Pub Date : 2020-11-04DOI: 10.1177/1747016120980562
M. Paruzel-Czachura, Lidia Baran, Zbigniew Spendel
The paper reports two studies exploring the relationship between scholars’ self-reported publication pressure and their self-reported scientific misconduct in research. In Study 1 the participants (N = 423) were scholars representing various disciplines from one big university in Poland. In Study 2 the participants (N = 31) were exclusively members of the management, such as dean, director, etc. from the same university. In Study 1 the most common reported form of scientific misconduct was honorary authorship. The majority of researchers (71%) reported that they had not violated ethical standards in the past; 3% admitted to scientific misconduct; 51% reported being were aware of colleagues’ scientific misconduct. A small positive correlation between perceived publication pressure and intention to engage in scientific misconduct in the future was found. In Study 2 more than half of the management (52%) reported being aware of researchers’ dishonest practices, the most frequent one of these being honorary authorship. As many as 71% of the participants report observing publication pressure in their subordinates. The primary conclusions are: (1) most scholars are convinced of their morality and predict that they will behave morally in the future; (2) scientific misconduct, particularly minor offenses such as honorary authorship, is frequently observed both by researchers (particularly in their colleagues) and by their managers; (3) researchers experiencing publication pressure report a willingness to engage in scientific misconduct in the future.
{"title":"Publish or be ethical? Publishing pressure and scientific misconduct in research","authors":"M. Paruzel-Czachura, Lidia Baran, Zbigniew Spendel","doi":"10.1177/1747016120980562","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016120980562","url":null,"abstract":"The paper reports two studies exploring the relationship between scholars’ self-reported publication pressure and their self-reported scientific misconduct in research. In Study 1 the participants (N = 423) were scholars representing various disciplines from one big university in Poland. In Study 2 the participants (N = 31) were exclusively members of the management, such as dean, director, etc. from the same university. In Study 1 the most common reported form of scientific misconduct was honorary authorship. The majority of researchers (71%) reported that they had not violated ethical standards in the past; 3% admitted to scientific misconduct; 51% reported being were aware of colleagues’ scientific misconduct. A small positive correlation between perceived publication pressure and intention to engage in scientific misconduct in the future was found. In Study 2 more than half of the management (52%) reported being aware of researchers’ dishonest practices, the most frequent one of these being honorary authorship. As many as 71% of the participants report observing publication pressure in their subordinates. The primary conclusions are: (1) most scholars are convinced of their morality and predict that they will behave morally in the future; (2) scientific misconduct, particularly minor offenses such as honorary authorship, is frequently observed both by researchers (particularly in their colleagues) and by their managers; (3) researchers experiencing publication pressure report a willingness to engage in scientific misconduct in the future.","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":"17 1","pages":"375 - 397"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2020-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90528159","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-11-02DOI: 10.1177/1747016120969743
V. Williamson, D. Murphy, C. Castro, E. Vermetten, R. Jetly, N. Greenberg
The need for research to advance scientific understanding must be balanced with ensuring the rights and wellbeing of participants are safeguarded, with some research topics posing more ethical quandaries for researchers than others. Moral injury is one such topic. Exposure to potentially morally injurious experiences can lead to significant distress, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, and selfinjury. In this article, we discuss how the rapid expansion of research in the field of moral injury could threaten the wellbeing, dignity and integrity of participants. We also examine key guidance for carrying out ethically responsible research with participants’ rights to self-determination, confidentiality, non-maleficence and beneficence discussed in relation to the study of moral injury. We describe how investigations of moral injury are likely to pose several challenges for researchers including managing disclosures of potentially illegal acts, the risk of harm that repeated questioning about guilt and shame may pose to participant wellbeing in longitudinal studies, as well as the possible negative impact of exposure to vicarious trauma on researchers themselves. Finally, we offer several practical recommendations that researchers, research ethics committees and other regulatory bodies can take to protect participant rights, maximise the potential benefits of research outputs and ensure the field continues to expand in an ethically responsible way.
