scholarly journals Signing your life away?: Why Research Ethics Committees (REC) shouldn't always require written confirmation that participants in research have been informed of the aims of a study and their rights - the case of criminal populations. (Commentary)

2002 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 218-221 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ross Coomber
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Social Research ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Research Ethics Committees ◽  
Ethical Guidelines ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
Science Methodology ◽  
Social Science Methodology ◽  
Near Future ◽  
Embryonic Structure

This brief commentary discusses the problematic incursion of Research Ethics Committees on social research, particularly on those groups who wish (and/or indeed it is vital for their safety) to remain anonymous. It is argued that REC's, often ignorant of social science methodology, commonly attempt to impose restrictions on research and researchers that contradict their own ethical guidelines and expose them to unreasonable risk. It is further pointed out that REC's are as yet not fully established within all UK institutions but fear of litigation will mean that those who do not already have them fully in place either have some form of REC in embryonic structure or are looking to implement REC's in the near future. It is in this context that it is argued we as social scientists should be helping to actively shape the workings of incumbent and emerging REC's in order to protect research, researchers, research participants and the integrity of what REC's actually do.

Ethical Evaluation of Mental Health Social Research: Agreement Between Researchers and Ethics Committees

2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 161-168 ◽  
Author(s):  
Liliana Mondragón Barrios ◽  
Tonatiuh Guarneros García ◽  
Alberto Jiménez Tapia
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Research Ethics ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Social Research ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Research Ethics Committees ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
National Surveys ◽  
Research Protocols ◽  
Significant Difference

The objective of this article is to compare various ethical issues considered by social scientists and research ethics committees in the evaluation of mental health social research protocols. We contacted 47 social scientists and 10 members of ethics committees in Mexico with two electronic national surveys that requested information from both groups related to the application of ethical principles in mental health social research. The results showed no significant difference between these groups in the value placed on the ethical issues explored. Based on this finding, we make proposals to strengthen the collaboration between the two groups.

scholarly journals Ethical complexities in child co-research

2017 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-16 ◽  
Author(s):  
Merle Spriggs ◽  
Lynn Gillam
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Research Methodology ◽  
Social Research ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Research Ethics Committees ◽  
Human Research Ethics ◽  
Children’S Agency ◽  
New Findings ◽  
Need For Support ◽  
And Training

Child co-research has become popular in social research involving children. This is attributed to the emphasis on children’s rights and is seen as a way to promote children’s agency and voice. It is a way of putting into practice the philosophy, common amongst childhood researchers, that children are experts on childhood. In this article, we discuss ethical complexities of involving children as co-researchers, beginning with an analysis of the literature, then drawing on data from interviews with researchers who conduct child co-research. We identify six ethical complexities, some of which are new findings which have not been mentioned before in this context. In light of these possible ethical complexities, a key finding is for researchers to be reflexive – to reflect on how the research may affect child co-researchers and participants before the research starts. A separate overriding message that came out in responses from the researchers we interviewed was the need for support and training for child co-researchers. We conclude by providing a list of questions for reflexive researchers to ask of themselves when they use child co-research methodology. We also provide important questions for human research ethics committees to ask when they review projects using child co-research.

scholarly journals Ethical concerns in suicide research: thematic analysis of the views of human research ethics committees in Australia

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Emma Barnard ◽  
Georgia Dempster ◽  
Karolina Krysinska ◽  
Lennart Reifels ◽  
Jo Robinson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Thematic Analysis ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Research Ethics Committees ◽  
Ethical Challenges ◽  
Ethical Guidelines ◽  
Human Research ◽  
Related Research ◽  
Ethical Concerns ◽  
Human Research Ethics

