University research ethics clearances: Safety nets, or a false sense of legal immunity?

  • J. Beckmann University of Pretoria

Abstract

Ethics reviews loom large in the world of a researcher at a university. Ethics committees review research project applications meticulously and critically. They attempt to ensure that in all projects that are approved, the human respondents and participants suffer no harm that could have been prevented. However, there seems to be little acknowledgement of the possible legal repercussions of unethical research conduct.

This article investigates the protection that ethics review protocols (particularly in the human sciences) offer researchers and their institutions against legal ramifications emanating from research projects where participants do suffer harm.

The main finding is that research ethics protocols may offer less protection against legal implications of ethical misconduct than would generally be thought to be the case.

I will make some observations on liability, vicarious liability, and the basic rights of subjects in research, after which I will offer a conclusion on the implications of this analysis for ethics reviews.

Author Biography

J. Beckmann, University of Pretoria

Full Professor

Department of Education Management and Policy Studies

Daculty of Education

University of Pretoria

References

Bruhn, J. G., G. Zajac, A. A. Al-Kazemi and L. D. Prescott Jr. 2002. Moral positions and academic conduct: Parameters of tolerance for ethics failure. The Journal of Higher Education 73 (4): 461-493.

Dingle, A. D. and M. I. Stuber. 2008. Ethics education. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America 17 (1): 187-207.

F v Minister of Safety and Security and Another (CCT 30/11) [2011] ZACC 37; 2012 (1) SA 536 (CC); 2012 (3) BCLR 244 (CC); (2012) 33 ILJ 93 (CC); 2013 (2) SACR 20 (CC) (15 December 2011).

Fitzgerald, M. H. and P. A. Phillips. 2006. Centralized and non-centralized ethics review: A five nation study. Accountability in Research 13 (1): 47-74.Haggerty, K. D. 2004. Ethics creep: Governing social science research in the name of ethics. Qualitative Sociology 27 (4): 391-414.

Human-Vogel, S. and S. Coetzee. 2011. Challenges associated with ethics review of educational research at a South African university. Acta Academica 43 (2): 165-192.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/res+perit+domino, accessed on 6 October 2016)

Jefford, M. and R. Moore. 2008. Improvement of informed consent and the quality of consent documents. The Lancet Oncology 9 (5): 485-493.

Kruger v Coetzee. 1966(2) SA 428(A).

Minister of Safety and Security v Van Duivenboden (209/2001) [2002] ZASCA 79; [2002] 3 All SA 741 (SCA) (22 August 2002).

Mouton, J. 2001. How to succeed in your masters & doctoral studies: A South African guide and resource book. Pretoria: Van Schaik.

Neethling, J., J. M. Potgieter and P. J. Visser. 2001. Law of delict. 4th ed. Durban: Butterworths.

Walton, N. n.d. What is research ethics? Blog at WordPress.com. https://researchethics.ca/what-is-research-ethics/ (accessed 5 October 2016).

Wolpe, P. R. 2006. Reasons scientists avoid thinking about ethics. Cell 125 (6): 1023-1025.

Published
2017-06-18
How to Cite
Beckmann, J. 2017. “University Research Ethics Clearances: Safety Nets, or a False Sense of Legal Immunity?”. South African Journal of Higher Education 31 (3), 6-23. https://doi.org/10.20853/31-3-1049.
Section
General Articles