Dear , - AHRECS
1
JANUARY 2021 Dear <<First Name>>, Welcome to 2021... don't start us on how quickly the year is already going. Included here is the January 2021 edition of the Research Ethics Monthly. This week, an AHRECS Senior Consultant conducted an in-meeting briefing for a HREC on, and participated in a discussion about, vulnerability and research ethics review. AHRECS can conduct a briefing for your committee for only $900. If you aren't named above, please subscribe to the Research Ethics Monthly, because it is incredibly affirming, free and would be greatly appreciated. Subscribing is free, easy and keeps our in-house internet elf happy. More information about the Research Ethics Monthly can be found on the blog pages. Should we accept funding for facial recognition research, and other dilemmas? Gary Allen, Mark Israel and Colin Thomson AM In the 1980s and 1990s, many research institutions made the principled and commendable decision not to accept funding from the tobacco industry. This reflected the recognition of the awful health impacts of tobacco use and the degree to which the industry was muddying the waters of public debate with academic and clinical research questioning the veracity of the overwhelming body of evidence that clearly showed the dire dangers of activity such as smoking. While we continue to be shocked by cases such those like the research of Hans J Eysenck (and this ), for the main it is accepted that receiving funding from the tobacco industry is not in the public’s best interest. For our part, AHRECS once declined an offer of consultancy from a tobacco company. That is a decision with which we are entirely comfortable. There is no reason to believe that the issues associated with accepting funding from tobacco companies cannot be found elsewhere. Recent stories make us wonder whether principled stances are required on cameras monitoring daily life and facial recognition. The apparent involvement of an Australian university researcher in developing ethnic-specific facial recognition software for use in Xinjiang prompted Curtin University to ask for a paper published by Wiley to be retracted... A big bear trap on the horizon Many Australian research bodies link to the National Statement. They do so through websites, policy documents, professional development material and other resources. This is logical and makes it easier for researchers and others to access the national policy/guidance material. Another reason to do this is that it makes it easier for researchers to see the external impetus for the institution’s arrangements and provides a source of further information and guidance. In June 2018, those of us who link to the National Statement had a rude awakening when the NHMRC web developers altered the URLs of all the documents and material on the NHMRC web site. Read more Image library Frequent visitors to the website of AHRECS will have noticed a change to the library of images we use across the site (e.g. the Resource Library and the Research Ethics Monthly). We did this to refresh our library of images at the same time as we updated nearly all sections of our website. We have also made the conscious decision to remove the watermark from our images. As a result, it should be easier for the human research ethics and research integrity community to find useful images for your needs. All that we ask is that any institution that uses our images considers becoming a subscriber of https://www.ahrecs.vip. Such a subscription ($340 p/a) not only provides access to a growing library of resources, it is also a tangible way to aid our efforts to support the community of practice for HRE/RI in Australasia. Individuals can become a patron at https://www.patreon.com/ahrecs. Research Ethics: The Journal We note that the journal, Research Ethics, is now Open Access. https://journals.sagepub.com/description/rea Research Ethics is aimed at all readers and authors interested in ethical issues in the conduct of research, the regulation of research, the procedures and process of ethical review as well as broader ethical issues related to research such as scientific integrity and the end uses of research. The journal aims to promote, provoke, host and engage in open and public debate about research ethics on an international scale but also to contribute to the education of researchers and reviewers of research… All articles in Research Ethics are published as open access. There are no submission charges and no Article Processing Charges as these are fully funded by institutions through Knowledge Unlatched, resulting in no direct charge to authors. The journal has shifted from a largely British publication and now draws on an international set of authors and readers. This will be particularly welcome to HREC members and research managers, some of whom are not given access to their own/host institution’s research collection as well as to members of those institutions that never subscribed. The current issue includes Natasha Todorov’s paper on why Research ethics should be taught as part of the NSW Higher School Certificate curriculum . AHRECS’ institutional memory recalls helping the SACE Board do just this in South Australia a decade ago. Why human research ethics and research integrity aren’t fire blankets Gary Allen Let’s start with fire safety. Used correctly, fire blankets (and other fire protection equipment) can manage a hazard and prevent increased harm. Institutions have a regulatory responsibility to make staff aware of standards by providing training in fire safety and correct behaviour. SYNERGY ONE While in Australia there is no human research ethics legislation, the National Statement is generally recognised as the national standard for human research ethics. The Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research is the national standard for research integrity. Similarly, researchers need to be aware