Abstract Background Suicide research aims to contribute to a better understanding of suicidal behaviour and its prevention. However, there are many ethical challenges in this research field, for example, regarding consent and potential risks to participants. While studies to-date have focused on the perspective of the researchers, this study aimed to investigate the views and experiences of members of Human Research Ethics Committees (HRECs) in dealing with suicide-related study applications. Methods This qualitative study entailed a thematic analysis using an inductive approach. We conducted semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample (N = 15) of HREC Chairs or their delegates from Australian research-intensive universities. The interview guide included questions regarding the ethical concerns and challenges in suicide-related research raised by HREC members, how they dealt with those challenges and what advice they could give to researchers. Results The analysis identified four main themes: (1) HREC members’ experiences of reviewing suicide-related study applications, (2) HREC members’ perceptions of suicide, suicide research, and study participants, (3) Complexity in HREC members’ decision-making processes, and (4) HREC members’ relationships with researchers. Conclusions Reliance on ethical guidelines and dialogue with researchers are crucial in the assessment of suicide-related study applications. Both researchers and HREC members may benefit from guidance and resources on how to conduct ethically sound suicide-related studies. Developing working relationships will be likely to help HRECs to facilitate high quality, ethical suicide-related research and researchers to conduct such research.

scholarly journals OC 8391 AFREENET (AFRICA ETHICS EXCELLENCE NETWORK): A NETWORK OF NATIONAL RESEARCH ETHICS COMMITTEES ENGAGED IN THE REINFORCEMENT OF THEIR CAPACITIES

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (Suppl 3) ◽  
pp. A4.2-A4
Author(s):  
Virginie Pirard ◽  
Louis Penali ◽  
Armande Gangbo ◽  
Oumou Younoussa Sow ◽  
Samira Ouchhi
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
National Level ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Ethical Framework ◽  
Research Ethics Committees ◽  
Ethical Guidelines ◽  
Ethics Research ◽  
French Speaking ◽  
Mutual Empowerment

BackgroundThe establishment of research ethics committees (RECs) in charge of reviewing research protocols answers the need to regulate with an ethical framework the development of clinical trials, biomedical research and technologies affecting human health. The first RECs were instituted at the national level in the 60 s, and were gradually put in place in Africa as a result of research projects development in the area of epidemics such as HIV infection, and to meet one of the major requirements of the Helsinki Declaration and the international ethical Guidelines CIOMS: ‘each research protocol involving humans has to be reviewed by an independent ethics committee’. However, RECs in Africa are still facing various challenges in the accomplishment of their missions. Among them, RECs located in the West-African French speaking area are reporting an urgent need for networking and coordinating their effort.Supported by EDCTP, AFREENET (AFRica Ethics Excellence NETwork) is a 3 year collaborative project between three RECs, respectively in Côte d’Ivoire, Guinea and Benin, and coordinated by the Ethics Unit of Institut Pasteur (France), which aims to reinforce RECs capacities.The project will lead to reinforcement of training capacities through a long-term strategy to establish mechanisms to ensure and update members’ training, and to develop a pool of ethics trainers. Based on RECs experiences, network activities will permit to share and identify valuable practices on global ethics oversight, such as monitoring, SOPs, regulatory issues and sensitisation. The preparation of Ethics Committees for the potential occurrence of outbreaks will be specifically addressed through an Outbreak preparation plan built upon lessons learnt from the Ebola crisis.Creating synergies and mutual empowerment between „African RECs will increase their visibility, their capacity for advocacy and their recognition as key actors of a responsible ethics research framework at the national, regional and international level.

