This document discusses ethical clearance for research at Zayed University. It provides examples of issues that have come up in the past regarding obtaining proper ethical approval. It outlines the importance of ethical clearance in ensuring respect for participants, doing no harm, and fair inclusion in research. It introduces ZU's Research Ethics Committee and new procedures for obtaining ethical approval, including forms and informed consent. It addresses some recent feedback from faculty and stresses the importance of ethical training, which will soon be provided through an online training program.
This is one of the lectures for the POGS Research Forum in Bacolod, mostly based on the chapter on Clinical Practice Guidelines for Ethics Review from the POGS Research Handbook: The Essentials. I hope this can be a guide for residents who are preparing their research proposal for ethical review.
This is a presentation I gave to the Research Coordinators in the Federal Ministry of Health, Sudan (04.03.2015).
It included the following topics:
• Overview on the Knowledge Management Cycle and how research fits in it
• Brief historical background on research ethics
• What makes research ethical?
• Definition and examples of scientific misconduct
• How to make your research ethical and avoid scientific misconduct?
This is one of the lectures for the POGS Research Forum in Bacolod, mostly based on the chapter on Clinical Practice Guidelines for Ethics Review from the POGS Research Handbook: The Essentials. I hope this can be a guide for residents who are preparing their research proposal for ethical review.
This is a presentation I gave to the Research Coordinators in the Federal Ministry of Health, Sudan (04.03.2015).
It included the following topics:
• Overview on the Knowledge Management Cycle and how research fits in it
• Brief historical background on research ethics
• What makes research ethical?
• Definition and examples of scientific misconduct
• How to make your research ethical and avoid scientific misconduct?
Redundant, Duplicate and Repetitive publications are the most important concerns in the scientific research/literature writing. The occurrence of redundancy affects the concepts of science/literature and carries with it sanctions of consequences. To define this issue is much challenging because of the many varieties in which one can slice, reformat, or reproduce material from an already published study. This issue also goes beyond the duplication of a single study because it might possible that the same or similar data can be published in the early, middle, and later stages of an on-going study. This may have a damaging impact on the scientific study/literature base. Similar to slicing a cake, there are so many ways of representing a study or a set of data/information. We can slice a cake into different shapes like squares, triangles, rounds, or layers. Which of these might be the best way to slice a cake? Unfortunately, this may be the wrong question. The point is that the cake that is being referred to, the data/ information set or the study/findings, should not be sliced at all. Instead, the study should be presented as a whole to the readership to ensure the integrity of science/technology because of the impact that may have on patients who will be affected by the information contained in the literature/findings. Redundant, duplicate, or repetitive publications occur when there is representation of two or more studies, data sets, or publications in either electronic or print media. The publications can overlap partially or completely, such that a similar portion, major component(s), or complete representation of a previously/simultaneous ly or future published study is duplicated.
SALAMI SLICING: The slicing of research publication that would form one meaningful paper into several different papers is known as salami publication or salami slicing. Unlike duplicate publication, which involves reporting the exact same data in two or more publications, salami slicing involves breaking up or segmenting a large study into two or more publications. These segments are called slices of a study. As a general rule, as long as the slices of a broken-up study share the same hypotheses, population, and methods, this is not acceptable in general practice. The same slice should never be published more than once at all. According to the United States Office of Research Integrity (USORI), salami slicing can result in a distortion of the literature/findings by leading unsuspecting readers to believe that data presented in each salami slice (journal article) is derived from a different subject sample/source. Somehow this practice not only skews the scientific database but it creates repetition to waste reader's time as well as the time of editors and peer reviewers, who must also handle each paper separately.
The Belmont Report (Three Benchmark Rules)ClinosolIndia
The Belmont Report, published in 1979, is a seminal document in the field of research ethics. It was developed by the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research in response to unethical research practices, particularly the infamous Tuskegee Syphilis Study. The report sets forth three fundamental ethical principles, often referred to as the "Three Benchmark Rules," that guide the ethical conduct of research involving human subjects. These principles are:
Respect for Persons:
The principle of respect for persons emphasizes the autonomy and dignity of individuals. It requires that individuals be treated as autonomous agents capable of making informed decisions about their participation in research. Researchers must obtain informed consent from potential subjects and provide them with all relevant information regarding the purpose, risks, benefits, and alternatives of the study. Special provisions must be made for individuals with diminished autonomy, such as children or those with cognitive impairments, to ensure their rights and welfare are protected.
