scholarly journals Engaging research ethics committees to develop an ethics and governance framework for best practices in genomic research and biobanking in Africa: the H3Africa model

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Paulina Tindana ◽  
◽  
Aminu Yakubu ◽  
Ciara Staunton ◽  
Alice Matimba ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Best Practices ◽  
Research Ethics ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Genomic Research ◽  
Research Ethics Committees ◽  
Ethical Challenges ◽  
Governance Framework ◽  
Regulatory Frameworks ◽  
Engagement Process ◽  
Genomic Studies

Abstract In the past decade, there has been an increase in genomic research and biobanking activities in Africa. Research initiatives such as the Human Heredity and Health in Africa (H3Africa) Consortium are contributing to the development of scientific capacity and infrastructure to support these studies on the continent. Despite this growth, genomic research and biobanking have raised important ethical challenges for key research stakeholders, including members of research ethics committees. One of these is the limited ethical and regulatory frameworks to guide the review and conduct of genomic studies, particularly in Africa. This paper is a reflection on a series of consultative activities with research ethics committees in Africa which informed the development of an ethics and governance framework for best practices in genomic research and biobanking in Africa. The paper highlights the engagement process and the lessoned learned.

scholarly journals Research ethics by design: A collaborative research design proposal

2016 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 84-91
Author(s):  
Donald S Borrett ◽  
Heather Sampson ◽  
Ann Cavoukian
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Research Design ◽  
Collaborative Research ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Research Ethics Committees ◽  
Regulatory Frameworks ◽  
Collective Benefit ◽  
Design Proposal

Privacy by Design, a globally accepted framework for personal data management and privacy protection, advances the view that privacy cannot be assured solely by compliance with regulatory frameworks but must become an organisation’s default mode of operation. We are proposing a similar template for the research ethics review process. The Research Ethics by Design framework involves research ethics committees engaging researchers during the design phase of the proposal so that ethical considerations may be directly embedded in the science as opposed to being viewed as addendums after the fact. This collaborative research design proposal results in the establishment of a culture of ethical research rather than research with ethical oversight. Both researchers and research ethics committees come to view the review process as one in which individual protection and collective benefit co-exist in a doubly-enabling positive-sum manner.

scholarly journals Ethical concerns in suicide research: thematic analysis of the views of human research ethics committees in Australia

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Emma Barnard ◽  
Georgia Dempster ◽  
Karolina Krysinska ◽  
Lennart Reifels ◽  
Jo Robinson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Thematic Analysis ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Research Ethics Committees ◽  
Ethical Challenges ◽  
Ethical Guidelines ◽  
Human Research ◽  
Related Research ◽  
Ethical Concerns ◽  
Human Research Ethics

Abstract Background Suicide research aims to contribute to a better understanding of suicidal behaviour and its prevention. However, there are many ethical challenges in this research field, for example, regarding consent and potential risks to participants. While studies to-date have focused on the perspective of the researchers, this study aimed to investigate the views and experiences of members of Human Research Ethics Committees (HRECs) in dealing with suicide-related study applications. Methods This qualitative study entailed a thematic analysis using an inductive approach. We conducted semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample (N = 15) of HREC Chairs or their delegates from Australian research-intensive universities. The interview guide included questions regarding the ethical concerns and challenges in suicide-related research raised by HREC members, how they dealt with those challenges and what advice they could give to researchers. Results The analysis identified four main themes: (1) HREC members’ experiences of reviewing suicide-related study applications, (2) HREC members’ perceptions of suicide, suicide research, and study participants, (3) Complexity in HREC members’ decision-making processes, and (4) HREC members’ relationships with researchers. Conclusions Reliance on ethical guidelines and dialogue with researchers are crucial in the assessment of suicide-related study applications. Both researchers and HREC members may benefit from guidance and resources on how to conduct ethically sound suicide-related studies. Developing working relationships will be likely to help HRECs to facilitate high quality, ethical suicide-related research and researchers to conduct such research.

Ethical issues in genomic research: Proposing guiding principles co-produced with stakeholders

2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 194-198
Author(s):  
D Carrieri ◽  
L Jackson ◽  
C Bewshea ◽  
B Prainsack ◽  
J Mansfield ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Support Groups ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Genomic Research ◽  
Research Ethics Committees ◽  
Patient Support ◽  
Research Teams ◽  
The Uk

