  
Ethical Standards ◽  
Ethical Guidelines ◽  
Ethical Review Process ◽  
Ethical Oversight

To date, independent ethical oversight of many companion animal welfare initiatives has been limited and, in some instances, inadequate. Beyond a blurred line between “innovation” and “research,” the nature of the work conducted in animal welfare projects is often poorly aligned with established institutional ethical review structures, which are designed for research involving humans or research involving animals and are also focused on industry and academic institutions. This commentary details the struggle of one United States-based nonprofit organization to find ethical guidelines and support for conducting non-traditional field-based animal welfare studies, and subsequent experience establishing an Ethical Review Board to evaluate organizational initiatives. The commentary discusses member selection, materials and processes, and lessons and learnings from the creation and use of an Ethical Review Board. Sharing content of the ethical review process, as well as challenges and learnings from it, is intended to support other organizations and individuals seeking to ensure that innovation for animal welfare consistently meets high ethical standards.

scholarly journals Conflicting interests: Critiquing the place of “institutional reputation” in research ethics reviews

Aporia ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 27-34
Author(s):  
Jean Daniel Jacob ◽  
Thomas Foth
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Human Subjects ◽  
Ethical Review ◽  
Ethical Standards ◽  
Research Ethics Review ◽  
Conflicting Interests ◽  
Conducting Research ◽  
Ethical Review Process ◽  
Institutional Reputation

Going through Research Ethics Boards (REB) and being held accountable to the highest ethical standards to conduct research with human subjects is commonplace. The goal of such a process helps ensure the selection and achievements not only of morally acceptable ends, but also of acceptable means to those ends when conducting research. Ultimately, REBs must pass judgment about the acceptability of harms and benefi ts to participants as they relate to research processes and outcomes. In this paper, we explore the implication of integrating “institutional reputation” as a category of analysis in the ethical review process. Informed by a recent Research Ethics Board (REB) review, we seek to engage with the readership in a constructive refl ection on the concept of institutional reputation as a source of confl icting interests in research ethics review process.

scholarly journals Konsep Etika Religius Ibnu Athā’illah Al-Sakandarī

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 127-150
Author(s):  
Bayu Fermadi
Keyword(s):  
Everyday Life ◽  
Social Action ◽  
Social Problems ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Ethical Review ◽  
Striking Difference ◽  
Religious Ethics ◽  
Human Actions ◽  
Philosophical Ethics ◽  
Ethical Review Process

Abstract: Ethics is a social action that continues to affect, reflect all human actions in general, whether the actions are good or bad. Universal, ethics can be interpreted as a form of custom, custom, morals, character, feelings and attitude. the concept of ethics in general can not be separated from the base that affects the formation of ethics is the religion of Islam (Islam islamic) which became the main source of ethical review process - religious reading - in the reality of everyday life. In Islam's view the construction of the above ethics is built through several processes, theological, theological, the morality, the scriptural, the philosophical ethics. The striking difference that religious ethics holds is primarily rooted in the Qur'an and as-Hadith, which significantly tends to divest the dialectics and focus on attempts to expel the spirit of Islamic morality in a more specific way to the study of religious ethics of Ibnu Athā ' god trying to get out of the craze of developing thoughts and passively choosing social problems. So came the concept of religious ethics that are universal like sincere, patient, honest and trustworthy. Keywords: Religious Ethics, Ibnu Athā'illah Al-Sakandarī

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document