Literature DB >> 19385793

Research Ethics Review and Aboriginal Community Values: Can the Two be Reconciled?

Kathleen Cranley Glass1, Joseph Kaufert.   

Abstract

CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH ETHICS REVIEW COMMITTEES (RECs) are heavily influenced by the established academic or health care institutional frameworks in which they operate, sharing a cultural, methodological and ethical perspective on the conduct of research involving humans. The principle of autonomous choice carries great weight in what is a highly individualistic decision-making process in medical practice and research. This assumes that the best protection lies in the ability of patients or research participants to make competent, voluntary, informed choices, evaluating the risks and benefits from a personal perspective. Over the past two decades, North American and international indigenous researchers, policy makers and communities have identified key issues of relevance to them, but ignored by most institutional or university-based RECs. They critique the current research review structure, and propose changes on a variety of levels in an attempt to develop more community sensitive research ethics review processes. In doing so, they have emphasized recognition of collective rights including community consent. Critics see alternative policy guidelines and community-based review bodies as challenging the current system of ethics review. Some view them as reflecting a fundamental difference in values. In this paper, we explore these developments in the context of the political, legal and ethical frameworks that have informed REC review. We examine the process and content of these frameworks and ask how this contrasts with emerging Aboriginal proposals for community-based research ethics review. We follow this with recommendations on how current REC review models might accommodate the requirements of both communities and RECs.

Entities:  

Year:  2007        PMID: 19385793     DOI: 10.1525/jer.2007.2.2.25

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics        ISSN: 1556-2646            Impact factor:   1.742


  6 in total

1.  Trust the Process: Community-based Researcher Partnerships.

Authors:  Karen Edwards; Carrielynn Lund; Steven Mitchell; Neil Andersson
Journal:  Pimatisiwin       Date:  2008

2.  On using ethical principles of community-engaged research in translational science.

Authors:  Dmitry Khodyakov; Lisa Mikesell; Ron Schraiber; Marika Booth; Elizabeth Bromley
Journal:  Transl Res       Date:  2015-12-19       Impact factor: 7.012

Review 3.  Ethical community-engaged research: a literature review.

Authors:  Lisa Mikesell; Elizabeth Bromley; Dmitry Khodyakov
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2013-10-17       Impact factor: 9.308

4.  Ethical guidelines for Sami research: the issue that disappeared from the Norwegian Sami Parliament's agenda?

Authors:  Vigdis Stordahl; Grete Tørres; Snefrid Møllersen; Inger-Marit Eira-Åhren
Journal:  Int J Circumpolar Health       Date:  2015-04-08       Impact factor: 1.228

5.  Ethics in Community-University-Artist Partnered Research: Tensions, Contradictions and Gaps Identified in an 'Arts for Social Change' Project.

Authors:  Annalee Yassi; Jennifer Beth Spiegel; Karen Lockhart; Lynn Fels; Katherine Boydell; Judith Marcuse
Journal:  J Acad Ethics       Date:  2016-04-07

Review 6.  Community engagement approaches for Indigenous health research: recommendations based on an integrative review.

Authors:  Chu Yang Lin; Adalberto Loyola-Sanchez; Elaine Boyling; Cheryl Barnabe
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2020-11-27       Impact factor: 2.692

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.