首页 > 最新文献

Research Ethics最新文献

英文 中文
Research Responsibility Agreement: a tool to support ethical research 研究责任协议:支持伦理研究的工具
IF 1.7 Q1 Arts and Humanities Pub Date : 2023-04-07 DOI: 10.1177/17470161231166600
M. Murdock, Stephanie Erickson
When engaging in community-based research, it is important to consider ethical research practices throughout the project. While current research practices require many investigators to obtain approval from an ethics review board before starting a project, more is required to ensure that ethical principles are applied once the investigations begin and after the investigations are complete. In response to this concern, as expressed by workers at a feminist non-profit during a community placement, we developed a tool to foster both greater ethical and feminist research practice in community-based research. Using feminist theories, methodologies, and concepts such as epistemic justice, epistemic trust, and coauthorship, a tool was developed to support researchers and other collaborators in building relationships of reciprocity. This tool, called the Research Responsibility Agreement (RRA) invites all members of a research project to explicitly reflect on their role in the research, their relationships with other collaborators, their responsibility to contributing meaningfully in the project, and their plans to remain accountable to one another. In doing so, the RRA adds to existing tools that support ethical research by sharing explicit reflections from all collaborators on how to prevent harm and by asking them to reflect on ethical practices beyond the initial stages of the project. The RRA also encourages greater engagement from researchers and collaborators toward building meaningful relationships with each other, and with participants, to work together in advancing social change. As a practical tool that promotes reflection, that builds relationships, and that holds all parties accountable to ethical and feminist research practices, the RRA has the potential to generate impactful change in community-based research projects and beyond. While the RRA is tailored to community-based research, it can be applied widely to any research project and has the potential to revolutionize how research relationships are built across disciplines.
在从事基于社区的研究时,在整个项目中考虑伦理研究实践是很重要的。虽然目前的研究实践要求许多研究人员在开始一个项目之前获得伦理审查委员会的批准,但在调查开始和调查完成后,需要更多的伦理原则得到应用。作为对这一问题的回应,正如女权主义非营利组织的工作人员在社区实习期间所表达的那样,我们开发了一个工具,以促进社区研究中更大的伦理和女权主义研究实践。利用女权主义理论、方法和概念,如认知正义、认知信任和合著,开发了一个工具来支持研究人员和其他合作者建立互惠关系。这个工具,被称为研究责任协议(RRA),邀请研究项目的所有成员明确地反映他们在研究中的角色,他们与其他合作者的关系,他们在项目中做出有意义贡献的责任,以及他们对彼此负责的计划。通过这样做,RRA增加了现有的支持伦理研究的工具,通过分享所有合作者对如何防止伤害的明确反思,并要求他们在项目的初始阶段之后反思伦理实践。RRA还鼓励研究人员和合作者更多地参与其中,彼此之间以及与参与者之间建立有意义的关系,共同努力推动社会变革。作为一种促进反思、建立关系、使各方对伦理和女权主义研究实践负责的实用工具,RRA有可能在以社区为基础的研究项目及其他领域产生有影响力的变化。虽然RRA是为基于社区的研究量身定制的,但它可以广泛应用于任何研究项目,并有可能彻底改变跨学科研究关系的建立方式。
{"title":"Research Responsibility Agreement: a tool to support ethical research","authors":"M. Murdock, Stephanie Erickson","doi":"10.1177/17470161231166600","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161231166600","url":null,"abstract":"When engaging in community-based research, it is important to consider ethical research practices throughout the project. While current research practices require many investigators to obtain approval from an ethics review board before starting a project, more is required to ensure that ethical principles are applied once the investigations begin and after the investigations are complete. In response to this concern, as expressed by workers at a feminist non-profit during a community placement, we developed a tool to foster both greater ethical and feminist research practice in community-based research. Using feminist theories, methodologies, and concepts such as epistemic justice, epistemic trust, and coauthorship, a tool was developed to support researchers and other collaborators in building relationships of reciprocity. This tool, called the Research Responsibility Agreement (RRA) invites all members of a research project to explicitly reflect on their role in the research, their relationships with other collaborators, their responsibility to contributing meaningfully in the project, and their plans to remain accountable to one another. In doing so, the RRA adds to existing tools that support ethical research by sharing explicit reflections from all collaborators on how to prevent harm and by asking them to reflect on ethical practices beyond the initial stages of the project. The RRA also encourages greater engagement from researchers and collaborators toward building meaningful relationships with each other, and with participants, to work together in advancing social change. As a practical tool that promotes reflection, that builds relationships, and that holds all parties accountable to ethical and feminist research practices, the RRA has the potential to generate impactful change in community-based research projects and beyond. While the RRA is tailored to community-based research, it can be applied widely to any research project and has the potential to revolutionize how research relationships are built across disciplines.","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2023-04-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84817675","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}
引用次数: 1
Cannabis, research ethics, and a duty of care 大麻,研究伦理,和照顾义务
IF 1.7 Q1 Arts and Humanities Pub Date : 2023-04-07 DOI: 10.1177/17470161231164530
J. Wheeldon, J. Heidt
Despite growing evidence to the contrary, researchers continue to posit causal links between cannabis, crime, psychosis, and violence. These spurious connections are rooted in history and fueled decades of structural limitations that shaped how researchers studied cannabis. Until recently, research in this area was explicitly funded to link cannabis use and harm and ignore any potential benefits. Post-prohibition cannabis research has failed to replicate the dire findings of the past. This article outlines how the history of controlling cannabis research has led to various harms, injustices, and ethical complications. We compare commonly cited research from both the prohibition and post-prohibition eras and argue that many popular claims about the dangers of cannabis are the result of ethical lapses by researchers, journals, and funders. We propose researchers in this area adopt a duty of care in cannabis research going forward. This would oblige individual researchers to establish robust research designs, employ careful analytic strategies, and acknowledge limitations in more detail. This duty involves the institutional recognition by funders, journals, and others that cannabis research has been deliberately misconstrued to criminalize, stigmatize, and pathologize.
