Research Ethics

There is a lack of procedure in the UK guiding social researchers faced with ethical questions. In particular, investigators concerned with family violence and its effects on children face some of the most complex ethical dilemmas in social research and there is a need for greater transparency of ethical procedures.

This paper summarizes some key ethical principles guiding social research focused on children, and the decisions that researchers face when conducting studies in the area of child maltreatment or domestic violence. A case example of a study conducted in Dublin, Ireland is used to illustrate difficulties surrounding decisions of informed consent, confidentiality and disclosure, distress and danger, and questioning children directly about their experiences of family violence. The advice of the ethics committee and the solutions agreed by the research team are shared.

While the study was subject to a review by an independent ethics committee, in the absence of nationally-recognized or agreed guidelines, good ethical practice is largely dependent upon the moral judgments of the research team. It is hoped that by providing one such case example, others might be encouraged to report on their own ethical protocols and procedures.

The current practice for UK research ethics committees (RECs) is to invite researchers to attend meetings at which their applications are to be considered and for student-based research the National Research Ethics Service recommends supervisors to attend. This study aims to identify the extent to which students and their supervisors attend NHS REC meetings and whether attendance is associated with the initial outcomes of RECs.

This paper provides an introduction to ethical issues arising in children's research that takes place in school-settings. It addresses three main areas of ethical concern: the informed consent process, confidentiality, and harm and benefit. Informed consent in school settings is characterized by the involvement of multiple stakeholders, including not just researchers, parents and individual children but also school principals, teachers and the children's peer group. The added complexity of the setting has implications for the management of the informed consent process, including the decision at what point and in which manner each stakeholder group needs to be involved in the process. The presence and divergent roles of these multiple stakeholders in the school setting also have implications for addressing issues of confidentiality, especially due to the group setting in which participants take part in the research and role expectations within school settings. Harm and benefit in school-based research are of a non-physical nature; relevant areas of concern relate primarily to the potential for psychological and social harm, realistic presentation of likely benefits from research and the issue of rewards for research participation.

This, the third seminar organised by the AREC university sector committee, included short presentations followed by parallel workshops. These proposed and explored basic principles for ethical review in the context of current models within the university REC sector. In this report, following an introduction, each of the speakers/workshop leaders summarizes their own perspective on the issues raised and discussed.

Although pharmaceutical practice tends to prefer to take DNA samples from whole blood, this could be both unnecessary and even unethical. The buccal swabbing method offers to provide an adequate and reliable sample less invasively and with the necessary minimal risk to the subject that virtually all ethical guidelines advocate.

This is the third of four papers to be published in Research Ethics Review in 2009, that address methodological issues of relevance to research ethics committees. It focuses on three issues: the representativeness of study participants, the size of the study and data analysis. Differences between best practices in qualitative and quantitative research are highlighted. The paper argues that, while lack of representativeness may not be unethical, the ethical implications of unnecessary restrictions on eligibility should be considered by committees. Studies that are either too small or too big can pose problems. Research teams need to have the necessary competence to enable an appropriate analysis focused on the main objectives and interpreted in the context of the limitations of the study design.

This study appeared in full in the last issue of Research Ethics Review (2009; 5(2): 83). Based on prior research that has indicated it may be beneficial, a researcher wants to administer a heart medication to patients who have suffered lung injuries in car crashes. Due to the emergency nature of the research, seeking consent either from the research participants or, at least initially, their next of kin is difficult.