The University ethical framework has been assembled as a guide, an encouragement towards ethical behaviour and to establish a set of obligations adhered by staff and students. The Framework does not provide answers to ethical dilemmas, nor does it approve projects.
MMU has a page devoted to "Ethics and Research
Governance". This includes a link to:
The
University's Academic Ethical Framework.
At a seminar on 14th December 2004, Professor Plumb explained the role of the Academic Ethics Committee and introduced the topics to be considered. He warned of the danger of a "risk avoidance" culture, whereby people withdraw from potentially risky educational experiences. There is a need to reassure staff about the legitimacy of certain learning experiences. Three talks explored different ethical issues faced by the University.
Sue Duncan from the Secretary's Department explained the legal framework that is complementary to the ethical framework. The Data Protection Act is concerned with the storage of personal data. The Human Rights Act may be relevant, making it easier for people to challenge apparently arbitrary decisions. The Freedom of Information Act (which comes into force in January 2005) regulates all information held by us, and requests for information must be responded to within 20 days. (This Act was discussed further in the seminar: responses need either to provide the requested information, or to address whether the information actually exists, whether it is covered by the Data Protection Act, and whether it is exempt. Possible exemptions include confidential data, data awaiting publication, etc). The new Act does introduce uncertainties because precedent will interpret the law. For this reason, commercial organisations might become reluctant to collaborate with universities. On the other hand, the Act may bring benefits, in that contracted work undertaken for public bodies can be the subject of requests for information, thereby bringing it into the public domain - to the benefit of those undertaking the research. The experience of Sweden was noted approvingly: they have had Freedom of information for many years and it has not adversely affected academics.
Val Edwards-Jones spoke from the perspective of clinical trials and medical research. Recent legislation is important: the research governance framework in health and social care, the EU Clinical trials directive, and the Human tissues Act (all of which have been implemented in 2004). Informed consent is one of the keywords for ethical scrutiny. Other principles embedded in the legislation are: avoidance of suffering and unnecessary research, the right of subjects to withdraw from the research, beneficience and just. Ethical scrutiny in the UK is centralised through the Central Office for Research Ethics Committees (COREC). The COREC Website has a proforma with 63 pages to document the ethical issues and to allow a local committee to make a decision within 60 days. The verdict is valid for the whole of the UK. Whilst there is a procedure for approving work of this nature, there are concerns in the research community that the legal framework and documentation systems are over-bureaucratic and time-consuming. Lord May was quoted as saying the system was "like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut". For example, "no distinction is made between tissue samples taken during routine diagnostic tests at one end of the scale and the removal of organs during post-mortem at the other".
Bridget Somekh provided an overview of ethical practice from a social science perspective. In particular, this related to educational research. The British Educational Research Association adopted guidelines for educational research in 1992 and produced a revised version in 2004. The latter is a concise document and would be a useful resource for anyone commencing research involving human subjects. In brief, it summarises responsibilities to participants (pages 6-9), responsibilities to sponsors (pages 10-12) and responsibilities to the community of educational researchers (pages 12-13). There will still be issues to resolve: several case studies were given of ethical tensions in the experience of the speaker. For more on this, see Piper, H. and Simons, H. "Ethical responsibility in Social Science" (Pages 56-63) in: "Research Methods in the Social Sciences", edited by Somekh, B. and Lewin, C. 2004, Sage, London.
The presentations were followed by an extended discussion of the issues raised.
David J. Tyler
December 2004
Return to Ethical
Issues page
Return to Home page