Beneficence:
The principle of beneficence emphasizes the obligation to maximize benefits and minimize harm to research subjects. Researchers must ensure that the potential benefits of the study outweigh the potential risks. They should conduct a thorough risk-benefit analysis and design their studies to maximize potential benefits while minimizing any potential harm or discomfort to participants. Additionally, researchers must make ongoing assessments of the risks and benefits throughout the course of the study and take necessary steps to minimize harm and maximize benefits.
Justice:
The principle of justice requires the fair distribution of the burdens and benefits of research. It emphasizes the need for equal access to participation in research, regardless of factors such as race, gender, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics. Researchers must ensure that the selection of research subjects is fair and avoid exploiting vulnerable populations. Additionally, the benefits derived from research should be distributed equitably, ensuring that the burdens of research are not borne solely by disadvantaged groups while the benefits accrue to others.
These Three Benchmark Rules provided in the Belmont Report serve as the foundation for modern ethical guidelines and regulations governing research involving human subjects. They have significantly influenced the development of ethical review boards and informed consent processes, ensuring the protection of individuals' rights and well-being in research studies.
What are Research Ethics?
Why are Research Ethics
Important?
General Ethical Principles
Ethical Decision Making in
Research
Ethical Standards for Human
Research.
Redundant, Duplicate and Repetitive publications are the most important concerns in the scientific research/literature writing. The occurrence of redundancy affects the concepts of science/literature and carries with it sanctions of consequences. To define this issue is much challenging because of the many varieties in which one can slice, reformat, or reproduce material from an already published study. This issue also goes beyond the duplication of a single study because it might possible that the same or similar data can be published in the early, middle, and later stages of an on-going study. This may have a damaging impact on the scientific study/literature base. Similar to slicing a cake, there are so many ways of representing a study or a set of data/information. We can slice a cake into different shapes like squares, triangles, rounds, or layers. Which of these might be the best way to slice a cake? Unfortunately, this may be the wrong question. The point is that the cake that is being referred to, the data/ information set or the study/findings, should not be sliced at all. Instead, the study should be presented as a whole to the readership to ensure the integrity of science/technology because of the impact that may have on patients who will be affected by the information contained in the literature/findings. Redundant, duplicate, or repetitive publications occur when there is representation of two or more studies, data sets, or publications in either electronic or print media. The publications can overlap partially or completely, such that a similar portion, major component(s), or complete representation of a previously/simultaneous ly or future published study is duplicated.
SALAMI SLICING: The slicing of research publication that would form one meaningful paper into several different papers is known as salami publication or salami slicing. Unlike duplicate publication, which involves reporting the exact same data in two or more publications, salami slicing involves breaking up or segmenting a large study into two or more publications. These segments are called slices of a study. As a general rule, as long as the slices of a broken-up study share the same hypotheses, population, and methods, this is not acceptable in general practice. The same slice should never be published more than once at all. According to the United States Office of Research Integrity (USORI), salami slicing can result in a distortion of the literature/findings by leading unsuspecting readers to believe that data presented in each salami slice (journal article) is derived from a different subject sample/source. Somehow this practice not only skews the scientific database but it creates repetition to waste reader's time as well as the time of editors and peer reviewers, who must also handle each paper separately.
The Belmont Report (Three Benchmark Rules)ClinosolIndia
The Belmont Report, published in 1979, is a seminal document in the field of research ethics. It was developed by the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research in response to unethical research practices, particularly the infamous Tuskegee Syphilis Study. The report sets forth three fundamental ethical principles, often referred to as the "Three Benchmark Rules," that guide the ethical conduct of research involving human subjects. These principles are:
Respect for Persons:
The principle of respect for persons emphasizes the autonomy and dignity of individuals. It requires that individuals be treated as autonomous agents capable of making informed decisions about their participation in research. Researchers must obtain informed consent from potential subjects and provide them with all relevant information regarding the purpose, risks, benefits, and alternatives of the study. Special provisions must be made for individuals with diminished autonomy, such as children or those with cognitive impairments, to ensure their rights and welfare are protected.
Beneficence:
The principle of beneficence emphasizes the obligation to maximize benefits and minimize harm to research subjects. Researchers must ensure that the potential benefits of the study outweigh the potential risks. They should conduct a thorough risk-benefit analysis and design their studies to maximize potential benefits while minimizing any potential harm or discomfort to participants. Additionally, researchers must make ongoing assessments of the risks and benefits throughout the course of the study and take necessary steps to minimize harm and maximize benefits.
