Guillemin Marilys, Gillam Lynn, Rosenthal Doreen, Bolitho Annie
Centre for Health and Society, School of Population Health, University of Melbourne, Victoria 2010, Australia.
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2010 Jun;5(2):21-34. doi: 10.1525/jer.2010.5.2.21.
There is little empirical evidence about what resources health researchers use in order to make decisions about the ethical conduct of human research. Undertaking an empirical examination of how researchers understand research ethics and how they address ethical issues in research practice can lead to a richer understanding of how researchers approach research ethics. Our findings are based on interviews with 54 Australian health researchers. We conclude that, despite the considerable time devoted to ethics review, ethics committees and research guidelines were not seen as valuable resources for researchers undertaking research in the field. Although researchers did not perceive ethics committees as a resource when faced with ethical issues in the field, they nevertheless perceived the process of ethics review as beneficial to them; this allowed them to clarify their research, make decisions about the ethical conduct of the research, as well as offering them a sense of protection when undertaking research. In the actual undertaking of research practice, it was their past professional experience and personal values that researchers considered most useful resources when encountering ethical problems.
关于健康领域研究人员在对人类研究的伦理行为做出决策时使用何种资源,几乎没有实证证据。对研究人员如何理解研究伦理以及他们在研究实践中如何处理伦理问题进行实证考察,有助于更深入地了解研究人员对待研究伦理的方式。我们的研究结果基于对54名澳大利亚健康领域研究人员的访谈。我们得出的结论是,尽管在伦理审查上投入了大量时间,但伦理委员会和研究指南对于该领域进行研究的人员而言,并非被视为有价值的资源。尽管研究人员在面临该领域的伦理问题时并不将伦理委员会视为一种资源,但他们仍认为伦理审查过程对他们有益;这使他们能够厘清自己的研究,就研究的伦理行为做出决策,同时在开展研究时为他们提供一种保护感。在实际的研究实践中,研究人员在遇到伦理问题时认为最有用的资源是他们过去的专业经验和个人价值观。