Research Ethics Reflection on National Human Research Ethics Study

This report is a reflection on a research study by Gallagher et al. (2016) comparing national ethical guidelines, institutional review boards, and ethical attitudes in research across Germany, Great Britain, Sweden, and Romania, focusing on mental health research involving children with imprisoned parents. The author analyzes the discrepancies in ethical implementations, particularly concerning parental consent, and highlights the importance of a unified ethical platform to protect human rights. The reflection emphasizes the need for respect, transparency, and participant comfort in research, drawing on insights from Klitzman (2015). The author concludes with the significance of ethical considerations in human research, emphasizing the development of ethical practices in their career.

RESEARCH ETHICS.
By Ayodeji Odunsi

Reading Summary
This essay is a reflection from a personal perspective on the comparative research
undertaken by Gallagher et al. (2016) on the key concepts of national ethical guidelines,
institutional review boards, and the ethical attitudes and behaviour towards research
stakeholders. The aims of the research was fulfilled by the author through describing and
analysing the similarities and discrepancies in “national human research ethics” or NHREs
seen in studying the mental health of children who had a parent imprisoned in the countries
of Germany, Great Britain, Sweden, and Romania. There were two distinct methods used –
questionnaire surveys and interviews, and the participants used ranged from practitioners
of law and policy makers to the general public, both adults and children. The data collection
was done in three phases, the first had two linked seminars, the second involved a
discussion where consortium members informed whether there were ethical issues
encountered when departing from The Ethical Protocol drafted, and the third being the
questionnaire survey. The main focus of the study was the researchers’ ethical attitudes and
behaviour in relation to participant ethical procedures (Gallagher et al 2016).
Insights
The first thing that struck me right at the onset was the ethical underpinnings of the
research objective where imprisoned parents of children were involved. The report focused
its attention on identifying the differences between the National Ethical Guidelines (NEG)
and the institutional Review Boards (IRB) (Gallagher et al. 2016). It showed that there are
marked differences in the way these aspects of human Research Ethics were implemented
in different countries with some countries emphasizing parental consent even when parents

were in prison while another would consider it unethical (Gallagher et al. 2016). This was
where a crucial discrepancy struck me as the question of why the differences exist while the
research contexts and background (children with a parent/caretaker in prison) are similar. I
was affected by the realization that a unified human research ethics platform should be put
in place which should guard the basic human rights and the temptations to ignore the
ethical challenges should be controlled (Klitzman 2015, p. 5).
Impact on current and future prospects
In my present as well as future career and academic work, the key aspect that I would
remember as a lesson learnt from this paper is to give due respect, proper explanation of
the research process without deception (Harari et al. 2016) and importance to participants
in any study that I will be conducting, their consent and the comfortability of the situation
they are in as Klitzman enforces in chapter 5 of his book ‘the ethics police’, (2015, p. 117-
141). These considerations may or may not be recognized by any established board or be
mentioned in theory, but from the ethical standpoint, focus on this aspect as a research pre-
requisite will be paramount.
Summary of lessons and future implementations
I feel that the report’s purpose of educating and informing researchers on the existence of
such ethical boards, enforces the notion that ethics should be given significant consideration
when engaging in human research. In summary, what I have learned from this study
educates me about the value of ethical considerations in human research and how sticking
to those considerations can help me develop as a practitioner in my profession.

References.
Gallagher, B., Berman, A.H., Bieganski, J., Jones, A.D., Foca, L., Raikes, B., Schiratzki, J.,
Urban, M. and Ullman, S., 2016. National human research ethics: a preliminary comparative
case study of Germany, Great Britain, Romania, and Sweden. Ethics & behavior, 26(7),
pp.586-606.
Harari, G.M., Lane, N.D., Wang, R., Crosier, B.S., Campbell, A.T. and Gosling, S.D., 2016.
Using smartphones to collect behavioral data in psychological science: Opportunities,
practical considerations, and challenges. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(6),
pp.838-854.
Klitzman, R., 2015. ‘Protecting the People We Experiment on’. In The ethics police?: The
struggle to make human research safe. Oxford University Press pp. 3-34.
Klitzman, R., 2015. ‘What to Tell Subjects? Battles over consent form’. In The ethics police?:
The struggle to make human research safe. Oxford University Press pp. 117-141.