Advertisement

Organizing and Contesting Research Ethics

The Global Position
Living reference work entry
  • 104 Downloads

Abstract

The machinery of research ethics oversight has grown in size, disciplinary ambit, and geographical reach over the last 50 years, generating overlapping patterns of regulation, statements, and guidelines that operate at supranational, national, local, community, discipline, topic, and institutional levels. These documents generate intersections as well as leaving interstitial spaces as governments, research agencies, institutions, associations, and supranational bodies attempt to assert, extend, and sometimes deny their authority over particular practices. While commentators have noted the widening control and intensification of the gaze that has occurred, the nature of, philosophical and actuarial support for, and the effectiveness of this oversight have been contested by researchers, research institutions, and communities of participants.

Keywords

Research ethics review Principlism Policy transfer Policy migration Indigenous research ethics 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This chapter draws and expands on material Israel (2015, 2019), originally published in Research Ethics and Integrity for Social Scientists: Beyond Regulatory Compliance and The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research Ethics. Any material originally from these works has been modified and reproduced with permission of SAGE Publications Ltd. It also draws on material drafted for and to be published in Gan and Israel (2019) and Israel and Fozdar (2019).

References

  1. Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS) (2012) Guidelines for Ethical Research in Australian Indigenous Studies (GERAIS). Available at: http://www.aiatsis.gov.au/research/docs/GERAIS.pdf. Accessed 23 Dec 2013
  2. Beecher HK (1966) Ethics and clinical research. N Engl J Med 274(24):1354–1360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) (2016) International ethical guidelines for health-related research involving human subjects. Available at: https://cioms.ch/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/WEB-CIOMS-EthicalGuidelines.pdf. Accessed 6 Nov 2018
  4. Department of Health (2015) Ethics in health research: principles, processes and structures, 2nd edn. Department of Health, PretoriaGoogle Scholar
  5. Dingwall R, Rozelle V (2011) The ethical governance of German physicians, 1890–1939: are there lessons from history? J Policy Hist 23(1):29–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) (United Kingdom) (2015) Framework for research ethics. Economic and Social Research Council, Swindon. Available at: https://esrc.ukri.org/files/funding/guidance-for-applicants/esrc-framework-for-research-ethics-2015/. Accessed 13 May 2018Google Scholar
  7. First Nations Information Governance Centre (2007) OCAP: ownership, control, access and possession. National Aboriginal Health Organization, OttawaGoogle Scholar
  8. Gan Z-R, Israel M (2019) Transnational policy migration, interdisciplinary policy transfer and decolonization: tracing the patterns of research ethics regulation in Taiwan. Dev World Bioeth.  https://doi.org/10.1111/dewb.12224
  9. Gillon R (1994) Medical ethics: four principles plus attention to scope. BMJ Br Med J 309(6948):184–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Guerriero ICZ, Bosi MLM (2015) Research ethics in the dynamic of scientific field: challenges in the building of guidelines for social sciences and humanities. Cien Saude Colet 20(9):2615–2624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Guta A, Nixon SA, Wilson MG (2013) Resisting the seduction of ‘ethics creep’: using Foucault to surface complexity and contradiction in research ethics review. Soc Sci Med 98:301–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Haggerty K (2004) Ethics creep: governing social science research in the name of ethics. Qual Sociol 27(4):391–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hedgecoe A (2008) Research ethics review and the sociological research relationship. Sociology 42(5):873–886CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hedgecoe A (2009) ‘A Form of Practical Machinery’: the origins of research ethics committees in the UK, 1967–1972. Med Hist 53:331–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hedgecoe A (2012) The problems of presumed isomorphism and the ethics review of social science: a response to Schrag. Res Ethics 8(2):79–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hudson M, Milne M, Reynolds P, Russell K, Smith B (2010) Te Ara Tika. Guidelines for Māori research ethics: a framework for researchers and ethics committee members. Final Draft. Available at: http://www.hrc.govt.nz/sites/default/files/Te%20Ara%20Tika%20Guidelines%20for%20Maori%20Research%20Ethics.pdf. Accessed 23 Dec 2013
  17. Hunter D (2018) Research ethics committees: what are they good for? In: Iphofen R, Tolich M (eds) The SAGE handbook of qualitative research ethics. Sage, London, pp 289–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Indian Council of Medical Research (2017) National ethical guidelines for biomedical and health research involving human participants. ICMR, New Delhi. Available at: http://icmr.nic.in/sites/default/files/guidelines/ICMR_Ethical_Guidelines_2017.pdf. Accessed 22 May 2019