{"title":"Moral injury and the need to carry out ethically responsible research","authors":"V. Williamson, D. Murphy, C. Castro, E. Vermetten, R. Jetly, N. Greenberg","doi":"10.1177/1747016120969743","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016120969743","url":null,"abstract":"The need for research to advance scientific understanding must be balanced with ensuring the rights and wellbeing of participants are safeguarded, with some research topics posing more ethical quandaries for researchers than others. Moral injury is one such topic. Exposure to potentially morally injurious experiences can lead to significant distress, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, and selfinjury. In this article, we discuss how the rapid expansion of research in the field of moral injury could threaten the wellbeing, dignity and integrity of participants. We also examine key guidance for carrying out ethically responsible research with participants’ rights to self-determination, confidentiality, non-maleficence and beneficence discussed in relation to the study of moral injury. We describe how investigations of moral injury are likely to pose several challenges for researchers including managing disclosures of potentially illegal acts, the risk of harm that repeated questioning about guilt and shame may pose to participant wellbeing in longitudinal studies, as well as the possible negative impact of exposure to vicarious trauma on researchers themselves. Finally, we offer several practical recommendations that researchers, research ethics committees and other regulatory bodies can take to protect participant rights, maximise the potential benefits of research outputs and ensure the field continues to expand in an ethically responsible way.","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":"1 1","pages":"135 - 142"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2020-11-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75822307","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-10-21DOI: 10.1177/1747016120966779
M. Ababneh, S. Al‐Azzam, K. Alzoubi, Abeer M. Rababa’h, S. A. Al Demour
In Jordan, research ethics committees exist in most health settings. However, little is known about Jordanian public views regarding the ethics of clinical research. This study aimed to evaluate Jordanian public understanding and attitudes about ethics in clinical research. A questionnaire was used to collect information that included demographics, public knowledge, and attitudes towards ethics in clinical research. It was administered via face-to-face interviews in two major cities in Jordan from 1st June to 15th August 2017. Of the 2315 respondents, 2.33% were found to have poor knowledge, 22.16% had fair knowledge, and 75.51% had good knowledge of ethics in clinical research. Furthermore, 75.81% of respondents had positive attitudes towards ethics in research. However, only 45.23% reported that they trust clinical researchers in Jordan. Even though a large majority of respondents were aware of key features of research ethics, efforts are needed to address negative perceptions and knowledge deficits.
{"title":"Understanding and attitudes of the Jordanian public about clinical research ethics","authors":"M. Ababneh, S. Al‐Azzam, K. Alzoubi, Abeer M. Rababa’h, S. A. Al Demour","doi":"10.1177/1747016120966779","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016120966779","url":null,"abstract":"In Jordan, research ethics committees exist in most health settings. However, little is known about Jordanian public views regarding the ethics of clinical research. This study aimed to evaluate Jordanian public understanding and attitudes about ethics in clinical research. A questionnaire was used to collect information that included demographics, public knowledge, and attitudes towards ethics in clinical research. It was administered via face-to-face interviews in two major cities in Jordan from 1st June to 15th August 2017. Of the 2315 respondents, 2.33% were found to have poor knowledge, 22.16% had fair knowledge, and 75.51% had good knowledge of ethics in clinical research. Furthermore, 75.81% of respondents had positive attitudes towards ethics in research. However, only 45.23% reported that they trust clinical researchers in Jordan. Even though a large majority of respondents were aware of key features of research ethics, efforts are needed to address negative perceptions and knowledge deficits.","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":"107 1","pages":"228 - 241"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2020-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80552614","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-10-08DOI: 10.1177/1747016120963160
Erin Mackenzie, Nathan Berger, K. Holmes, M. Walker
Adolescent populations have become increasingly accessible through online data collection methods. Online surveys are advantageous in recruiting adolescent participants and can be designed for adolescents to provide informed consent without the requirement of parental consent. This study sampled 338 Australian adolescents to participate in a low risk online survey on adolescents’ experiences and perceptions of their learning in science classes, without parental consent. Adolescents were recruited through Facebook and Instagram advertising. In order to judge potential participants’ capacity to consent, two multiple-choice questions about the consent process were required to be answered correctly prior to accessing the survey. This simple strategy effectively determined whether middle adolescents had the capacity to provide informed consent to participate in low risk online educational research.
{"title":"Online educational research with middle adolescent populations: Ethical considerations and recommendations","authors":"Erin Mackenzie, Nathan Berger, K. Holmes, M. Walker","doi":"10.1177/1747016120963160","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016120963160","url":null,"abstract":"Adolescent populations have become increasingly accessible through online data collection methods. Online surveys are advantageous in recruiting adolescent participants and can be designed for adolescents to provide informed consent without the requirement of parental consent. This study sampled 338 Australian adolescents to participate in a low risk online survey on adolescents’ experiences and perceptions of their learning in science classes, without parental consent. Adolescents were recruited through Facebook and Instagram advertising. In order to judge potential participants’ capacity to consent, two multiple-choice questions about the consent process were required to be answered correctly prior to accessing the survey. This simple strategy effectively determined whether middle adolescents had the capacity to provide informed consent to participate in low risk online educational research.","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":"36 1","pages":"217 - 227"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2020-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75173563","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-08-30DOI: 10.1177/1747016120952516
Mladen Koljatic
Unwelcome or unconsented acknowledgments is an unethical practice seldom addressed. It constitutes a form of authorship abuse perpetrated in the acknowledgments section of published research, where the victim is credited as having made a contribution to the paper, without having given their consent, and often without having seen a draft of the paper. The acknowledgment may be written in such a way as to imply endorsement of the study’s data and conclusions. Through a real-life case, this paper explores the issue of unconsented acknowledgments and makes recommendations to prevent its occurrence, thereby promoting research integrity.