of the institution’s and national policies, procedures and arrangements with regards to human research ethics/research integrity (NS 3.47, AC Researcher Responsibility 16). Institutions have risk exposure if staff are unaware of the standards for safe and appropriate behaviour. This includes correct use of equipment and evacuation procedures. SYNERGY TWO Both the National Statement and Australian Code contain provisions that describe it as an institutional responsibility to train researchers in human research ethics (NS 3.1) and integrity (AC Institutional Responsibility 4). While you are here... Did you enjoy this edition? Would you like to support the work we do? If so, please consider helping us cover the cost of matters such as hosting the Research Ethics Monthly and other web development by becoming an AHRECS Patron. In addition to the warm glow from supporting our work, you will be subscribed for monthly updates of useful material (such as resources for use in your local workshops). INSTITUTION Subscriptions for institutions cost $350/year. A tax invoice will be provided. Payments can be made by credit card over the phone, EFT or via PayPal. To become a patron email [email protected] INDIVIDUAL Subscriptions start at USD1/month and USD15/month gives you access to all materials. See https://www.patreon.com/ahrecs A few profiled items from the subscribers’ area: 1. Who watches the watchers? – A Human Research Ethics discussion activity 2. It’s a slippery slope to research misconduct – A Research Integrity resource 3. An Australian history of human research ethics | A ppt produced by Colin Thomson AM - A Human Research Ethics resource 4. Is my application ready for research ethics review? - A Human Research Ethics resource 5. Duped - A research integrity commentary 6 Setting up a monitoring arrangement for human research - A human research ethics talk by Kim Gifkins 7. A summary consent sheet - A Human Research discussion activity 8. eConsent - A Human Research Ethics talk by Nik Zeps 9. Lost data – A Research Integrity discussion activity 10. Disaster recovery plan – A Research Integrity discussion activity Please join us in saying a big thank you to our new Gold Patrons: ANROWS Ballarat Health Services Barwon Health Bendigo Health CanTeen Central Queensland University James Cook University The internal Ethics Review Panel of the Department of Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business (Commonwealth) RAND Australia Torrens University University of Canterbury (NZ) University of Melbourne The University of Sydney Ethics Office By their generosity, they keep Research Ethics Monthly free and ad-free Things You May Have Missed... Our Resource Library 01. Shepherding preprints through a pandemic - Papers 02. Correcting the scientific record- a broken system? - Papers 03. Ethical considerations regarding the publication of identifiable patient photographs in academic journals - Thesis 04. Preprints Involving Medical Research—Do the Benefits Outweigh the Challenges? - Papers 05. Research on covid-19 is suffering “imperfect incentives at every stage” - Papers 06. Collective actions to strengthen research integrity – Clarivate – Web of Science - Webinar 07. Principles alone cannot guarantee ethical AI - Papers 08. Survey study of research integrity officers’ perceptions of research practices associated with instances of research misconduct - Papers 09. Research fraud: a long-term problem exacerbated by the clamour for research grants - Papers 10. Does science self-correct: What we have learned at Retraction Watch – Penn Libraries - Presentation There were more than 50 more great items in the last 30 days. Follow us on social media to get an alert when new items are added (LinkedIn | Twitter | Facebook ) Our Newsroom 01. (Australia) “Textbook case” of disability discrimination in grant applications - Nature 02. (US) Scholars fume as PhD theses sold as e-books on Amazon - Times Higher Education 03. (Australia) Exercise science grad student at Australian university dismissed after he admitted faking data, says supervisor - Retraction Watch 04. Scientists Need to Be Kinder to One Another - Scientific American 05. Changes in the Scientific Information Environment During the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Importance of Scientific Situational Awareness in Responding to the Infodemic - Mary Ann Liebert Inc 06. What can be done to resolve academic authorship disputes? - Times Higher Education 07. Nature journals reveal terms of landmark open-access option - Nature 08. New at Cell Press: The Inclusion and Diversity Statement - Cell Press 09. List of retracted COVID-19 papers grows past 70 - Retraction Watch 10. (UK) University College London apologises for role in promoting eugenics - The Guardian Do you know someone who hasn’t subscribed yet to the Research Ethics Monthly? Please encourage them to subscribe now and help us grow this community. Got an idea for a post or a suggestion for a guest? Send an email to [email protected] Do you have a view, feedback or some constructive criticism on this or other posts? Every item has comment link so you can have your say and continue the conversation. Copyright © 2021 Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services (AHRECS), All rights reserved. We hate spam and definitely don’t want to bother you with unwanted emails. You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list . This newsletter is authorized by the AHRECS team, click here for contact and other details. We would never divulge your details to anyone else, including not disclosing you’re a subscriber, without your permission. Read more Read more Subscribe Past Issues RSS Translate
Transcript of Dear , - AHRECS
JANUARY 2021
Dear <<First Name>>,Welcome to 2021... don't start us on how quickly the year is already going.Included here is the January 2021 edition of the Research Ethics Monthly.
