Academics must speak up about research that could cause harm

Last week, I was surprised and delighted to hear Twitter academics making a loud case for 바카라사이트 ethical review of research.

I¡¯ve been my department¡¯s director of ethics for over seven years, served on innumerable and interminable research ethics working groups and been a member of UCL¡¯s Research Ethics Committee for four years. I am largely unfamiliar with academics demanding more ethical oversight of research.

This sea change in academic attitudes was sparked by a journal article in 바카라사이트 well-regarded Sage journal Qualitative Research, in which a University of Manchester PhD student, Karl Andersson, spent three months masturbating exclusively to Japanese shota images. Shota, he explains, is ¡°a Japanese genre of comics and illustrations that feature young boy characters in a cute or, most often, sexually explicit way¡±.

There was no indication in 바카라사이트 paper that 바카라사이트 ¡°research¡± had received ethical review or that it was exempt from 바카라사이트 need for it. This suggests that 바카라사이트 journal editors and reviewers, as well as 바카라사이트 author, saw no legal or ethical problems with this ¡°study¡± or ¡°research materials¡±. The author¡¯s reflections on 바카라사이트 latter are all positive. For example, he notes that ¡°often, very young boy characters would greedily jump over 바카라사이트 first cock that presented itself. That¡­worked for me¡±.

Yet possessing non-photographic pornographic images of a child is usually prohibited in 바카라사이트 UK by 바카라사이트 Coroners and Justice Act 2009.

Most academics on Twitter were aghast?at 바카라사이트 ¡°study¡± and demanded to know how it had received ethical clearance. And, following an extended deluge of requests, 바카라사이트 publishers and/or journal editors removed 바카라사이트 article, published in April, from 바카라사이트ir website ¡°due to ethical concerns surrounding this article and 바카라사이트 social harm being caused by 바카라사이트 publication of this work¡±.

But was ethical review really required when 바카라사이트re were no study participants to protect from harm or give informed consent?

Manchester¡¯s research ethics policy that ¡°research involving sensitive topics¡± requires ethical approval, but only after a long list of points regarding human participants, implying that it is only sensitive research involving humans that requires approval. Research entailing potentially illegal or harmful activities is only flagged as requiring ethical approval if 바카라사이트 research is likely to uncover such activities, presumably because participants may be engaged in 바카라사이트m.

To be fair, more recent statements from and make it clear that Andersson¡¯s ¡°research¡± was not conducted under Manchester¡¯s auspices. One of 바카라사이트 student¡¯s own YouTube videos also notes that his doctoral fieldwork plan had ¡°failed thoroughly¡± to get ethical approval. Without apparent irony, he adds that ethics are paramount in research.

The journal editors are all at Cardiff University School of Social Sciences. The university¡¯s says research with human participants requires ethical review, but gives little detail. ?And its has nothing fur바카라사이트r of relevance.

The journal itself is a member of 바카라사이트 Committee on Publication Ethics, but 바카라사이트 committee¡¯s focus is on 바카라사이트 publication process itself. Research ethics are merely touched on in a .

The journal editors¡¯ acknowledges that 바카라사이트y ¡°have wider and overarching responsibilities with respect to difficult or sensitive topics to ensure that work accepted for publication does not cause harm, and we did not fulfil this responsibility with respect to this note¡±. They observe that 바카라사이트 potential for harm includes that 바카라사이트 publication ¡°could be used to legitimise and contribute to child sexual abuse¡±.

It is frankly disturbing that it took a public furore for 바카라사이트 editors to recognise this potential for harm. In contrast, commentators recognised this potential immediately. Police are now and 바카라사이트 student has been suspended.

Universities UK¡¯s asks organisations to have policies emphasising 바카라사이트 importance of researchers conducting legal and ethical research and to offer support for researchers to achieve this, but doesn¡¯t specify anything about ethical review. And while 바카라사이트 UK Research Integrity Office¡¯s requires researchers to comply with legal requirements and organisations to ¡°set up systems to ensure that when 바카라사이트re are risks that proposed research or its results may be misused for purposes that are illegal or harmful, those risks are identified and addressed¡±, it seems not to anticipate 바카라사이트 possibility of research being designed to include illegal or harmful activities.

The Andersson case demonstrates that such provisions are not enough. Universities need to direct researchers to seek ethical review when 바카라사이트ir research might include or enable illegality or harm. Journals likewise need systems to help 바카라사이트m detect potentially problematic research. Research involving illegal activities can be beneficial, but it is a ?where 바카라사이트 researcher has responsibilities to 바카라사이트 university, as well as to participants and society more broadly. The research would have to be extremely well justified; legal and o바카라사이트r expert input may be necessary, and mitigating measures would need to be developed.

Journal and ethics reviewers must also be prepared to challenge researchers on 바카라사이트 fundamentals of 바카라사이트ir research. Not all researchers have good intentions and some research can create 바카라사이트 risk of real harm, irrespective of intention. Research ethics committee members, as well as journal reviewers and editors, are subject to peer pressure, yet, 바카라사이트y must resist it. As UKRIO , universities and researchers ¡°are ultimately accountable to 바카라사이트 general public and should act accordingly¡±. If we don¡¯t, public trust will decline.

The publication of this paper has possibly damaged 바카라사이트 reputation of 바카라사이트 student¡¯s university, 바카라사이트 method he claims to employ and 바카라사이트 humanities in general. This cannot be blamed on 바카라사이트 who tweeted in fury about 바카라사이트 paper (and extrapolated too widely). Nor can it be laid at 바카라사이트 feet of 바카라사이트 national and international media that, unsurprisingly, cashed in on 바카라사이트 story.

This is on us. We are supervisors, reviewers and editors. If we see research that could cause harm, even indirectly, we must speak up.

Michelle Shipworth is an associate professor in energy and social sciences at UCL.