Justice:
The principle of justice requires the fair distribution of the burdens and benefits of research. It emphasizes the need for equal access to participation in research, regardless of factors such as race, gender, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics. Researchers must ensure that the selection of research subjects is fair and avoid exploiting vulnerable populations. Additionally, the benefits derived from research should be distributed equitably, ensuring that the burdens of research are not borne solely by disadvantaged groups while the benefits accrue to others.
These Three Benchmark Rules provided in the Belmont Report serve as the foundation for modern ethical guidelines and regulations governing research involving human subjects. They have significantly influenced the development of ethical review boards and informed consent processes, ensuring the protection of individuals' rights and well-being in research studies.
What are Research Ethics?
Why are Research Ethics
Important?
General Ethical Principles
Ethical Decision Making in
Research
Ethical Standards for Human
Research.
an Institutional Review Board plays a crucial role in safeguarding the ethical conduct of research involving human participants. Its primary focus is to protect the rights, safety, and well-being of individuals who volunteer to participate in research studies while simultaneously promoting the advancement of knowledge.
CHAPTER 4 ETHICS AND THE INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD (IRB) PROCESSWilheminaRossi174
CHAPTER 4 ETHICS AND THE INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD (IRB) PROCESS
Chapter highlights
The need for ethical review: IRBs; purpose and history of ethical oversight
Nuts and bolts of IRBs: Revised Common Rule including definitions; IRB duties, membership, and types of reviews
Deception and its role in IRB review
Components of IRB proposal (especially, informed consent)
Research with children
The ethics of participant pool use and alternatives to participation
Incentives in research
IRB training modules: CITI and alternatives
OVERVIEW
When thinking about research, one question that arises fairly early is whether there are rules or regulations that govern what you can and cannot study and how you can study it. The answer is “yes.” Regulations, starting at the federal level, have been developed to protect people who participate in research (and animals used in research), the researchers themselves, and the institutions they represent. There are also specific definitions of what constitutes research and what a human subject is. Research is essentially a systematic investigation designed to contribute to generalizable knowledge. A human subject is a living individual from whom the researcher gathers information or biospecimens through interaction or intervention or about whom the researcher has access to identifiable private information or identifiable biospecimens. A biospecimen from humans is material such as blood, tissue, urine, cells, or protein. These definitions of research and human subjects come from the federal regulations known as the revised Common Rule (45 CFR Subpart A 46.102[l] and [e][1], respectively), which is discussed in more detail later in the chapter. Not every study rises to the level of research (e.g., a study on food preferences in a single residence hall might not be designed to contribute to generalizable knowledge), but the ethical treatment of people who participate in studies is an important aspect, whether or not the study is technically “research.”
After a lengthy review process that generated over 2,000 public comments in response to the proposed rule changes, the Common Rule has been substantially revised. The essential components of Subpart A of the revised Common Rule (also called the 2018 Requirements and the 2018 Rule), which went into effect on January 21, 2019, are presented in this chapter. Additional subparts (B–D) dealing with subjects in the revised Common Rule include Subpart B: Additional Protections for Pregnant Women, Human Fetuses and Neonates Involved in Research; Subpart C: Additional Protections Pertaining to Biomedical and Behavioral Research Involving Prisoners as Subjects; and Subpart D: Additional Protections for Children Involved as Subjects in Research. While this chapter focuses on the material in Subpart A, additional information regarding the protections for children involved in research will also be highlighted.
Research: With respect to the federal definition (45 CFR 46), research invol ...
This event featured an update from the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues delivered by Michelle Groman (HLS '05), Associate Director at the Bioethics Commission. Since its inception in 2009, President Obama's Commission has issued reports on synthetic biology, human subjects research, whole genome sequencing, pediatric medical countermeasure research, and incidental findings. Currently, the Commission is examining the ethical implications of neuroscience research and the application of neuroscience research findings as part of the federal government’s BRAIN Initiative. The Commission also has developed educational materials to support teaching of bioethics ideas, principles, and theories in traditional and non-traditional settings.
The final half-hour of the event featured a discussion of career opportunities in law and bioethics, led by Ms. Groman and Holly Fernandez Lynch, Petrie-Flom Center Executive Director.