This week, an AHRECS Senior Consultant conducted an in-meeting briefing fora HREC on, and participated in a discussion about, vulnerability and researchethics review. AHRECS can conduct a briefing for your committee for only$900.
If you aren't named above, please subscribe to the Research Ethics Monthly,because it is incredibly affirming, free and would be greatly appreciated.Subscribing is free, easy and keeps our in-house internet elf happy.
More information about the Research Ethics Monthly can be found on the blogpages.
Should we accept funding for facialrecognition research, and otherdilemmas?Gary Allen, Mark Israel and Colin Thomson AM
In the 1980s and 1990s, many research institutions made the principled andcommendable decision not to accept funding from the tobacco industry.
This reflected the recognition of the awful health impacts of tobacco use andthe degree to which the industry was muddying the waters of public debate withacademic and clinical research questioning the veracity of the overwhelmingbody of evidence that clearly showed the dire dangers of activity such assmoking. While we continue to be shocked by cases such those like theresearch of Hans J Eysenck (and this), for the main it is accepted that receivingfunding from the tobacco industry is not in the public’s best interest.
For our part, AHRECS once declined an offer of consultancy from a tobaccocompany. That is a decision with which we are entirely comfortable.
There is no reason to believe that the issues associated with accepting fundingfrom tobacco companies cannot be found elsewhere.
Recent stories make us wonder whether principled stances are required oncameras monitoring daily life and facial recognition. The apparent involvementof an Australian university researcher in developing ethnic-specific facialrecognition software for use in Xinjiang prompted Curtin University to ask for apaper published by Wiley to be retracted...
A big bear trap on the horizonMany Australian research bodies link to the National Statement. They do so throughwebsites, policy documents, professional development material and other resources.
This is logical and makes it easier for researchers and others to access the nationalpolicy/guidance material.
Another reason to do this is that it makes it easier for researchers to see the externalimpetus for the institution’s arrangements and provides a source of furtherinformation and guidance.
In June 2018, those of us who link to the National Statement had a rude awakeningwhen the NHMRC web developers altered the URLs of all the documents andmaterial on the NHMRC web site.
Read more
Image libraryFrequent visitors to the website of AHRECS will have noticed a change to the libraryof images we use across the site (e.g. the Resource Library and the Research EthicsMonthly).
We did this to refresh our library of images at the same time as we updated nearly allsections of our website.
We have also made the conscious decision to remove the watermark from ourimages. As a result, it should be easier for the human research ethics and researchintegrity community to find useful images for your needs.
All that we ask is that any institution that uses our images considers becoming asubscriber of https://www.ahrecs.vip. Such a subscription ($340 p/a) not onlyprovides access to a growing library of resources, it is also a tangible way to aid ourefforts to support the community of practice for HRE/RI in Australasia. Individualscan become a patron at https://www.patreon.com/ahrecs.
Research Ethics: The JournalWe note that the journal, Research Ethics, is now OpenAccess. https://journals.sagepub.com/description/rea
Research Ethics is aimed at all readers and authors interested in ethical issues in theconduct of research, the regulation of research, the procedures and process ofethical review as well as broader ethical issues related to research such as scientificintegrity and the end uses of research. The journal aims to promote, provoke, hostand engage in open and public debate about research ethics on an internationalscale but also to contribute to the education of researchers and reviewers ofresearch…
All articles in Research Ethics are published as open access. There are nosubmission charges and no Article Processing Charges as these are fully funded byinstitutions through Knowledge Unlatched, resulting in no direct charge to authors.
The journal has shifted from a largely British publication and now draws on aninternational set of authors and readers. This will be particularly welcome to HRECmembers and research managers, some of whom are not given access to theirown/host institution’s research collection as well as to members of those institutionsthat never subscribed.
The current issue includes Natasha Todorov’s paper on why Research ethics shouldbe taught as part of the NSW Higher School Certificate curriculum. AHRECS’institutional memory recalls helping the SACE Board do just this in South Australia adecade ago.
Why human research ethics andresearch integrity aren’t fire blanketsGary Allen
Let’s start with fire safety. Used correctly, fire blankets (and other fire protectionequipment) can manage a hazard and prevent increased harm. Institutionshave a regulatory responsibility to make staff aware of standards by providingtraining in fire safety and correct behaviour.
SYNERGY ONE
While in Australia there is no human research ethics legislation, the NationalStatement is generally recognised as the national standard for human researchethics. The Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research is thenational standard for research integrity. Similarly, researchers need to beaware of the institution’s and national policies, procedures and arrangementswith regards to human research ethics/research integrity (NS 3.47, ACResearcher Responsibility 16).
Institutions have risk exposure if staff are unaware of the standards for safe andappropriate behaviour. This includes correct use of equipment and evacuationprocedures.