{"title":"Unconsented acknowledgments as a form of authorship abuse: What can be done about it?","authors":"Mladen Koljatic","doi":"10.1177/1747016120952516","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016120952516","url":null,"abstract":"Unwelcome or unconsented acknowledgments is an unethical practice seldom addressed. It constitutes a form of authorship abuse perpetrated in the acknowledgments section of published research, where the victim is credited as having made a contribution to the paper, without having given their consent, and often without having seen a draft of the paper. The acknowledgment may be written in such a way as to imply endorsement of the study’s data and conclusions. Through a real-life case, this paper explores the issue of unconsented acknowledgments and makes recommendations to prevent its occurrence, thereby promoting research integrity.","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":"30 1","pages":"127 - 134"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2020-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81178147","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-08-30DOI: 10.1177/1747016120952511
Margaret L. Kern, H. Cahill, L. Morrish, A. Farrelly, Keren Shlezinger, Hayley K. Jach
The use of psychometric tools to investigate the impact of school-based wellbeing programs raises a number of ethical issues around students’ rights, confidentiality and protection. Researchers have explicit ethical obligations to protect participants from potential psychological harms, but guidance is needed for effectively navigating disclosure of identifiable confidential information that indicates signs of psychological distress. Drawing on a large-scale study examining student, school, and system-based factors that impact the implementation of a school-based social and emotional learning program, we describe patterns of distress attained from quantitative and qualitative questions and describe the process that we evolved to monitor and disclose sensitive mental health information, providing one example of how researchers might effectively address the responsibilities that emerge when collecting sensitive information from students within an education system. The patterns and processes that emerged illustrate that the inclusion of mental distress information can elicit important insights, but also brings responsibilities for minimising risks and maximising benefits.
{"title":"The responsibility of knowledge: Identifying and reporting students with evidence of psychological distress in large-scale school-based studies","authors":"Margaret L. Kern, H. Cahill, L. Morrish, A. Farrelly, Keren Shlezinger, Hayley K. Jach","doi":"10.1177/1747016120952511","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016120952511","url":null,"abstract":"The use of psychometric tools to investigate the impact of school-based wellbeing programs raises a number of ethical issues around students’ rights, confidentiality and protection. Researchers have explicit ethical obligations to protect participants from potential psychological harms, but guidance is needed for effectively navigating disclosure of identifiable confidential information that indicates signs of psychological distress. Drawing on a large-scale study examining student, school, and system-based factors that impact the implementation of a school-based social and emotional learning program, we describe patterns of distress attained from quantitative and qualitative questions and describe the process that we evolved to monitor and disclose sensitive mental health information, providing one example of how researchers might effectively address the responsibilities that emerge when collecting sensitive information from students within an education system. The patterns and processes that emerged illustrate that the inclusion of mental distress information can elicit important insights, but also brings responsibilities for minimising risks and maximising benefits.","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":"69 1","pages":"193 - 216"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2020-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79152490","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-08-28DOI: 10.1177/1747016120952503
G. Caswell, N. Turner
This paper explores ethical challenges encountered when conducting research about, and telling, the stories of individuals who had died before the research began. Cases were explored where individuals who lived alone had died alone at home and where their bodies had been undiscovered for an extended period. The ethical review process had not had anything significant to say about the deceased ‘participants’. As social researchers we considered whether it was ethical to involve deceased people in research when they had no opportunity to decline, and we were concerned about how to report such research. The idea that the dead can be harmed did not help our decision-making processes, but the notion of the dead having limited human rights conferred upon them was useful and aided us in clarifying how to conduct our research and disseminate our findings.