尽管有越来越多的相反证据,但研究人员仍然认为大麻与犯罪、精神病和暴力之间存在因果关系。这些虚假的联系根植于历史,并助长了几十年来的结构性限制,这些限制影响了研究人员研究大麻的方式。直到最近,这一领域的研究都是明确地将大麻的使用与危害联系起来,而忽略了任何潜在的好处。禁令后的大麻研究未能复制过去的可怕结果。这篇文章概述了控制大麻研究的历史是如何导致各种危害、不公正和伦理并发症的。我们比较了禁酒令时期和后禁酒令时期经常被引用的研究,认为许多关于大麻危害的流行说法是研究人员、期刊和资助者道德失误的结果。我们建议这一领域的研究人员在未来的大麻研究中采取注意义务。这将迫使个别研究人员建立健全的研究设计,采用仔细的分析策略,并在更多细节上承认局限性。这一责任包括资助者、期刊和其他机构认识到大麻研究被故意误解为犯罪、污名化和病态化。
{"title":"Cannabis, research ethics, and a duty of care","authors":"J. Wheeldon, J. Heidt","doi":"10.1177/17470161231164530","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161231164530","url":null,"abstract":"Despite growing evidence to the contrary, researchers continue to posit causal links between cannabis, crime, psychosis, and violence. These spurious connections are rooted in history and fueled decades of structural limitations that shaped how researchers studied cannabis. Until recently, research in this area was explicitly funded to link cannabis use and harm and ignore any potential benefits. Post-prohibition cannabis research has failed to replicate the dire findings of the past. This article outlines how the history of controlling cannabis research has led to various harms, injustices, and ethical complications. We compare commonly cited research from both the prohibition and post-prohibition eras and argue that many popular claims about the dangers of cannabis are the result of ethical lapses by researchers, journals, and funders. We propose researchers in this area adopt a duty of care in cannabis research going forward. This would oblige individual researchers to establish robust research designs, employ careful analytic strategies, and acknowledge limitations in more detail. This duty involves the institutional recognition by funders, journals, and others that cannabis research has been deliberately misconstrued to criminalize, stigmatize, and pathologize.","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2023-04-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80705854","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}
引用次数: 1
Disclosing and Managing Non-Financial Conflicts of Interest in Scientific Publications. 科学出版物中非财务利益冲突的披露与管理。
IF 1.7 Q1 Arts and Humanities Pub Date : 2023-04-01 DOI: 10.1177/17470161221148387
David B Resnik

In the last decade, there has been increased recognition of the importance of disclosing and managing non-financial conflicts of interests to safeguard the objectivity, integrity, and trustworthiness of scientific research. While funding agencies and academic institutions have had policies for addressing non-financial interests in grant peer review and research oversight since the 1990s, scientific journals have been only recently begun to develop such policies. An impediment to the formulation of effective journal policies is that non-financial interests can be difficult to recognize and define. Journals can overcome this problem by providing guidance concerning the types of non-financial interests that should be disclosed, including direct research interests, direct professional interests, expert testimony, involvement in litigation, holding a leadership position in a non-governmental organization, providing technical or scientific advice to a non-governmental organization, and personal or professional relationships. The guidance should apply to authors, editors, and reviewers.

