Access AHRECS Subscribers' Knowledge Base with Ease
This discussion activity is intended to warm up attendees at a professional development event about Human Research Ethics. This is to encourage a reflection on how different groups regard research participants. There are no right answers, the objective is to get people talking and reflecting on Human Research Ethics matters. It is also an opportunity to reflect upon matters such as paternity in decision making, showing respect and conflicts of interests.
In this commentary sheet we discuss what some have termed ‘soft misconduct’ and five ways in which institutions can deal with them. Others have reasonably observed that they are just research misconduct and should be investigated and punished as such. While this might indeed be the case, until national research integrity codes (such as the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research) list these behaviours as being research misconduct, institutions will need to deal with them with their own policies and procedures.
This Human Research Ethics commentary reflects on useful approaches to researchers who fail to respond to requests. This includes failure to respond to research ethics review feedback, failure to respond to requests for ethical conduct reports and failure to respond to other requests from the research ethics committee. Hopefully, your institutional approach will be a little bit more practical than the Goldberg machine in this humorous Don Mayne cartoon.
An institution that doesn’t have a mechanism where individuate can make complaints/make allegations where the identity of complaints will be protected or a mechanism where individuals can make anonymous complaints/make allegations, are begging for passive-aggressive behaviour, though not quite as humorous as this Don Mayne cartoon. This is Research Integrity Commentary Sheet is available for download by our Patrons.
This discussion sheet is about the ethical reflections associated with the screening of a potential participant pool and the exclusion of some individuals.
The role and recognition of advisers/technicians/assistants in human research – A Human Research Ethics commentary
A commentary sheet about the appropriate role and recognition of advisers/technicians/assistants in human research and the way in which they are acknowledged. This includes the degree to which they are delegated disclosing uncomfortable or scary information to new participants.
A commentary sheet about the use of blinding in clinical trials and trials that are too successful, with deleterious consequences. Based upon a humous Don Mayne cartoon, published to our Friday Arvo Funnies page. A useful commentary for discussion in professional development activities/resources about blinding and clinical trials.
This discussion activity explores a practical ethical challenge we have created ourselves. Consent strategies should be about individuals being able to make informed decisions about whether or not to take part in a research project. What we have ended up with are long documents and forms. They require potential participants to have considerable patience to wait for them and a degree of legal acumen. The objective now appears to be to establish why you can’t sue the researcher or their host institution.