From the event "Specimen Science: Ethics and Policy Implications," held at Harvard Law School on November 16, 2015.
This event is a collaboration between The Center for Child Health and Policy at Case Western Reserve University and University Hospitals Rainbow Babies & Children’s Hospital; the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics at Harvard Law School; the Multi-Regional Clinical Trials Center of Harvard and Brigham and Women's Hospital; and Harvard Catalyst | The Harvard Clinical and Translational Science Center. It is supported by funding from the National Human Genome Research Institute and the Oswald DeN. Cammann Fund at Harvard University.
For more information, visit our website at http://petrieflom.law.harvard.edu/events/details/specimen-science-ethics-and-policy
Technology, Education and Arab Youth in the UAE 2013Janet Martin
Empirical research into digital technology use by Emirati tertiary students, and implications for library services in the region. Data collected 2011/12.
Digital native research in the UAE 2011Janet Martin
Initial reporting of ongoing empirical research into technology use by Emirati tertiary students. Completed PhD dissertation:
Martin, J. (2013). Technology, education and Arab youth in the 21st century: A study of the UAE. (Doctoral dissertation), University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. Retrieved from http://drjanetmartin.wordpress.com/research/
Welcome to TechSoup New Member Orientation and Q&A (May 2024).pdfTechSoup
In this webinar you will learn how your organization can access TechSoup's wide variety of product discount and donation programs. From hardware to software, we'll give you a tour of the tools available to help your nonprofit with productivity, collaboration, financial management, donor tracking, security, and more.
Macroeconomics- Movie Location
This will be used as part of your Personal Professional Portfolio once graded.
Objective:
Prepare a presentation or a paper using research, basic comparative analysis, data organization and application of economic information. You will make an informed assessment of an economic climate outside of the United States to accomplish an entertainment industry objective.
Biological screening of herbal drugs: Introduction and Need for
Phyto-Pharmacological Screening, New Strategies for evaluating
Natural Products, In vitro evaluation techniques for Antioxidants, Antimicrobial and Anticancer drugs. In vivo evaluation techniques
for Anti-inflammatory, Antiulcer, Anticancer, Wound healing, Antidiabetic, Hepatoprotective, Cardio protective, Diuretics and
Antifertility, Toxicity studies as per OECD guidelines
Francesca Gottschalk - How can education support child empowerment.pptxEduSkills OECD
Francesca Gottschalk from the OECD’s Centre for Educational Research and Innovation presents at the Ask an Expert Webinar: How can education support child empowerment?
The Roman Empire A Historical Colossus.pdfkaushalkr1407
The Roman Empire, a vast and enduring power, stands as one of history's most remarkable civilizations, leaving an indelible imprint on the world. It emerged from the Roman Republic, transitioning into an imperial powerhouse under the leadership of Augustus Caesar in 27 BCE. This transformation marked the beginning of an era defined by unprecedented territorial expansion, architectural marvels, and profound cultural influence.
The empire's roots lie in the city of Rome, founded, according to legend, by Romulus in 753 BCE. Over centuries, Rome evolved from a small settlement to a formidable republic, characterized by a complex political system with elected officials and checks on power. However, internal strife, class conflicts, and military ambitions paved the way for the end of the Republic. Julius Caesar’s dictatorship and subsequent assassination in 44 BCE created a power vacuum, leading to a civil war. Octavian, later Augustus, emerged victorious, heralding the Roman Empire’s birth.
Under Augustus, the empire experienced the Pax Romana, a 200-year period of relative peace and stability. Augustus reformed the military, established efficient administrative systems, and initiated grand construction projects. The empire's borders expanded, encompassing territories from Britain to Egypt and from Spain to the Euphrates. Roman legions, renowned for their discipline and engineering prowess, secured and maintained these vast territories, building roads, fortifications, and cities that facilitated control and integration.
The Roman Empire’s society was hierarchical, with a rigid class system. At the top were the patricians, wealthy elites who held significant political power. Below them were the plebeians, free citizens with limited political influence, and the vast numbers of slaves who formed the backbone of the economy. The family unit was central, governed by the paterfamilias, the male head who held absolute authority.
Culturally, the Romans were eclectic, absorbing and adapting elements from the civilizations they encountered, particularly the Greeks. Roman art, literature, and philosophy reflected this synthesis, creating a rich cultural tapestry. Latin, the Roman language, became the lingua franca of the Western world, influencing numerous modern languages.