在过去十年中,人们越来越认识到披露和管理非财务利益冲突对于维护科学研究的客观性、完整性和可信度的重要性。虽然资助机构和学术机构自20世纪90年代以来已经制定了解决资助同行评审和研究监督中的非经济利益的政策,但科学期刊直到最近才开始制定此类政策。制定有效期刊政策的一个障碍是,非财务利益可能难以识别和界定。期刊可以通过提供关于应披露的非经济利益类型的指导来克服这一问题,这些利益包括直接的研究利益、直接的专业利益、专家证词、参与诉讼、在非政府组织担任领导职务、向非政府组织提供技术或科学咨询以及个人或专业关系。该指南应该适用于作者、编辑和审稿人。
{"title":"Disclosing and Managing Non-Financial Conflicts of Interest in Scientific Publications.","authors":"David B Resnik","doi":"10.1177/17470161221148387","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161221148387","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In the last decade, there has been increased recognition of the importance of disclosing and managing non-financial conflicts of interests to safeguard the objectivity, integrity, and trustworthiness of scientific research. While funding agencies and academic institutions have had policies for addressing non-financial interests in grant peer review and research oversight since the 1990s, scientific journals have been only recently begun to develop such policies. An impediment to the formulation of effective journal policies is that non-financial interests can be difficult to recognize and define. Journals can overcome this problem by providing guidance concerning the types of non-financial interests that should be disclosed, including direct research interests, direct professional interests, expert testimony, involvement in litigation, holding a leadership position in a non-governmental organization, providing technical or scientific advice to a non-governmental organization, and personal or professional relationships. The guidance should apply to authors, editors, and reviewers.</p>","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10448996/pdf/nihms-1868994.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10106435","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
Clarifying our policy on requiring ethics approval in submitted manuscripts 澄清我们要求在提交的稿件中获得伦理认可的政策
IF 1.7 Q1 Arts and Humanities Pub Date : 2023-03-31 DOI: 10.1177/17470161231161402
K. Chatfield, E. Dove
Creative Commons Non Commercial CC BY-NC: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage). Clarifying our policy on requiring ethics approval in submitted manuscripts
知识共享非商业性CC BY-NC:本文在知识共享署名-非商业4.0许可(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/)的条款下发布,该许可允许非商业用途,复制和分发作品,无需进一步许可,前提是原始作品的署名与SAGE和开放获取页面(https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage)上指定的一致。澄清我们要求在提交的稿件中获得伦理认可的政策
{"title":"Clarifying our policy on requiring ethics approval in submitted manuscripts","authors":"K. Chatfield, E. Dove","doi":"10.1177/17470161231161402","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161231161402","url":null,"abstract":"Creative Commons Non Commercial CC BY-NC: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage). Clarifying our policy on requiring ethics approval in submitted manuscripts","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2023-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75656423","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}
引用次数: 0
VIRT2UE: A European train-the-trainer programme for teaching research integrity VIRT2UE:欧洲教学研究诚信培训计划
IF 1.7 Q1 Arts and Humanities Pub Date : 2023-03-23 DOI: 10.1177/17470161231161267
Natalie Evans, Armin Schmolmueller, M. Stolper, Giulia Inguaggiato, Astrid Hooghiemstra, Ružica Tokalić, D. Pizzolato, Nicole Foeger, A. Marušić, Marc van Hoof, D. Lanzerath, B. Molewijk, K. Dierickx, Guy Widdershoven on
Universities and other research institutions are increasingly providing additional training in research integrity to improve the quality and reliability of research. Various training courses have been developed, with diverse learning goals and content. Despite the importance of training that focuses on moral character and professional virtues, there remains a lack of training that adopts a virtue ethics approach. To address this, we, a European Commission-funded consortium, have designed a train-the-trainer programme for research integrity. The programme is based on (1) virtue ethics, (2) the ethos of science, (3) learning by doing and (4) learner-centred teaching. The blended learning programme combines e-learning modules with participatory group sessions. Trainers are taught how to guide researchers through a series of structured exercises for fostering reflection on scientific virtues, and how to promote understanding and application of the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. Trainers are provided with adaptable tools and resources that can be used and combined in different ways. The programme implementation began in Spring 2020 and 470 trainers have participated to date. When trainers were asked to grade – between 0 (very bad) and 10 (excellent) – the e-learning modules and the participatory exercises, 60% scored a grade 8 or higher (median = 8, IQR = 2) for the e-learning modules, whereas 80% scored a grade 8 or higher (median = 9, IQR = 1) for the participatory exercises. A majority felt that the training helped them as a trainer to learn about ways to organise and teach a research integrity course (82%) and would recommend the interactive exercises to others (92%). Trainers have educated over 3300 researchers in Europe using our virtue-based approach. The VIRT2UE train-the-trainer programme fosters research integrity by providing trainers with exercises and tools which enable them to stimulate the development of good researchers across Europe.