{"title":"Ethical challenges in researching and telling the stories of recently deceased people","authors":"G. Caswell, N. Turner","doi":"10.1177/1747016120952503","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016120952503","url":null,"abstract":"This paper explores ethical challenges encountered when conducting research about, and telling, the stories of individuals who had died before the research began. Cases were explored where individuals who lived alone had died alone at home and where their bodies had been undiscovered for an extended period. The ethical review process had not had anything significant to say about the deceased ‘participants’. As social researchers we considered whether it was ethical to involve deceased people in research when they had no opportunity to decline, and we were concerned about how to report such research. The idea that the dead can be harmed did not help our decision-making processes, but the notion of the dead having limited human rights conferred upon them was useful and aided us in clarifying how to conduct our research and disseminate our findings.","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":"81 1","pages":"162 - 175"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2020-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"91152683","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-08-27DOI: 10.1177/1747016120952500
P. Tubig, Darcy McCusker
The development of novel neurotechnologies, such as brain-computer interface (BCI) and deep-brain stimulation (DBS), are very promising in improving the welfare and life prospects many people. These include life-changing therapies for medical conditions and enhancements of cognitive, emotional, and moral capacities. Yet there are also numerous moral risks and uncertainties involved in developing novel neurotechnologies. For this reason, the progress of novel neurotechnology research requires that diverse publics place trust in researchers to develop neural interfaces in ways that are overall beneficial to society and responsive to ethical values and concerns. In this article, we argue that researchers and research institutions have a moral responsibility to foster and demonstrate trustworthiness with respect to broader publics whose lives will be affected by their research. Using Annette Baier’s conceptual analysis of trust, which takes competence and good will to be its central components, we propose that practices of ethical reflexivity could play a valuable role in fostering the trustworthiness of individual researchers and research institutions through building and exhibiting their moral competence and good will. By ethical reflexivity, we mean the reflective and discursive activity of articulating, analyzing, and assessing the assumptions and values that might be underlying their ethical actions and projects. Here, we share an ethics dialog tool—called the Scientific Perspectives and Ethics Commitments Survey (or SPECS)—developed by the University of Washington’s Center of Neurotechnology (CNT) Neuroethics Thrust. Ultimately, the aim is to show the promise of ethical reflexivity practices, like SPECS, as a method of enhancing trustworthiness in researchers and their institutions that seek to develop novel neurotechnologies for the overall benefit of society.
{"title":"Fostering the trustworthiness of researchers: SPECS and the role of ethical reflexivity in novel neurotechnology research","authors":"P. Tubig, Darcy McCusker","doi":"10.1177/1747016120952500","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016120952500","url":null,"abstract":"The development of novel neurotechnologies, such as brain-computer interface (BCI) and deep-brain stimulation (DBS), are very promising in improving the welfare and life prospects many people. These include life-changing therapies for medical conditions and enhancements of cognitive, emotional, and moral capacities. Yet there are also numerous moral risks and uncertainties involved in developing novel neurotechnologies. For this reason, the progress of novel neurotechnology research requires that diverse publics place trust in researchers to develop neural interfaces in ways that are overall beneficial to society and responsive to ethical values and concerns. In this article, we argue that researchers and research institutions have a moral responsibility to foster and demonstrate trustworthiness with respect to broader publics whose lives will be affected by their research. Using Annette Baier’s conceptual analysis of trust, which takes competence and good will to be its central components, we propose that practices of ethical reflexivity could play a valuable role in fostering the trustworthiness of individual researchers and research institutions through building and exhibiting their moral competence and good will. By ethical reflexivity, we mean the reflective and discursive activity of articulating, analyzing, and assessing the assumptions and values that might be underlying their ethical actions and projects. Here, we share an ethics dialog tool—called the Scientific Perspectives and Ethics Commitments Survey (or SPECS)—developed by the University of Washington’s Center of Neurotechnology (CNT) Neuroethics Thrust. Ultimately, the aim is to show the promise of ethical reflexivity practices, like SPECS, as a method of enhancing trustworthiness in researchers and their institutions that seek to develop novel neurotechnologies for the overall benefit of society.","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":"21 1","pages":"143 - 161"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2020-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81877532","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-07-03DOI: 10.1177/1747016120936324
Katie Lamb, C. Humphreys, K. Hegarty
There has been growing enthusiasm amongst those who undertake research with children, for the development of participatory and visual research methods. The greater availability and affordability of digital technology (such as digital cameras, tablets and smart phones) has meant that there has been greater scope for digital technology to support participatory research methods, or augment more traditional qualitative research methods. While digital technology provides new opportunities for qualitative researchers, they also come with a series of challenges – some of which have been grappled with by those using more traditional research methods but also some which are new. Our study was undertaken in Victoria, Australia, and used a combination of interviews, focus groups and digital storytelling to bring together two strands of work which have historically occurred separately: work with children experiencing domestic violence and programs for men who use domestic violence. While digital storytelling proved to be an effective method of engaging children and young people in the research, a range of challenging ethical issues emerged. Some of these issues were considered as part of the formal ‘procedural ethics’ process, but additional and more challenging issues relating to anonymity and the complex safety considerations of using of the children’s digital stories within programs for men who use violence and dissemination emerged in practice. It is hoped that sharing our experiences and decision-making will contribute to the knowledge base for others considering engaging in sensitive research using digital technology.