Roman architecture and engineering achievements were monumental. They perfected the arch, vault, and dome, constructing enduring structures like the Colosseum, Pantheon, and aqueducts. These engineering marvels not only showcased Roman ingenuity but also served practical purposes, from public entertainment to water supply.
June 3, 2024 Anti-Semitism Letter Sent to MIT President Kornbluth and MIT Cor...Levi Shapiro
Letter from the Congress of the United States regarding Anti-Semitism sent June 3rd to MIT President Sally Kornbluth, MIT Corp Chair, Mark Gorenberg
Dear Dr. Kornbluth and Mr. Gorenberg,
The US House of Representatives is deeply concerned by ongoing and pervasive acts of antisemitic
harassment and intimidation at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Failing to act decisively to ensure a safe learning environment for all students would be a grave dereliction of your responsibilities as President of MIT and Chair of the MIT Corporation.
This Congress will not stand idly by and allow an environment hostile to Jewish students to persist. The House believes that your institution is in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, and the inability or
unwillingness to rectify this violation through action requires accountability.
Postsecondary education is a unique opportunity for students to learn and have their ideas and beliefs challenged. However, universities receiving hundreds of millions of federal funds annually have denied
students that opportunity and have been hijacked to become venues for the promotion of terrorism, antisemitic harassment and intimidation, unlawful encampments, and in some cases, assaults and riots.
The House of Representatives will not countenance the use of federal funds to indoctrinate students into hateful, antisemitic, anti-American supporters of terrorism. Investigations into campus antisemitism by the Committee on Education and the Workforce and the Committee on Ways and Means have been expanded into a Congress-wide probe across all relevant jurisdictions to address this national crisis. The undersigned Committees will conduct oversight into the use of federal funds at MIT and its learning environment under authorities granted to each Committee.
• The Committee on Education and the Workforce has been investigating your institution since December 7, 2023. The Committee has broad jurisdiction over postsecondary education, including its compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, campus safety concerns over disruptions to the learning environment, and the awarding of federal student aid under the Higher Education Act.
• The Committee on Oversight and Accountability is investigating the sources of funding and other support flowing to groups espousing pro-Hamas propaganda and engaged in antisemitic harassment and intimidation of students. The Committee on Oversight and Accountability is the principal oversight committee of the US House of Representatives and has broad authority to investigate “any matter” at “any time” under House Rule X.
• The Committee on Ways and Means has been investigating several universities since November 15, 2023, when the Committee held a hearing entitled From Ivory Towers to Dark Corners: Investigating the Nexus Between Antisemitism, Tax-Exempt Universities, and Terror Financing. The Committee followed the hearing with letters to those institutions on January 10, 202
Acetabularia Information For Class 9 .docxvaibhavrinwa19
Acetabularia acetabulum is a single-celled green alga that in its vegetative state is morphologically differentiated into a basal rhizoid and an axially elongated stalk, which bears whorls of branching hairs. The single diploid nucleus resides in the rhizoid.
BÀI TẬP BỔ TRỢ TIẾNG ANH GLOBAL SUCCESS LỚP 3 - CẢ NĂM (CÓ FILE NGHE VÀ ĐÁP Á...
Research Ethical Clearance 2010
1. Ethical clearance for
Research
at
Zayed University
March 2010
Brigitte Howarth: Chair ZU Committee on the use of Human Subjects in Research
Janet Martin: Office of Research
3. January 29 2010
“acted dishonestly
and irresponsibly in
carrying out
research on
children against
their best interests
and without official
permission”
4. January 29 2010
“did not have the
ethical approval or
qualifications to
oversee the study,
which involved
children undergoing
colonoscopies,
lumbar punctures,
barium meals and
brain scans.”
5. January 29 2010
“he received 55,000
UKP to carry out the
research on behalf of
solicitors acting for
parents who believed
that their children had
been harmed by
MMR… He did not
declare any conflict of
interest to the Lancet
medical journal.”
6. January 29 2010
“The study prompted
a massive drop in the
number of children
being vaccinated
against measles,
mumps and rubella.
Subsequent studies
involving millions of
children found no
evidence of a link
between MMR and
autism.”
