103 resultados para BJ Ethics
Resumo:
The ethics of collaborative practice in documentary filmmaking research
Resumo:
Long-standing concerns within the field of educational assessment consider the impact of assessment policy and practice as matters of equity, inequality and social justice.Yet educational assessment policy and practice continues to have powerful social consequences for key users such as children and young people.This paper re-positions these consequences as a matter of ethics.It uses the work of Messick to frame how ethical matters extend beyond test instruments into the realm of uses and impact. A case study of the 11+ school transfer system in Northern Ireland is presented to illustrate ethical dilemmas emerging as a consequence of actions and decisions of using assessment systems for particular purposes.In looking forward to how we might attend to ethical matters in assessment policy and practice, a consideration of a children’s rights approach is outlined that may provide a moral and legal framework for action.
Resumo:
Consideration of the ethical, social, and policy implications of research has become increasingly important to scientists and scholars whose work focuses on brain and mind, but limited empirical data exist on the education in ethics available to them. We examined the current landscape of ethics training in neuroscience programs, beginning with the Canadian context specifically, to elucidate the perceived needs of mentors and trainees and offer recommendations for resource development to meet those needs. We surveyed neuroscientists at all training levels and interviewed directors of neuroscience programs and training grants. A total of 88% of survey respondents reported general interest in ethics, and 96% indicated a desire for more ethics content as it applies to brain research and clinical translation. Expert interviews revealed formal ethics education in over half of programs and in 90% of grants-based programs. Lack of time, resources, and expertise, however, are major barriers to expanding ethics content in neuroscience education. We conclude with an initial set of recommendations to address these barriers which includes the development of flexible, tailored ethics education tools, increased financial support for ethics training, and strategies for fostering collaboration between ethics experts, neuroscience program directors, and funding agencies. © 2010 the Authors. Journal Compilation © 2010 International Mind, Brain, and Education Society and Blackwell Publishing, Inc.
Resumo:
Introduction: Variation across research ethics boards (REBs) in conditions placed on access to medical records for research purposes raises concerns around negative impacts on research quality and on human subject protection, including privacy. Aim: To study variation in REB consent requirements for retrospective chart review and who may have access to the medical record for data abstraction. Methods: Thirty 90-min face-to-face interviews were conducted with REB chairs and administrators affiliated with faculties of medicine in Canadian universities, using structured questions around a case study with open-ended responses. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and coded manually. Results: Fourteen sites (47%) required individual patient consent for the study to proceed as proposed. Three (10%) indicated that their response would depend on how potentially identifying variables would be managed. Eleven sites (38%) did not require consent. Two (7%) suggested a notification and opt-out process. Most stated that consent would be required if identifiable information was being abstracted from the record. Among those not requiring consent, there was substantial variation in recognising that the abstracted information could potentially indirectly re-identify individuals. Concern over access to medical records by an outside individual was also associated with requirement for consent. Eighteen sites (60%) required full committee review. Sixteen (53%) allowed an external research assistant to abstract information from the health record. Conclusions: Large variation was found across sites in the requirement for consent for research involving access to medical records. REBs need training in best practices for protecting privacy and confidentiality in health research. A forum for REB chairs to confidentially share concerns and decisions about specific studies could also reduce variation in decisions.
Resumo:
Abstract. Background. The amount of research utilizing health information has increased dramatically over the last ten years. Many institutions have extensive biobank holdings collected over a number of years for clinical and teaching purposes, but are uncertain as to the proper circumstances in which to permit research uses of these samples. Research Ethics Boards (REBs) in Canada and elsewhere in the world are grappling with these issues, but lack clear guidance regarding their role in the creation of and access to registries and biobanks. Methods. Chairs of 34 REBS and/or REB Administrators affiliated with Faculties of Medicine in Canadian universities were interviewed. Interviews consisted of structured questions dealing with diabetes-related scenarios, with open-ended responses and probing for rationales. The two scenarios involved the development of a diabetes registry using clinical encounter data across several physicians' practices, and the addition of biological samples to the registry to create a biobank. Results. There was a wide range of responses given for the questions raised in the scenarios, indicating a lack of clarity about the role of REBs in registries and biobanks. With respect to the creation of a registry, a minority of sites felt that consent was not required for the information to be entered into the registry. Whether patient consent was required for information to be entered into the registry and the duration for which the consent would be operative differed across sites. With respect to the creation of a biobank linked to the registry, a majority of sites viewed biobank information as qualitatively different from other types of personal health information. All respondents agreed that patient consent was needed for blood samples to be placed in the biobank but the duration of consent again varied. Conclusion. Participants were more attuned to issues surrounding biobanks as compared to registries and demonstrated a higher level of concern regarding biobanks. As registries and biobanks expand, there is a need for critical analysis of suitable roles for REBs and subsequent guidance on these topics. The authors conclude by recommending REB participation in the creation of registries and biobanks and the eventual drafting of comprehensive legislation.