大学和其他研究机构越来越多地提供研究诚信方面的额外培训,以提高研究的质量和可靠性。开发了各种培训课程,学习目标和内容多种多样。尽管注重道德品质和职业道德的培训很重要,但仍然缺乏采用美德伦理方法的培训。为了解决这个问题,我们——一个由欧盟委员会(European commission)资助的财团——设计了一个研究诚信培训计划。该计划基于(1)美德伦理,(2)科学精神,(3)边做边学,(4)以学习者为中心的教学。混合式学习计划将电子学习模块与参与式小组会议相结合。培训人员被教导如何通过一系列结构化的练习来指导研究人员,以促进对科学美德的反思,以及如何促进对《欧洲研究诚信行为准则》的理解和应用。为培训人员提供了适应性强的工具和资源,可以以不同的方式使用和组合。该方案于2020年春季开始实施,迄今已有470名培训师参与。当培训师被要求对电子学习模块和参与性练习进行评分时——在0(非常差)到10(优秀)之间——60%的培训师在电子学习模块上得分为8或更高(中位数= 8,IQR = 2),而80%的培训师在参与性练习上得分为8或更高(中位数= 9,IQR = 1)。大多数人认为,培训帮助他们作为培训师学习如何组织和教授研究诚信课程(82%),并将互动练习推荐给其他人(92%)。培训师已经用我们基于虚拟的方法培训了欧洲3300多名研究人员。VIRT2UE培训培训师计划通过为培训师提供练习和工具来促进研究诚信,使他们能够刺激整个欧洲优秀研究人员的发展。
{"title":"VIRT2UE: A European train-the-trainer programme for teaching research integrity","authors":"Natalie Evans, Armin Schmolmueller, M. Stolper, Giulia Inguaggiato, Astrid Hooghiemstra, Ružica Tokalić, D. Pizzolato, Nicole Foeger, A. Marušić, Marc van Hoof, D. Lanzerath, B. Molewijk, K. Dierickx, Guy Widdershoven on","doi":"10.1177/17470161231161267","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161231161267","url":null,"abstract":"Universities and other research institutions are increasingly providing additional training in research integrity to improve the quality and reliability of research. Various training courses have been developed, with diverse learning goals and content. Despite the importance of training that focuses on moral character and professional virtues, there remains a lack of training that adopts a virtue ethics approach. To address this, we, a European Commission-funded consortium, have designed a train-the-trainer programme for research integrity. The programme is based on (1) virtue ethics, (2) the ethos of science, (3) learning by doing and (4) learner-centred teaching. The blended learning programme combines e-learning modules with participatory group sessions. Trainers are taught how to guide researchers through a series of structured exercises for fostering reflection on scientific virtues, and how to promote understanding and application of the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. Trainers are provided with adaptable tools and resources that can be used and combined in different ways. The programme implementation began in Spring 2020 and 470 trainers have participated to date. When trainers were asked to grade – between 0 (very bad) and 10 (excellent) – the e-learning modules and the participatory exercises, 60% scored a grade 8 or higher (median = 8, IQR = 2) for the e-learning modules, whereas 80% scored a grade 8 or higher (median = 9, IQR = 1) for the participatory exercises. A majority felt that the training helped them as a trainer to learn about ways to organise and teach a research integrity course (82%) and would recommend the interactive exercises to others (92%). Trainers have educated over 3300 researchers in Europe using our virtue-based approach. The VIRT2UE train-the-trainer programme fosters research integrity by providing trainers with exercises and tools which enable them to stimulate the development of good researchers across Europe.","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2023-03-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86894321","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}
引用次数: 4
The Harraseeket Conference – Revisiting systems for ethics oversight of research with human participants Harraseeket会议-重新审视人类参与研究的伦理监督系统
IF 1.7 Q1 Arts and Humanities Pub Date : 2023-03-23 DOI: 10.1177/17470161231157053
S. Rosenfeld, G. Shaler, Ross Hickey
The current system of ethical oversight in the United States is based on Institutional Review Board (IRB) review. The system was established in response to well-known and egregious mistreatment of subjects in both biomedical and social and behavioral research. In the decades since the research regulations were enacted, reaction to the burden of IRB oversight has led the system to focus on compliance and limit its active oversight disproportionately to studies that could present the risk of physical harm. At the same time, the characteristics of the research enterprise have changed and methodologies now present novel risks that were not envisioned in the regulations. We convened a group of IRB professionals, academic leaders, and others to discuss limitations of the current system, how that system could be changed to recognize evolving risks and an increasing focus on participant and community voice, and how it could better serve the needs of researchers and support the societal project of science as a public good. Recommendations included a call to reexamine the academic incentive structure, to develop a system to support consideration of ethical principles from the time of study design, and to explicitly provide different ethical support and oversight for high-risk interventional trials and lower risk biomedical and social behavioral research.