7. UN apology after flawed climate study
Times Online January 21, 2010
8. 21 January 2010
“The IPPC said
that the
prediction in its
landmark 2007
report was
‘poorly
substantiated’
and resulted
from a lapse in
standards”
9. 21 January 2010
“The UN’s top
climate change
body issued an
unprecedented
apology
yesterday over
its flawed
prediction that
Himalayan
glaciers were
likely to
disappear by
2035.”
10. ZU investigators would know all about ethical
clearance …
… this is straightforward stuff that
hardly needs to be covered!
“I’m only doing a pilot
study”
11. ZU investigators would know all about ethical
clearance …
… this is straightforward stuff that
hardly needs to be covered!
“I don’t need clearance
because I’m only surveying
ZU students”
12. ZU investigators would know all about ethical
clearance …
… this is straightforward stuff that
hardly needs to be covered!
“my supervisor said that
not to worry. It’s ok.”
13. ZU investigators would know all about ethical
clearance …
… this is straightforward stuff that
hardly needs to be covered!
“I already have ethical
clearance from another
collaborative institution”
14. ZU investigators would know all about ethical
clearance …
… this is straightforward stuff that
hardly needs to be covered!
“I received my research
grant before this ethics
committee got going”
15. Recent examples from faculty have assisted the Committee
in determining what is not recommended for the quality of
ethics consideration at ZU:
Obtaining informed consent:
“a relevant statement will be included in the
instructions given prior to data collection”
“Questionnaire aimed to know your opinion on
the [subject] in terms of the level of
satisfaction, as well as in terms of information
and since I … would like to know”
17. Ethical clearance is part of
Research Integrity:
This embodies a range of good research practice and
conduct which can include
•intellectual honesty
•accuracy
•fairness
•intellectual property
•protection of human and animal subjects involved
in the conduct of research.
Responsibilities for research integrity are shared by
individual researchers and the institution.
18. Ethical clearance in Research
The ‘Belmont’ ethical principles are to ensure:
• Respect for persons (the research consent process
ensures autonomy for individuals – “informed”
consent, confidentiality of data etc)
• Beneficence (the intention to do no harm – to
maximize possible benefits and minimize possible risks
to people involved in research)
• Justice (fairness in distribution of research inclusion
and exclusion)
19. What should we do about
understanding ethical
clearance
in research?
24. Who is your Research Ethics Committee?
Dr. Brigitte Howarth (Chair)
Dr. Eric Breton
Dr. Usama AlAlami
Dr. Gaelle Duthler
Dr. Sharon Parker
Dr. Grant Regan (ex-officio for ICE)
Dr. Chet Jablonski
Janet Martin (ex-officio for the Office of Research)
External representative (yet to appoint)
25. Recent feedback from faculty:
Considering the Committee responses:
“…don’t you and your committee think that I will be able to
present a professional research study”
“This is not the first time I’m working on research that requires
ethical clearance…. You are underestimating my skills and
potential as a researcher openly and very rudely.”
“I am a highly educated person, and I don’t need another person
to speak to me about conducting research professionally.”
“I should have received a quick reply from you”
26. Recent feedback from faculty:
Considering the Committee responses:
“Thank you very much for your prompt reply and considerations.
I greatly appreciate it!”
“Thank you very much to the Committee for processing my
application in such an efficient manner.”
“I do hope this clarifies some of our statements and I thank you
again for your valuable help.”
“Thanks for this feedback, will make changes as recommended
and pre test.”
27. Ethical Training for Research
All faculty and students will soon have access to an
internationally recognized online training resource:
CITI: Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative
https://www.citiprogram.org
Committee members will also hopefully have access to SRA
certification from the US, such as
“Human Research Protections Certificate Program”
A HELPFUL process?
HITTING your head against a wall … or something!!?
What are your past experiences?
Is it still needed? … examples
Nuremberg Trials (1947); Milgram Study (1974); Thalidomide Study (late 1950’s); untreated syphilis in negro males (1952-)
Is it still needed? … examples
Nuremberg Trials (1947); Milgram Study (1974); Thalidomide Study (late 1950’s); untreated syphilis in negro males (1952-)
Is it still needed? … examples
Nuremberg Trials (1947); Milgram Study (1974); Thalidomide Study (late 1950’s); untreated syphilis in negro males (1952-)
Is it still needed? … examples
Nuremberg Trials (1947); Milgram Study (1974); Thalidomide Study (late 1950’s); untreated syphilis in negro males (1952-)
Is it needed at ZU now?