  19. Israel M (2015) Research ethics and integrity for social scientists: beyond regulatory compliance. Sage, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Israel M (2019) Ethical imperialism? Exporting research ethics to the global south. In: Iphofen R, Tolich M (eds) The SAGE handbook of qualitative research ethics. Sage, London, pp 89–102Google Scholar
  21. Israel M, Fozdar F (2019) The ethics of the study of Social Problems. In Marvasti, A & Treviño, J (eds) Researching social problems. New York: Routledge pp. 188–204Google Scholar
  22. Israel M, Allen G, Thomson C (2016) Australian research ethics governance: plotting the demise of the adversarial culture. In: van den Hoonaard W, Hamilton A (eds) The ethics rupture: exploring alternatives to formal research-ethics review. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, pp 285–316Google Scholar
  23. Jennings S (2012) Response to Schrag: what are ethics committees for anyway? A defence of social science research ethics review. Res Ethics 8(2):87–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research (NCPHSBBR) (1979) Belmont report: ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Report, Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of the Secretary, Protection of Human Subjects, Michigan. Available at: https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/read-the-belmont-report/index.html. Accessed 13 May 2018
  25. National Health and Medical Research Council (2018) Ethical conduct in research with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples and communities: guidelines for researchers and stakeholders. Canberra. Available at: https://nhmrc.gov.au/about-us/publications/ethical-conduct-research-aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-peoples-and-communities. Accessed 5 Nov 2018
  26. Office for Human Research Protections (2019) International compilation of human research standards. Office for Human Research Protections, Washington, DC. https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/international/compilation-human-research-standards/index.html. Accessed 22 May 2019Google Scholar
  27. Pappworth MH (1967) Human guinea pigs: experimentation on man. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  28. Philippine Health Research Ethics Board (2017) National ethical guidelines for health and health related research. Department of Science and Technology – Philippine Council for Health Research and Development, Manila. http://www.ethics.healthresearch.ph/index.php/phoca-downloads/category/4-neg. Accessed 7 Nov 2018Google Scholar
  29. Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues (2011) ‘Ethically Impossible’: STD research in Guatemala from 1946 to 1948. PCSBI, Washington, DC. Available at: https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/EthicallyImpossible_PCSBI_110913.pdf. Accessed 13 May 2018Google Scholar
  30. Qatar Supreme Council of Health (2009) Policies, regulations and guidelines for research involving human subjects. Available at: http://www.sch.gov.qa/sch/UserFiles/File/Research%20Department/PoliciesandRegulations.pdf. Accessed 23 Dec 2013
  31. Schrag ZM (2010) Ethical imperialism: institutional review boards and the social sciences, 1965–2009. Johns Hopkins University Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  32. Smith LT (2012) Decolonising methodologies: research and indigenous peoples, 2nd edn. Zed, LondonGoogle Scholar
  33. Social Science Task Force (1990) Principles for the conduct of Arctic research. National Science Foundation. Available at: https://www.nsf.gov/geo/opp/arctic/conduct.jsp#implementation. Accessed 4 Jul 2018
  34. South African San Institute (2017) San code of ethics. http://trust-project.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/San-Code-of-RESEARCH-Ethics-Booklet-final.pdf. Accessed 13 May 2018
  35. Stark L (2012) Behind closed doors: IRBs and the making of ethical research. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  36. Tauri JM (2018) Research ethics, informed consent and the disempowerment of First Nation peoples. Res Ethics 14(3):1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tri-Council (Canadian Institutes of Health Research, National Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada) (2010) Tri-council policy statement: ethical conduct for research involving humans. Public Works and Government Services, Ottawa. Available at: http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/pdf/eng/tcps2/TCPS_2_FINAL_Web.pdf. Accessed 23 Dec 2013Google Scholar
  38. TRUST Project (2018) Global code of conduct for research in resource-poor settings. Available at: http://www.globalcodeofconduct.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Global-Code-of-Conduct-Brochure.pdf. Accessed 5 Nov 2018
  39. UNESCO (2005) Universal declaration on bioethics and human rights. UNESCO, Paris. Available at: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001461/146180E.pdf. Accessed 6 Nov 2018Google Scholar
  40. World Medical Association (WMA) (1964) Declaration of Helsinki. Adopted by the 18th WMA General Assembly, Helsinki, FinlandGoogle Scholar

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy ServicesPerthAustralia
  2. 2.Murdoch UniversityPerthAustralia
  3. 3.University of Western AustraliaPerthAustralia

Personalised recommendations