美国目前的伦理监督体系是基于机构审查委员会(IRB)的审查。该系统的建立是为了应对生物医学、社会和行为研究中对受试者的众所周知的、令人震惊的虐待。自研究条例颁布以来的几十年里,对IRB监督负担的反应导致该系统将重点放在合规上,并将其积极监督不成比例地限制在可能带来身体伤害风险的研究上。与此同时,研究企业的特点发生了变化,方法现在呈现出法规中没有预见到的新风险。我们召集了一组IRB专业人员、学术领袖和其他人来讨论当前系统的局限性,如何改变该系统以识别不断变化的风险,并日益关注参与者和社区的声音,以及它如何更好地满足研究人员的需求,并支持作为公共产品的科学社会项目。建议包括呼吁重新审视学术激励结构,建立一套从研究设计开始就考虑伦理原则的系统,并明确为高风险的干预性试验和低风险的生物医学和社会行为研究提供不同的伦理支持和监督。
{"title":"The Harraseeket Conference – Revisiting systems for ethics oversight of research with human participants","authors":"S. Rosenfeld, G. Shaler, Ross Hickey","doi":"10.1177/17470161231157053","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161231157053","url":null,"abstract":"The current system of ethical oversight in the United States is based on Institutional Review Board (IRB) review. The system was established in response to well-known and egregious mistreatment of subjects in both biomedical and social and behavioral research. In the decades since the research regulations were enacted, reaction to the burden of IRB oversight has led the system to focus on compliance and limit its active oversight disproportionately to studies that could present the risk of physical harm. At the same time, the characteristics of the research enterprise have changed and methodologies now present novel risks that were not envisioned in the regulations. We convened a group of IRB professionals, academic leaders, and others to discuss limitations of the current system, how that system could be changed to recognize evolving risks and an increasing focus on participant and community voice, and how it could better serve the needs of researchers and support the societal project of science as a public good. Recommendations included a call to reexamine the academic incentive structure, to develop a system to support consideration of ethical principles from the time of study design, and to explicitly provide different ethical support and oversight for high-risk interventional trials and lower risk biomedical and social behavioral research.","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2023-03-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81642842","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}
引用次数: 2
Correction Statement: Conflict of Interest Statements 更正声明:利益冲突声明
IF 1.7 Q1 Arts and Humanities Pub Date : 2023-02-25 DOI: 10.1177/17470161231159498
Creative Commons Non Commercial CC BY-NC: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage). Correction Statement: Conflict of Interest Statements
知识共享非商业性CC BY-NC:本文在知识共享署名-非商业4.0许可(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/)的条款下发布,该许可允许非商业用途,复制和分发作品,无需进一步许可,前提是原始作品的署名与SAGE和开放获取页面(https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage)上指定的一致。更正声明:利益冲突声明
{"title":"Correction Statement: Conflict of Interest Statements","authors":"","doi":"10.1177/17470161231159498","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161231159498","url":null,"abstract":"Creative Commons Non Commercial CC BY-NC: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage). Correction Statement: Conflict of Interest Statements","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2023-02-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74917727","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}
引用次数: 0
Ethical considerations about the collection of biological samples for genetic analysis in clinical trials 临床试验中采集生物样本进行遗传分析的伦理考虑
IF 1.7 Q1 Arts and Humanities Pub Date : 2023-01-30 DOI: 10.1177/17470161231152077
Inés Galende-Domínguez, O. Rivero-Lezcano
Progress in precision medicine is being achieved through the design of clinical trials that use genetic biomarkers to guide stratification of patients and assignation to treatment or control groups. Genetic analysis of biomarkers is, therefore, essential to complete their objectives, and this involves the study of biological samples from donor patients that have been recruited according to criteria previously established in the design of the clinical trial. Nevertheless, it is becoming very common that, in the solicitation of biological samples, purposes that are beyond the objectives of the stated therapeutic trial research are introduced, like the development of ill-explained exploratory studies or the use in unspecified future research. In the digital era, the sequencing of patients’ DNA needs to be considered as a serious security matter, not only for the patients, but also for their relatives. Genetic information may be easily stored, even forever, in digital files. This engenders a permanent risk of being stolen or misused in many ways. Furthermore, re-identification of sample donors is technically feasible through their genetic data. For these reasons, genetic analysis of samples collected in clinical trials should be restricted to the accomplishment of their main objectives or well justified goals.
