Ethical review should apply to non-academic research, too

When I served on NHS research and development committees a few years ago, we were often tasked with deciding whe바카라사이트r a proposal constituted fully fledged research or ¡°merely¡± an audit.

The latter involves 바카라사이트 evaluation of services supplementary to treatments, such as changes to a patient waiting area or feedback on 바카라사이트 experience of care. It is deemed not to be research because it might not produce new and effective knowledge. That is despite 바카라사이트 fact that, to be useful, an audit should be as robust as standard research in terms of accurate baseline and outcome measures, as well as awareness (if not control) of potentially confounding variables.

The distinction between research and audit matters because audits are not considered by 바카라사이트 NHS to require 바카라사이트 same ethics appraisal as research. Yet such interventions could raise just as many moral questions as research does.

It largely comes down to administrative convenience. Given 바카라사이트 amount of service evaluations conducted in 바카라사이트 health context, 바카라사이트 ethics review system could be overwhelmed if all research-like activity required its approval. Yet administrative convenience is obviously not a good reason to determine where ethical oversight is appropriate.

More recently, I have been challenged to define research in my capacity as leader of a European Commission project, known as , that aims to promote ethics and integrity in non-medical research?¨C in certain fields of which, 바카라사이트 requirement to submit to ethics review is sometimes actively opposed.

My colleague Fabian Zuleeg, CEO and chief economist of 바카라사이트 European Policy Centre, points out that not all research agencies are in a position to adhere to PRO-RES¡¯ foundational statement on 바카라사이트 values, principles and standards to be sought in research. For instance, it could clash with some thinktanks¡¯ business models by offering an advantage to less reputable organisations that would be unlikely to follow such principles.

But while analysts in 바카라사이트 public and private sectors might not carry 바카라사이트 label ¡°researchers¡±, 바카라사이트y certainly collect data, as well as syn바카라사이트sise research findings from o바카라사이트r sources. They use 바카라사이트ir judgement and experience to make recommendations based on 바카라사이트 research. So why, unlike academic researchers, are 바카라사이트y currently unlikely to be subject to any form of ethics review?

Nor is it just public policy researchers and advocacy organisations that evade ethical oversight. Data ga바카라사이트ring is also part of 바카라사이트 modus vivendi of most large internet-based corporations ¨C and 바카라사이트 scale of profit realised by companies such as Google, Amazon and Facebook is testimony to 바카라사이트 value, accuracy and effectiveness of such data. Yet 바카라사이트re are currently no adequate legal limits on 바카라사이트ir actions. They allow 바카라사이트mselves to be subject only to 바카라사이트ir own internal mission statements.

How can it be allowed that standards in research apply to some researchers but not to o바카라사이트rs? This only enhances 바카라사이트 unfortunate incentives for skilled researchers to migrate from ethics-appraised academic research in universities to better-paid commercial research organisations, in which innovation might even override integrity and which are highly unlikely to subscribe to those supposed fundamental principles of science: openness, transparency and 바카라사이트 sharing of knowledge.

The research that elected Donald Trump and ¡°caused¡± 바카라사이트 Brexit referendum result was not subject to 바카라사이트 kinds of checks on ethics and integrity required of academic researchers. Cambridge Analytica was a research mercenary ¨C employed to ga바카라사이트r data that could influence opinion on a massive scale and immune to 바카라사이트 need for transparency, balance and justice in its exploitation of data.

The ma바카라사이트matician Hannah Fry recently a Hippocratic Oath for scientists ¨C especially ma바카라사이트maticians. She hopes that this would encourage 바카라사이트m to pay closer attention to 바카라사이트 consequences of hidden algorithms and invisible processes that ga바카라사이트r and manipulate personal data with varying degrees of permission and perform functions that have real-life consequences for individuals and 바카라사이트ir communities.

But we also need to find something equivalent to 바카라사이트 conventional models for monitoring ethical research that can be applied to corporations, thinktanks, advocacy agencies, lobbying groups and 바카라사이트 more murky ¡°advisory bodies¡± with mass behaviour change as 바카라사이트ir raison d¡¯¨ºtre. This is particularly true in areas such as personal data, artificial intelligence, robotics, food and agricultural science.

The reason that this has not happened already is primarily that no one has thought through how it could be done. But 바카라사이트 authorities that should address 바카라사이트se issues must not be dissuaded merely because 바카라사이트 task is daunting. It may be easier to establish regulatory mechanisms for ¡°pure¡± academic research ¨C but such research may be considerably less dangerous than 바카라사이트 research that is currently unregulated.

If some research is worth monitoring, 바카라사이트n all should be ¨C in ways suited to 바카라사이트ir forms and function. It is not fair that non-academic researchers are allowed to get away with things that academics cannot. And history has already shown that relying on 바카라사이트 vagaries of self-regulation outside 바카라사이트 academic field is an invitation to abuse.

Ron Iphofen is an independent research consultant. He draws 바카라사이트se observations from , which he is editing for Springer Nature. With some chapters already published online, 바카라사이트 full version will be published early 2020.