SYNERGY TWO
Both the National Statement and Australian Code contain provisions thatdescribe it as an institutional responsibility to train researchers in humanresearch ethics (NS 3.1) and integrity (AC Institutional Responsibility 4).
While you are here...Did you enjoy this edition? Would you like to support the work we do? If so,please consider helping us cover the cost of matters such as hosting the ResearchEthics Monthly and other web development by becoming an AHRECS Patron.
In addition to the warm glow from supporting our work, you will be subscribed formonthly updates of useful material (such as resources for use in your localworkshops). INSTITUTIONSubscriptions for institutions cost $350/year. A tax invoice will be provided. Payments can be made by credit card over the phone, EFT or via PayPal. Tobecome a patron email [email protected]
INDIVIDUALSubscriptions start at USD1/month and USD15/month gives you access to allmaterials. See https://www.patreon.com/ahrecs
A few profiled items from the subscribers’ area:
1. Who watches the watchers? – A Human Research Ethics discussion activity
2. It’s a slippery slope to research misconduct – A Research Integrity resource
3. An Australian history of human research ethics | A ppt produced by Colin ThomsonAM - A Human Research Ethics resource
4. Is my application ready for research ethics review? - A Human Research Ethicsresource
5. Duped - A research integrity commentary
6 Setting up a monitoring arrangement for human research - A human researchethics talk by Kim Gifkins
7. A summary consent sheet - A Human Research discussion activity
8. eConsent - A Human Research Ethics talk by Nik Zeps
9. Lost data – A Research Integrity discussion activity
10. Disaster recovery plan – A Research Integrity discussion activity
Please join us in saying a big thank you to our new Gold Patrons:
ANROWSBallarat Health ServicesBarwon HealthBendigo HealthCanTeenCentral Queensland UniversityJames Cook UniversityThe internal Ethics Review Panel of the Department of Employment, Skills,Small and Family Business (Commonwealth)RAND AustraliaTorrens UniversityUniversity of Canterbury (NZ)University of MelbourneThe University of Sydney Ethics Office
By their generosity, they keep Research Ethics Monthly free and ad-free
Things You May Have Missed...
Our Resource Library01. Shepherding preprints through a pandemic - Papers
02. Correcting the scientific record- a broken system? - Papers
03. Ethical considerations regarding the publication of identifiable patientphotographs in academic journals - Thesis
04. Preprints Involving Medical Research—Do the Benefits Outweigh theChallenges? - Papers
05. Research on covid-19 is suffering “imperfect incentives at every stage” - Papers
06. Collective actions to strengthen research integrity – Clarivate – Web ofScience - Webinar
07. Principles alone cannot guarantee ethical AI - Papers
08. Survey study of research integrity officers’ perceptions of researchpractices associated with instances of research misconduct - Papers
09. Research fraud: a long-term problem exacerbated by the clamour for researchgrants - Papers
10. Does science self-correct: What we have learned at Retraction Watch –Penn Libraries - Presentation
There were more than 50 more great items in the last 30 days. Follow us on socialmedia to get an alert when new items are added (LinkedIn | Twitter | Facebook)
Our Newsroom01. (Australia) “Textbook case” of disability discrimination in grant applications -Nature
02. (US) Scholars fume as PhD theses sold as e-books on Amazon - TimesHigher Education
03. (Australia) Exercise science grad student at Australian university dismissed afterhe admitted faking data, says supervisor - Retraction Watch
04. Scientists Need to Be Kinder to One Another - Scientific American
05. Changes in the Scientific Information Environment During the COVID-19Pandemic: The Importance of Scientific Situational Awareness in Responding to theInfodemic - Mary Ann Liebert Inc
06. What can be done to resolve academic authorship disputes? - TimesHigher Education
07. Nature journals reveal terms of landmark open-access option - Nature
08. New at Cell Press: The Inclusion and Diversity Statement - Cell Press
09. List of retracted COVID-19 papers grows past 70 - Retraction Watch
10. (UK) University College London apologises for role in promoting eugenics- The Guardian
Do you know someone who hasn’t subscribed yet to theResearch Ethics Monthly? Please encourage them tosubscribe now and help us grow this community.
Got an idea for a post or a suggestion for aguest? Send an email to [email protected]
Do you have a view, feedback or some constructivecriticism on this or other posts? Every item hascomment link so you can have your say and continuethe conversation.
Copyright © 2021 Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services (AHRECS), All rightsreserved.
We hate spam and definitely don’t want to bother you with unwanted emails.You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.
This newsletter is authorized by the AHRECS team, click here for contact and other details.
We would never divulge your details to anyone else, including not disclosing you’re a subscriber, withoutyour permission.
Read more
Read more
Subscribe Past Issues RSSTranslate