通过设计临床试验,使用遗传生物标记物来指导患者分层,并将其分配到治疗组或对照组,精密医学正在取得进展。因此,生物标志物的遗传分析对于完成其目标至关重要,这涉及到根据临床试验设计中先前建立的标准从供体患者中招募的生物样本的研究。然而,越来越普遍的是,在征求生物样本时,引入了超出所述治疗试验研究目标的目的,例如开发解释不清的探索性研究或在未指明的未来研究中使用。在数字时代,病人的DNA测序需要被视为一个严重的安全问题,不仅对病人,对他们的亲属也是如此。遗传信息可以很容易地存储,甚至永远存储在数字文件中。这就造成了在许多方面被窃取或滥用的永久风险。此外,通过样本供体的遗传数据对其进行重新鉴定在技术上是可行的。由于这些原因,在临床试验中收集的样本的遗传分析应限于完成其主要目标或充分证明的目标。
{"title":"Ethical considerations about the collection of biological samples for genetic analysis in clinical trials","authors":"Inés Galende-Domínguez, O. Rivero-Lezcano","doi":"10.1177/17470161231152077","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161231152077","url":null,"abstract":"Progress in precision medicine is being achieved through the design of clinical trials that use genetic biomarkers to guide stratification of patients and assignation to treatment or control groups. Genetic analysis of biomarkers is, therefore, essential to complete their objectives, and this involves the study of biological samples from donor patients that have been recruited according to criteria previously established in the design of the clinical trial. Nevertheless, it is becoming very common that, in the solicitation of biological samples, purposes that are beyond the objectives of the stated therapeutic trial research are introduced, like the development of ill-explained exploratory studies or the use in unspecified future research. In the digital era, the sequencing of patients’ DNA needs to be considered as a serious security matter, not only for the patients, but also for their relatives. Genetic information may be easily stored, even forever, in digital files. This engenders a permanent risk of being stolen or misused in many ways. Furthermore, re-identification of sample donors is technically feasible through their genetic data. For these reasons, genetic analysis of samples collected in clinical trials should be restricted to the accomplishment of their main objectives or well justified goals.","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2023-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87527667","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}
引用次数: 1
Ethics governance in Scottish universities: how can we do better? A qualitative study 苏格兰大学伦理治理:如何做得更好?定性研究
IF 1.7 Q1 Arts and Humanities Pub Date : 2023-01-12 DOI: 10.1177/17470161221147801
E. Dove, C. Douglas
While ethical norms for conducting academic research in the United Kingdom are relatively clear, there is little empirical understanding of how university research ethics committees (RECs) themselves operate and whether they are seen to operate well. In this article, we offer insights from a project focused on the Scottish university context. We deployed a three-sided qualitative approach: (i) document analysis; (ii) interviews with REC members, administrators, and managers; and (iii) direct observation of REC meetings. We found that RECs have diverse operation and vary in terms of what members understand to be the remit of their REC and what should constitute the content of ethics review. Overall, though, most participants perceive university RECs as operating well. When asked what they consider to be areas for further improvement, most commented on: implementation of an online system; more experience with how to evaluate various kinds of research projects; best practice exchange and training opportunities; more accurate reflection of the REC role as part of the university’s workload allocation model; and greater recognition of the importance of research ethics governance in the university’s research environment, and, for the members themselves, their career advancement. Based on our findings and subsequent discussions during an end-of-project roundtable with stakeholders, we propose a model of collaboration that can address some of the identified areas that could benefit from further improvement. This model would facilitate a heightened awareness of the importance of supporting REC members in their own effort in assisting students and staff alike in undertaking as ethically robust research as possible.
