Access AHRECS Subscribers' Knowledge Base with Ease
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.
In this PowerPoint with embedded audio, AHRECS senior consultant Mark Israel delivers a 12-minute talk about authorship. This is a handy resource for HDRs and ECRs.
When you look at consent templates who were they written for? Can you think of five justifiable alternatives to info sheets+consent forms?
When confronted with a public need (such a helping with the response to COVID-19 or foiling a domestic terrorist plot) what should do if part of the response is facing punishment for misconduct? A topical research integrity discussion activity that references a block-buster movie.
When an individual only partially completes a survey, what’s good practice? If you answered quickly you are probably failing to meet your responsibilities.
Consent has a long history in human research ethics, fuelled by some egregious failures to seek and respect the wishes of participants. And to be genuinely informed, that consent must always be fully informed. Right? But what about the nocebo effect?
When researchers interact with research ethics review bodies with regard to matters such as extensions or other variations, a common question is “does this require a renewal application to be considered by the original review body? This checklist provides a standardised approach to answering that question.
This human research ethics activity sheet is based on another fun image by Don Mayne. Like much of Don’s work, while we are chuckling we find ourselves reflecting on an important topic (or, as in this case, topics). How is important and potentially sensitive information relayed to participants? How does an institution usefully inform the practice of researchers after research ethics review?