Human Research Ethics
An Australian history of human research ethics | A ppt produced by Colin Thomson AM – A Human Research Ethics resource
Revisiting his blog post from 30 July 2018 (no we can’t believe it was that long ago either, which is a function of how busy we’ve been), Colin has produced this terrific PowerPoint slide deck about the Australian history of human research ethics.
A Human Research Ethics resource | This sheet is a resource to help an HDR Supervisor evaluate whether their candidate’s application for ethics approval is ready to be submitted for research ethics review. The August/September 2020 edition of the Research Ethics Monthly will have a post about this resource and a watermarked and protected pdf version of this resource.
Setting up a monitoring arrangement for human research – A human research ethics talk by Kim Gifkins
In this 11 minute talk, AHRECS senior consultant Kim Gifkins reflects on useful institutional approaches to the monitoring of human research.
Researchers like using summary consent material to complement voluminous information sheets, but is that a good thing? That and related matters are explored in this discussion activity.
AHRECS consultant Nik Zeps gives an 11 minute talk about eConsent, its use advantages and future. A perfect in-meeting professional development activity for your research ethics committee.
As AI that is used in research become smarter it raises some interesting questions
- Are they more impartial than humans?
- Should they or their programmers be listed as co-author or at least acknowledged?
This very topical discussion sheet could be used in the context of discussions about conflicts of interest, authorship and respect.
To be valid and useful. a consent strategy must be appropriate and respectful of participants. It should be relevant for the research design and context. An information sheet and consent form that is signed should not be the default, standard or best approach. Consent material written for lawyers will probably ‘work’ for 0ther lawyers.
Research ethics committees are generally too busy to rush applications just because they were submitted late, but does your institution have processes to deal with matters that are genuinely urgent?
The right to withdraw from a project needs to be more than an artifice we give lip service to. If there are unavoidable limitations they need to be disclosed upfront and dealt with in the research ethics review application.
We’re currently rebuilding the AHRECS web site. Here’s a sneak-peek at the new design. We’d love to get your input on what changes you’d like to see to our currentsite and what you don’t to change.