虽然在英国进行学术研究的伦理规范相对明确,但对于大学研究伦理委员会(rec)本身如何运作以及它们是否被视为运作良好,很少有经验上的理解。在这篇文章中,我们提供了一个专注于苏格兰大学环境的项目的见解。我们采用了三面定性方法:(1)文献分析;(ii)与REC成员、管理人员和经理的访谈;及(iii)直接观察选举委员会会议。我们发现,伦理委员会的运作方式各不相同,成员对其伦理委员会职权范围的理解以及伦理审查的内容也各不相同。但总体而言,大多数参与者认为大学RECs运作良好。当被问及他们认为需要进一步改进的地方时,大多数人评论说:实施在线系统;对如何评估各种研究项目有更多的经验;最佳实践交流和培训机会;更准确地反映REC作为大学工作量分配模式一部分的作用;并进一步认识到研究伦理治理在大学研究环境中的重要性,以及对成员自身职业发展的重要性。根据我们的发现和随后与利益相关者在项目结束圆桌会议上的讨论,我们提出了一种合作模式,可以解决一些可以从进一步改进中受益的已确定领域。这种模式将有助于提高人们对支持研究中心成员努力协助学生和教职员工进行尽可能符合道德规范的研究的重要性的认识。
{"title":"Ethics governance in Scottish universities: how can we do better? A qualitative study","authors":"E. Dove, C. Douglas","doi":"10.1177/17470161221147801","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161221147801","url":null,"abstract":"While ethical norms for conducting academic research in the United Kingdom are relatively clear, there is little empirical understanding of how university research ethics committees (RECs) themselves operate and whether they are seen to operate well. In this article, we offer insights from a project focused on the Scottish university context. We deployed a three-sided qualitative approach: (i) document analysis; (ii) interviews with REC members, administrators, and managers; and (iii) direct observation of REC meetings. We found that RECs have diverse operation and vary in terms of what members understand to be the remit of their REC and what should constitute the content of ethics review. Overall, though, most participants perceive university RECs as operating well. When asked what they consider to be areas for further improvement, most commented on: implementation of an online system; more experience with how to evaluate various kinds of research projects; best practice exchange and training opportunities; more accurate reflection of the REC role as part of the university’s workload allocation model; and greater recognition of the importance of research ethics governance in the university’s research environment, and, for the members themselves, their career advancement. Based on our findings and subsequent discussions during an end-of-project roundtable with stakeholders, we propose a model of collaboration that can address some of the identified areas that could benefit from further improvement. This model would facilitate a heightened awareness of the importance of supporting REC members in their own effort in assisting students and staff alike in undertaking as ethically robust research as possible.","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2023-01-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84745680","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}
引用次数: 3
Overcoming barriers to informed consent in neurological research: Perspectives from a national survey. 克服神经学研究中的知情同意障碍:来自全国调查的观点。
IF 1.7 Q1 Arts and Humanities Pub Date : 2023-01-01 Epub Date: 2022-10-30 DOI: 10.1177/17470161221131497
Lauren R Sankary, Megan E Zelinsky, Paul J Ford, Eric C Blackstone, Robert J Fox

The ethical recruitment of participants with neurological disorders in clinical research requires obtaining initial and ongoing informed consent. The purpose of this study is to characterize barriers faced by research personnel in obtaining informed consent from research participants with neurological disorders and to identify strategies applied by researchers to overcome those barriers. This study was designed as a web-based survey of US researchers with an optional follow-up interview. A subset of participants who completed the survey were selected using a stratified purposeful sampling strategy and invited to participate in an in-depth qualitative interview by phone or video conference. Data were analyzed using a mixed methods approach, including content analysis of survey responses and thematic analysis of interview responses. Over 1 year, 113 survey responses were received from US research personnel directly involved in obtaining informed consent from participants in neurological research. Frequently identified barriers to informed consent included: cognitive and communication impairments (e.g. aphasia), unrealistic expectations of research participants, mistrust of medical research, time constraints, literacy barriers, lack of available social support, and practical or resource-related constraints. Strategies to enhance informed consent included: involving close others to support participant understanding of study-related information, collaborating with more experienced research personnel to facilitate training in obtaining informed consent, encouraging participants to review consent forms in advance of consent discussions, and using printed materials and visual references. Beyond conveying study-related information, researchers included in this study endorsed ethical responsibilities to support deliberation necessary to informed consent in the context of misconceptions about research, unrealistic expectations, limited understanding, mistrust, and/or pressure from close others. Findings highlight the importance of training researchers involved in obtaining informed consent in neurological research to address disease-specific challenges and to support the decision-making processes of potential research participants and their close others.