Research Participants' Views on Ethics in Social Research: Issues for Research Ethics Committees

2007 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 73-79 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jane Lewis ◽  
Jenny Graham
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Information Needs ◽  
Social Research ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Research Ethics Committees ◽  
Research Issues ◽  
Research Participants ◽  
Information Giving ◽  
Written Information ◽  
Study Participants

The study reported in this paper explored the ethical requirements of social research participants, an area where there is still little empirical research, by interviewing people who had participated in one of five recent social research studies. The findings endorse the conceptualization of informed consent as a process rather than a one-off event. Four different dynamics of decision-making were followed by participants in terms of the timing of decisions to participate and the information on which they were based. Multiple information events were important, as was verbal as well as written information. Study participants reacted unfavourably to the idea of written consent. Although prior information was relevant to participant experience of the interview, what emerged more strongly as relevant was the behaviour of interviewers and the interviewing strategy used. The authors suggest that naturalistic, authentic approaches to information-giving are necessary, and that in scrutinizing them research ethics committees need to look not only at written information but also at verbal information giving, and how interviewer information-giving is supported by training and supervision. They suggest that committees also need to concern themselves more broadly with who will carry out interviews and the training, mentoring and monitoring in place to shape their conduct of interviews. In considering research instruments, research ethics committees need to consider not only whether interviewers will capture accurate and appropriate data but also whether they are likely to lead to a satisfactory interaction for participants. Given the impossibility of anticipating each individual participants information needs and their reaction to the interviewing strategy, the authors suggest that interviewers and participants need to be encouraged to negotiate the conduct of interviews jointly, and discuss how such negotiating roles might be supported.

scholarly journals Philosophers in research ethics committees—what do they think they’re doing? An empirical-ethical analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charlotte Gauckler
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Applied Ethics ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Research Ethics Committees ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Discussion Section ◽  
Philosophical Perspective ◽  
Level 3 ◽  
Practical Level

AbstractResearch ethics committees in Germany usually don’t have philosophers as members and if so, only contingently, not provided for by statute. This is interesting from a philosophical perspective, assuming that ethics is a discipline of philosophy. It prompts the question what role philosophers play in those committees they can be found in. Eight qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted to explore the self-perception of philosophers regarding their contribution to research ethics committees. The results show that the participants generally don’t view themselves as ethics experts. They are rather unanimous on the competencies they think they contribute to the committee but not as to whether those are philosophical competencies or applied ethical ones. In some cases they don’t see a big difference between their role and the role of the jurist member. In the discussion section of this paper I bring up three topics, prompted by the interviews, that need to be addressed: (1) I argue that the interviewees’ unwillingness to call themselves ethics experts might have to do with a too narrow understanding of ethics expertise. (2) I argue that the disagreement among the interviewees concerning the relationship between moral philosophy and applied ethics might be explained on a theoretical or on a practical level. (3) I argue that there is some lack of clarity concerning the relationship between ethics and law in research ethics committees and that further work needs to be done here. All three topics, I conclude, need further investigation.

scholarly journals Preventing ethics dumping: the challenges for Kenyan research ethics committees

2020 ◽  
pp. 174701612092506
Author(s):  
Kate Chatfield ◽  
Doris Schroeder ◽  
Anastasia Guantai ◽  
Kirana Bhatt ◽  
Elizabeth Bukusi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Resource Constraints ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Shared Responsibility ◽  
Standards Of Care ◽  
Primary Data ◽  
Research Ethics Committees ◽  
Governance System ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
System Resource

Ethics dumping is the practice of undertaking research in a low- or middle-income setting which would not be permitted, or would be severely restricted, in a high-income setting. Whilst Kenya operates a sophisticated research governance system, resource constraints and the relatively low number of accredited research ethics committees limit the capacity for ensuring ethical compliance. As a result, Kenya has been experiencing cases of ethics dumping. This article presents 11 challenges in the context of preventing ethics dumping in Kenya, namely variations in governance standards, resistance to double ethics review, resource constraints, unresolved issues in the management of biological samples, unresolved issues in the management of primary data, unsuitable informed consent procedures, cultural insensitivity, differing standards of care, reluctance to provide feedback to research communities, power differentials which facilitate the exploitation of local researchers and lack of local relevance and/or affordability of the resultant products. A reflective approach for researchers, built around the values of fairness, respect, care and honesty, is presented as a means of taking shared responsibility for preventing ethics dumping.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document