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...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Kathleen M Oberle, Stacey A Page, Fintan KT Stanley, Aaron A Goodarzi
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