临床研究中神经系统疾病参与者的伦理招募需要获得初步和持续的知情同意。本研究的目的是描述研究人员在获得患有神经系统疾病的研究参与者的知情同意时所面临的障碍,并确定研究人员为克服这些障碍而采取的策略。这项研究是对美国研究人员进行的一项基于网络的调查,并进行了可选的后续采访。使用分层有目的的抽样策略选择完成调查的参与者子集,并邀请他们通过电话或视频会议参加深入的定性访谈。数据分析采用混合方法,包括调查回复的内容分析和访谈回复的主题分析。在一年多的时间里,直接参与获得神经研究参与者知情同意的美国研究人员收到了113份调查回复。经常发现的知情同意障碍包括:认知和沟通障碍(如失语症)、对研究参与者不切实际的期望、对医学研究的不信任、时间限制、识字障碍、缺乏可用的社会支持以及实际或资源相关的限制。加强知情同意的战略包括:让亲密的其他人参与进来,支持参与者了解研究相关信息,与更有经验的研究人员合作,促进获得知情同意的培训,鼓励参与者在同意讨论之前审查同意书,以及使用印刷材料和视觉参考资料。除了传达研究相关信息外,本研究中的研究人员还认可了在对研究的误解、不切实际的期望、有限的理解、不信任和/或来自亲密他人的压力的情况下,支持知情同意所需审议的伦理责任。研究结果强调了在神经学研究中培训参与获得知情同意的研究人员的重要性,以应对特定疾病的挑战,并支持潜在研究参与者及其亲密他人的决策过程。
{"title":"Overcoming barriers to informed consent in neurological research: Perspectives from a national survey.","authors":"Lauren R Sankary, Megan E Zelinsky, Paul J Ford, Eric C Blackstone, Robert J Fox","doi":"10.1177/17470161221131497","DOIUrl":"10.1177/17470161221131497","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The ethical recruitment of participants with neurological disorders in clinical research requires obtaining initial and ongoing informed consent. The purpose of this study is to characterize barriers faced by research personnel in obtaining informed consent from research participants with neurological disorders and to identify strategies applied by researchers to overcome those barriers. This study was designed as a web-based survey of US researchers with an optional follow-up interview. A subset of participants who completed the survey were selected using a stratified purposeful sampling strategy and invited to participate in an in-depth qualitative interview by phone or video conference. Data were analyzed using a mixed methods approach, including content analysis of survey responses and thematic analysis of interview responses. Over 1 year, 113 survey responses were received from US research personnel directly involved in obtaining informed consent from participants in neurological research. Frequently identified barriers to informed consent included: cognitive and communication impairments (e.g. aphasia), unrealistic expectations of research participants, mistrust of medical research, time constraints, literacy barriers, lack of available social support, and practical or resource-related constraints. Strategies to enhance informed consent included: involving close others to support participant understanding of study-related information, collaborating with more experienced research personnel to facilitate training in obtaining informed consent, encouraging participants to review consent forms in advance of consent discussions, and using printed materials and visual references. Beyond conveying study-related information, researchers included in this study endorsed ethical responsibilities to support deliberation necessary to informed consent in the context of misconceptions about research, unrealistic expectations, limited understanding, mistrust, and/or pressure from close others. Findings highlight the importance of training researchers involved in obtaining informed consent in neurological research to address disease-specific challenges and to support the decision-making processes of potential research participants and their close others.</p>","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10609656/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"71414490","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
期刊
Research Ethics
全部 Acc. Chem. Res. ACS Applied Bio Materials ACS Appl. Electron. Mater. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces ACS Appl. Nano Mater. ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. ACS BIOMATER-SCI ENG ACS Catal. ACS Cent. Sci. ACS Chem. Biol. ACS Chemical Health & Safety ACS Chem. Neurosci. ACS Comb. Sci. ACS Earth Space Chem. ACS Energy Lett. ACS Infect. Dis. ACS Macro Lett. ACS Mater. Lett. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. ACS Nano ACS Omega ACS Photonics ACS Sens. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. ACS Synth. Biol. Anal. Chem. BIOCHEMISTRY-US Bioconjugate Chem. BIOMACROMOLECULES Chem. Res. Toxicol. Chem. Rev. Chem. Mater. CRYST GROWTH DES ENERG FUEL Environ. Sci. Technol. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. IND ENG CHEM RES Inorg. Chem. J. Agric. Food. Chem. J. Chem. Eng. Data J. Chem. Educ. J. Chem. Inf. Model. J. Chem. Theory Comput. J. Med. Chem. J. Nat. Prod. J PROTEOME RES J. Am. Chem. Soc. LANGMUIR MACROMOLECULES Mol. Pharmaceutics Nano Lett. Org. Lett. ORG PROCESS RES DEV ORGANOMETALLICS J. Org. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. A J. Phys. Chem. B J. Phys. Chem. C J. Phys. Chem. Lett. Analyst Anal. Methods Biomater. Sci. Catal. Sci. Technol. Chem. Commun. Chem. Soc. Rev. CHEM EDUC RES PRACT CRYSTENGCOMM Dalton Trans. Energy Environ. Sci. ENVIRON SCI-NANO ENVIRON SCI-PROC IMP ENVIRON SCI-WAT RES Faraday Discuss. Food Funct. Green Chem. Inorg. Chem. Front. Integr. Biol. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. J. Mater. Chem. A J. Mater. Chem. B J. Mater. Chem. C Lab Chip Mater. Chem. Front. Mater. Horiz. MEDCHEMCOMM Metallomics Mol. Biosyst. Mol. Syst. Des. Eng. Nanoscale Nanoscale Horiz. Nat. Prod. Rep. New J. Chem. Org. Biomol. Chem. Org. Chem. Front. PHOTOCH PHOTOBIO SCI PCCP Polym. Chem.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1