{"panels":[{"content":{"params":{"text":"

Considerations for researchers and ethics reviewers<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/h2>\n\n
Daniela Proske<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/h3>\n\n
<\/p>\n\n
Basically, researchers should think about their aims and goals of their research and clearly state that in their proposal so that the ethics experts and the REC members can decide whether these aims and goals are in line with what they want to have and the regulations of the country. And so they can accept or reject single proposals based on these aims and goals and avoid the slippery slope.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n
I think they also should look for the aims and goals that should be in the proposal, so they know what they deal with and so they can avoid going down a slippery slope by approving some rather controversial aims and goals in research. And I think they should just be open, but still they should<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n
consider that there are some problems and there could be controversial discussions going on about<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n
certain types of research. So, they just need to focus on what the proposal says and then approve it on these grounds that they have. Research ethics reviewers need to conduct a risk-benefit analysis for the participants that are involved in the research as well as society and they should just ask for more information from the researchers if they are unsure about anything in the proposal to just get clarification.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n"},"library":"H5P.AdvancedText 1.1","metadata":{"contentType":"Text","license":"U","title":"Untitled Text"},"subContentId":"7d32e97c-5726-4275-8b8c-51d3a6c7460b"},"title":"Video Transcript"}],"hTag":"h2"}

Breadcrumb