Ethical guidance for genomic research is increasingly sought and perceived to be necessary. Although there are pressing ethical issues in genomic research – concerning for example the recruitment of patients/participants; the process of taking consent; data sharing; and returning results to patients/participants – there is still limited useful guidance available for researchers/clinicians or for the research ethics committees who review such projects.  This report outlines the ethical principles and guidance for genomic research co-produced with stakeholders during two workshops which took place in the UK between November 2016 and May 2017. The stakeholders involved in these workshops included: healthcare professionals, genomic research teams, academics, patients, biobank managers, and representatives from the Health Research Authority (HRA), NHS Research Ethics Committees, patient support groups, pharmaceutical industry, and health policy think tanks. The co-produced principles and guidance are specifically aimed at researchers/clinicians and members of NHS Research Ethics Committees, and are formulated with the intention to be clear and accessible, both in terms of content and language, to these groups.

scholarly journals Challenges During Review of COVID-19 Research Proposals: Experience of Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University Research Ethics Committee, Egypt

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diaa Marzouk ◽  
Iman Sharawy ◽  
Isabelle Nakhla ◽  
Mostafa El Hodhod ◽  
Hoda Gadallah ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Informed Consent ◽  
Research Ethics ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Ethics Committee ◽  
University Research ◽  
Online Research ◽  
Research Ethics Committees ◽  
Ethical Challenges ◽  
Research Ethics Committee ◽  
Research Protocols

The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in an overwhelming increase in research studies submitted to research ethics committees (RECs) presenting many ethical challenges. This article aims to report the challenges encountered during review of COVID-19 research and the experience of the Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University Research Ethics Committee (FMASU REC). From April 10, 2020, until October 13, 2020, the FMASU REC reviewed 98 COVID-19 research protocols. This article addressed the question of how to face an overwhelming amount of research submitted to the REC while applying the required ethical principles. Ethical challenges included a new accelerated mode of review, online meetings, balance of risks vs. benefits, measures to mitigate risks, co-enrolment in different studies, protection of a vulnerable COVID-19 population, accelerated decisions, online research, how to handle informed consent during the pandemic, and justification of placebo arm.

scholarly journals Philosophers in research ethics committees—what do they think they’re doing? An empirical-ethical analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charlotte Gauckler
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Applied Ethics ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Research Ethics Committees ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Discussion Section ◽  
Philosophical Perspective ◽  
Level 3 ◽  
Practical Level

AbstractResearch ethics committees in Germany usually don’t have philosophers as members and if so, only contingently, not provided for by statute. This is interesting from a philosophical perspective, assuming that ethics is a discipline of philosophy. It prompts the question what role philosophers play in those committees they can be found in. Eight qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted to explore the self-perception of philosophers regarding their contribution to research ethics committees. The results show that the participants generally don’t view themselves as ethics experts. They are rather unanimous on the competencies they think they contribute to the committee but not as to whether those are philosophical competencies or applied ethical ones. In some cases they don’t see a big difference between their role and the role of the jurist member. In the discussion section of this paper I bring up three topics, prompted by the interviews, that need to be addressed: (1) I argue that the interviewees’ unwillingness to call themselves ethics experts might have to do with a too narrow understanding of ethics expertise. (2) I argue that the disagreement among the interviewees concerning the relationship between moral philosophy and applied ethics might be explained on a theoretical or on a practical level. (3) I argue that there is some lack of clarity concerning the relationship between ethics and law in research ethics committees and that further work needs to be done here. All three topics, I conclude, need further investigation.

scholarly journals Preventing ethics dumping: the challenges for Kenyan research ethics committees

2020 ◽  
pp. 174701612092506
Author(s):  
Kate Chatfield ◽  
Doris Schroeder ◽  
Anastasia Guantai ◽  
Kirana Bhatt ◽  
Elizabeth Bukusi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Resource Constraints ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Shared Responsibility ◽  
Standards Of Care ◽  
Primary Data ◽  
Research Ethics Committees ◽  
Governance System ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
System Resource

Ethics dumping is the practice of undertaking research in a low- or middle-income setting which would not be permitted, or would be severely restricted, in a high-income setting. Whilst Kenya operates a sophisticated research governance system, resource constraints and the relatively low number of accredited research ethics committees limit the capacity for ensuring ethical compliance. As a result, Kenya has been experiencing cases of ethics dumping. This article presents 11 challenges in the context of preventing ethics dumping in Kenya, namely variations in governance standards, resistance to double ethics review, resource constraints, unresolved issues in the management of biological samples, unresolved issues in the management of primary data, unsuitable informed consent procedures, cultural insensitivity, differing standards of care, reluctance to provide feedback to research communities, power differentials which facilitate the exploitation of local researchers and lack of local relevance and/or affordability of the resultant products. A reflective approach for researchers, built around the values of fairness, respect, care and honesty, is presented as a means of taking shared responsibility for preventing ethics dumping.

Research ethics committees

BMJ ◽  
1990 ◽  
Vol 300 (6724) ◽  
pp. 608-608
Author(s):  
M. Drury
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Research Ethics Committees
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document