{"title":"Research ethics in practice: challenges of using digital technology to embed the voices of children and young people within programs for fathers who use domestic violence","authors":"Katie Lamb, C. Humphreys, K. Hegarty","doi":"10.1177/1747016120936324","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016120936324","url":null,"abstract":"There has been growing enthusiasm amongst those who undertake research with children, for the development of participatory and visual research methods. The greater availability and affordability of digital technology (such as digital cameras, tablets and smart phones) has meant that there has been greater scope for digital technology to support participatory research methods, or augment more traditional qualitative research methods. While digital technology provides new opportunities for qualitative researchers, they also come with a series of challenges – some of which have been grappled with by those using more traditional research methods but also some which are new. Our study was undertaken in Victoria, Australia, and used a combination of interviews, focus groups and digital storytelling to bring together two strands of work which have historically occurred separately: work with children experiencing domestic violence and programs for men who use domestic violence. While digital storytelling proved to be an effective method of engaging children and young people in the research, a range of challenging ethical issues emerged. Some of these issues were considered as part of the formal ‘procedural ethics’ process, but additional and more challenging issues relating to anonymity and the complex safety considerations of using of the children’s digital stories within programs for men who use violence and dissemination emerged in practice. It is hoped that sharing our experiences and decision-making will contribute to the knowledge base for others considering engaging in sensitive research using digital technology.","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":"7 1","pages":"176 - 192"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2020-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75807782","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-07-01DOI: 10.1177/1747016120941632
Nandini K Kumar, V. Muthuswamy
The COVID-19 pandemic has brought unprecedented, major challenges to the ethical conduct of research including challenges for the rapid and robust ethical review of biomedical research. The Indian Council of Medical Research’s “National Guidelines for Ethics Committees Reviewing Biomedical and Health Research during COVID-19 Pandemic” aim to assist ethics committees in this time of crisis, whilst simultaneously protecting researchers and research participants. Whilst ethics committees are encouraged to approve studies rapidly, the Indian guidelines also make clear that no shortcuts will be taken. Informed consent must be obtained innovatively, but cannot be dispensed with. Vulnerable people should only be involved in clinical research that is relevant to their health needs. Approaching communities for research also requires new, trust-building methods, given that healthcare workers and researchers have been assaulted during their COVID-19 research. Importantly, the media must carry their share of responsibility and avoid spreading fake news. From an Indian perspective, the question of whether we are sitting on a volcano that might erupt at any time causing more damage than we ever expected is currently unclear. Only global collaborative efforts will help to tide over in the present crisis.
{"title":"Fostering ethical biomedical and health research in India during the COVID-19 pandemic","authors":"Nandini K Kumar, V. Muthuswamy","doi":"10.1177/1747016120941632","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016120941632","url":null,"abstract":"The COVID-19 pandemic has brought unprecedented, major challenges to the ethical conduct of research including challenges for the rapid and robust ethical review of biomedical research. The Indian Council of Medical Research’s “National Guidelines for Ethics Committees Reviewing Biomedical and Health Research during COVID-19 Pandemic” aim to assist ethics committees in this time of crisis, whilst simultaneously protecting researchers and research participants. Whilst ethics committees are encouraged to approve studies rapidly, the Indian guidelines also make clear that no shortcuts will be taken. Informed consent must be obtained innovatively, but cannot be dispensed with. Vulnerable people should only be involved in clinical research that is relevant to their health needs. Approaching communities for research also requires new, trust-building methods, given that healthcare workers and researchers have been assaulted during their COVID-19 research. Importantly, the media must carry their share of responsibility and avoid spreading fake news. From an Indian perspective, the question of whether we are sitting on a volcano that might erupt at any time causing more damage than we ever expected is currently unclear. Only global collaborative efforts will help to tide over in the present crisis.","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":"62 1","pages":"1 - 10"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2020-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89851597","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：