A reflection on research ethics and citizen science
Ethics review of research involving humans has become something of an institution in recent years. It is intended to protect participants from harm and, to that end, follows rigorous standards. Given recent changes in research methodologies utilized in medical research, it may be that ethics review...
Main Authors: | , , , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
SAGE Publishing
2019-10-01
|
Series: | Research Ethics Review |
Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016119868900 |
id |
doaj-c12986224d7942cb8e33b94742effc51 |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-c12986224d7942cb8e33b94742effc512020-11-25T03:16:19ZengSAGE PublishingResearch Ethics Review1747-01612047-60942019-10-011510.1177/1747016119868900A reflection on research ethics and citizen scienceKathleen M OberleStacey A PageFintan KT StanleyAaron A GoodarziEthics review of research involving humans has become something of an institution in recent years. It is intended to protect participants from harm and, to that end, follows rigorous standards. Given recent changes in research methodologies utilized in medical research, it may be that ethics review for some kinds of studies needs to be reexamined. The purpose of this paper is to stimulate dialogue regarding the kind of review required for citizen science-based research. We describe a case study of a proposal submitted to our research ethics board and propose different approaches to proportionate review in research involving citizen scientists. In particular, we describe how problems with the term “participant” led to confusion in review of this study and examine the study in light of current Canadian guidelines. We suggest that the term participant and indeed the general approach to low-risk community-based studies such as the one described warrant reexamination.https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016119868900 |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Kathleen M Oberle Stacey A Page Fintan KT Stanley Aaron A Goodarzi |
spellingShingle |
Kathleen M Oberle Stacey A Page Fintan KT Stanley Aaron A Goodarzi A reflection on research ethics and citizen science Research Ethics Review |
author_facet |
Kathleen M Oberle Stacey A Page Fintan KT Stanley Aaron A Goodarzi |
author_sort |
Kathleen M Oberle |
title |
A reflection on research ethics and citizen science |
title_short |
A reflection on research ethics and citizen science |
title_full |
A reflection on research ethics and citizen science |
title_fullStr |
A reflection on research ethics and citizen science |
title_full_unstemmed |
A reflection on research ethics and citizen science |
title_sort |
reflection on research ethics and citizen science |
publisher |
SAGE Publishing |
series |
Research Ethics Review |
issn |
1747-0161 2047-6094 |
publishDate |
2019-10-01 |
description |
Ethics review of research involving humans has become something of an institution in recent years. It is intended to protect participants from harm and, to that end, follows rigorous standards. Given recent changes in research methodologies utilized in medical research, it may be that ethics review for some kinds of studies needs to be reexamined. The purpose of this paper is to stimulate dialogue regarding the kind of review required for citizen science-based research. We describe a case study of a proposal submitted to our research ethics board and propose different approaches to proportionate review in research involving citizen scientists. In particular, we describe how problems with the term “participant” led to confusion in review of this study and examine the study in light of current Canadian guidelines. We suggest that the term participant and indeed the general approach to low-risk community-based studies such as the one described warrant reexamination. |
url |
https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016119868900 |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT kathleenmoberle areflectiononresearchethicsandcitizenscience AT staceyapage areflectiononresearchethicsandcitizenscience AT fintanktstanley areflectiononresearchethicsandcitizenscience AT aaronagoodarzi areflectiononresearchethicsandcitizenscience AT kathleenmoberle reflectiononresearchethicsandcitizenscience AT staceyapage reflectiononresearchethicsandcitizenscience AT fintanktstanley reflectiononresearchethicsandcitizenscience AT aaronagoodarzi reflectiononresearchethicsandcitizenscience |
_version_ |
1724636907883724800 |