Justin Withers, Integrity Branch
Australian Research Council
GPO Box 2702 Canberra, ACT 2601 [email protected]
National Health and Medical Research Council
GPO Box 1421 Canberra, ACT 2601 [email protected]
Dear Dr Longstaff, Justin Withers, NHMRC,
Below is an open letter that is free to share online and with relevant interested parties.
RE: Ethics Committees (Australian context).
I seek clarification and would like to open discussion on the questions posed below. Mindful of the privacy constraints that apply, no specific cases are discussed.
Q.1. How can the competing interests and perceived benefits or risks between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples be best managed?
Q.2. At what point does political pressure (and or administrative expediency) render an ethics committee at risk of being unethical?
Background
Until recently I was a member of an ethics committee that evaluated research applications with an Indigenous Australian focus. The committee of Indigenous and non-Indigenous members was the most cohesive group I have ever worked with, as each person’s considerable skillset and attributes was respected and their contribution valued. However, during my term on the REC I became increasingly aware of issues and ethical dilemmas faced by this and other ethics committees in the area of Indigenous research.
Ample guidance exists to guide deliberation about research merit and integrity with clear ethical requirements to protect the interests of those with least power. Where there are competing interests between non-Indigenous and Indigenous Australians in research projects, this is not necessarily what happens.
The two distinct Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australian cultures, and their expectations and inherent ability to exert influence, add complexity to the evaluation of applications. When political pressures, and administrative expediency issues, are applied to any committee for them to find in favour of the more powerful government backed non-Indigenous interests, a major ethical issue emerges.
During my term on this committee, a government department contracted the ethics committees’ auspicing ‘agency’ to provide evaluations of certain Indigenous programs, and an uncomfortable impasse began to develop. A level of political expectation for compliance became evident. While the committee members always worked to uphold the ethical requirements ensuring the interests of the most vulnerable were protected when non-Indigenous interests of researchers and government policy agenda were contra to Indigenous interests, it was not easy. Government policies, programs and non-Indigenous interests are not necessarily considered by Indigenous Australians to be in their best interests and benefit.
Underlying tensions and expectations that current government policy values and ideological stances would have precedence over Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people’s best interest, created a dissonance between the agency, the contracting department/researchers, and the ethics committee. Although ostensibly independent, management and support workers within the host agency were able to apply pressure for the ethics committee to comply with external or administrative demands.
The Independence of the ethics committee became less clear due to the influence and expectation from the agency and contracting department. My own areas of expertise suggest that this may be a result of deeply enculturated and embedded social norms of mainstream Westernised social structures rather than by explicit directive from a workplace senior. However, it is imperative that the point at which political influence/compliance renders ethics committees unethical be discussed and identified; if ethics committees are able to continue being considered ethical.
An additional benefit of encouraging deliberation on these issues is that an open discussion can contribute, and add depth, to ethical discourse at a broader level. This is particularly relatable to evaluations of research proposals where there is a distinct power imbalance.
Respect always
Dr Lorraine Muller
BSocSc, BSW Hons, PhD (1),PhD (2) (MHMS)
Until recently I was a member of an ethics committee that evaluated research applications with an Indigenous Australian focus. The committee of Indigenous and non-Indigenous members was the most cohesive group I have ever worked with, as each person’s considerable skillset and attributes was respected and their contribution valued. However, during my term on the REC I became increasingly aware of issues and ethical dilemmas faced by this and other ethics committees in the area of Indigenous research.
Enough is enough. Australia is in a crisis of violence against women
Readers please be advised that this article contains mentions of violence against women and ongoing violence and discrimination against a First Nations person. As we…
Terra nullius 2.0 – what AUKUS means for First Nations peoples
Australia will essentially become America’s military launch-pad into Asia. However, Ben Abbatangelo writes, little has been said or written about the drastic and disproportionate impacts it will have on First Nations communities in Australia.
