Human research ethics

A warm up activity – A Human Research Ethics discussion activity

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.

A funny cartoon about using a Goldberg machine to chase a non-responsive researcher.

Chasing a non-responsive researcher – A Human Research Ethics commentary

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.

Funny cartoon about a participant being crushed under the first consent form.

You can’t sue us mechanism – A Human Research Ethics discussion activity

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.

A cover image for the talk by Nik to the Victoria Ethics Network

Human research ethics and risk, the role of research ethics committees – A Human Research Ethics talk

This is a recording of a Victoria Ethics Network session facilitated by Prof. Nik Zeps, a senior consultant of AHRECS. He is speaking about the role of HRECs with regard to risks, benefits and their weighing. A very handy one hour ten minute talk by an experienced practitioner, who has both served on the committee that drafted the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research and has served/chaired numerous research ethics committees.