Abstract
Joseph Amon and colleagues discuss the challenges of conducting human rights research in settings where local research ethics committees may favor the interests of the state over the interests of research participants.
Highlights
Human rights violations play an important role as determinants of, or structural barriers to, health [1,2,3,4,5,6]
Key questions have emerged about the roles of ethical review and research ethics committees (RECs) when criminalized or marginalized populations are part of research or program efforts [12,13]
Roles of RECs and researchers to ensure genuine protection of the individuals involved in human rights investigations
Summary
Human rights violations play an important role as determinants of, or structural barriers to, health [1,2,3,4,5,6]. Interests other than ensuring the sound protection of research participants may come to dominate the decisions that RECs make, including whether they agree to review the research and/or allow the research to be conducted at all. Researchers aware of these decision-making processes may ‘‘self censor’’ the focus of their research or choose to conduct research elsewhere. Roles of RECs and researchers to ensure genuine protection of the individuals involved in human rights investigations. We present examples of how human rights researchers can address complex ethical challenges by building the capacity of community-based organizations representing vulnerable populations and by adopting ethical operating principles. We illustrate our policy proposals using case studies of research involving men who have sex with men (MSM) in Africa, ethnic minorities in Myanmar, and individuals in compulsory drug treatment centers in Asia
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