International protocol dictates that quality research all over the world undergoes a systematic evaluation of ethical appropriateness of research involving either human or animal subjects
Anyone “surveyed out” here sometimes?
When research which is not well designed (and likely to not deliver sound outcomes) but widely circulated to avoid the hassle of good sampling design, everyone is more likely to delete quality research requests when they come along. Not in anyone’s interest.
Is it needed at ZU now?
International protocol dictates that quality research all over the world undergoes a systematic evaluation of ethical appropriateness of research involving either human or animal subjects
Anyone “surveyed out” here sometimes?
When research which is not well designed (and likely to not deliver sound outcomes) but widely circulated to avoid the hassle of good sampling design, everyone is more likely to delete quality research requests when they come along. Not in anyone’s interest.
Is it needed at ZU now?
International protocol dictates that quality research all over the world undergoes a systematic evaluation of ethical appropriateness of research involving either human or animal subjects
Anyone “surveyed out” here sometimes?
When research which is not well designed (and likely to not deliver sound outcomes) but widely circulated to avoid the hassle of good sampling design, everyone is more likely to delete quality research requests when they come along. Not in anyone’s interest.
Is it needed at ZU now?
International protocol dictates that quality research all over the world undergoes a systematic evaluation of ethical appropriateness of research involving either human or animal subjects
Anyone “surveyed out” here sometimes?
When research which is not well designed (and likely to not deliver sound outcomes) but widely circulated to avoid the hassle of good sampling design, everyone is more likely to delete quality research requests when they come along. Not in anyone’s interest.
Is it needed at ZU now?
International protocol dictates that quality research all over the world undergoes a systematic evaluation of ethical appropriateness of research involving either human or animal subjects
Anyone “surveyed out” here sometimes?
When research which is not well designed (and likely to not deliver sound outcomes) but widely circulated to avoid the hassle of good sampling design, everyone is more likely to delete quality research requests when they come along. Not in anyone’s interest.
Examples of what not to do…
These were the TOTAL information responses provided to the Committee at ZU.
University of Arizona example with permission from Sarah Trainer, Fulbright student at ZU undertaking research in 2009/10
Ethical consideration for human or animal subjects used in research
The Belmont Report” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belmont_Report) – shapes research principles world-wide
It is in the interests of both the institution and all researchers that research projects are reviewed and conducted ethically, both to protect the right and welfare of research subjects, as well as to enable international recognition for creditable institutional procedures in research being supported and followed at ZU.
Society entrusts investigators with the privilege of using other humans to advance knowledge, but the research community as a whole suffers when even a few investigators ignore basic principles of ethics.
Many options …
It is no time to HIDE and IGNORE research ethics!
Future grants will depend on it.
UAE organizations like HAAD and the EF will insist on it.
Our research credibility depends on it.
This Committee will:
Establish protocol and procedures during 2009/10
Review and approve all applications for ethical clearance during 2009/10
Communicate with faculty and students undertaking research to educate, learn and develop
4. Review all policies, procedures and committee structures for future recommendation…. Live and learn!
Comparison to the past – thanks to Richard Mapstone
Is it an easy/fun job? Road to popularity? No.
The Committee is simply working within principles that we believe in to do the best by the researcher AND the institution.
The process for ethical clearance should improve research design, not hinder the research process.
Examples of what not to do…
The Committee have and will make every attempt to support all research applications with constructive and diplomatic feedback.
Don’t take issues personally. In truth many of us do not like criticism or interference with our work.
The Committee would greatly appreciate support of less experienced researchers by more experienced people in such situations, and a mob of volunteers next time the call for Committee membership (and the heavy workload involved) comes up from those unhappy with the current arrangements!
The Committee is attempting to ensure that the respect, beneficence and justice is upheld for all ZU research, for the benefit of researchers and the institution. That’s all.
A philosophy to work together. The spirit of our decisions …
Discuss and debate, rather than become offended or offensive
Membership for CITI in progress
Certification or course completion will become a pre-requisite for grant funding and ethical clearances
Sometimes learning new things seems daunting.
As Stephen Abrams said: “Learning is incremental and you can grow a little bit at a time and suddenly realize that you’re competent in something new.”
At ZU we have the beginnings of policies and procedures
We have a hard-working and very positive team (our ZU Committee) working together with a solid philosophical view
We have new training initiatives imminent – available to everyone
We are listening and learning
We are establishing a credible ethical research clearance procedure at ZU, one-step-at-a-time!