When ethical guidance is missing and do-it-yourself is required: The shaping of ethical peer review guidance in the FRR project

Assistive Technology Research Series

Volumn 27, Issue , 2011, Pages 49-59

  Rauhala, Marjo ^a  

^a VIENNA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Austria)

Author keywords

Assistive Technology; Ethical Guidance; Ethics; Peer Review; Potentially Vulnerable Users; User Involvement

Indexed keywords

EID: 84865460904     PISSN: 1383813X     EISSN: 18798071     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.3233/978-1-60750-752-9-49     Document Type: Review

References (13)

1. Council Decision of 25 January 1999 adopting a specific programme for research, technological development and demonstration on quality of life and management of living resources. [Internet] 1999 [cited 2010 Dec. 30] Available from: http://eurlex.europa.eu/Notice.do?mode=dbl&lang=en&ihmlang= en&lng1=en,de&lng2=da,de,el,en,es,fi,fr,it,nl,pt,sv,&val=329567: cs&page=op.
2. Social Science Research Ethics [Internet] 2011 [cited 2011 Jan 27] Available from: http://www.lancs.ac.uk/researchethics/index.html.
3. Panek P, Alm N, Dayé C, Edelmayer G, Gentile N, Magnusson C, Mayer P, Molenbroek J F M, Neveryd H, Rauhala M, Rist A, Schlathau R, Zagler WL. Friendly Rest Room Project: A Toilet Prototype for Improving the Quality of Life of Old People and Persons with Disability. In: Pruski A, Knops H, editors. Assistive Technology: From Virtuality to Reality. Amsterdam: IOS Press; 2005, pp. 8-12.
4. Rauhala M, Topo P. Independent living, technology and ethics. Technology and Disability. 2003;15(3):205-214.
5. Flaskerud JH, Winslow BJ. Conceptualizing Vulnerable Populations in Health Related Research. Nursing Research. 1998;47(2):69-78.
6. Martin AW. Large-group Processes as Action Research. In: Reason P, Bradbury H, editors. Handbook of Action Research: Participatory Inquiry and Practice. London: SAGE; 2001, p200-208.
7. Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR). What is participatory design? [Internet] 2005 May 6 [cited 2011 Jan 27] Available from: http://cpsr.org/issues/pd/introInfo
8. Finnish National Advisory Board for Research Ethics (TENK). Ethical principles of research in the humanities and social and behavioural sciences and proposals for ethical review. [Internet] 2009 [cited 2011 Mar. 1] Available from: http://www.tenk.fi/ENG/publications.htm
9. World Medical Association (WMA). The Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. Adopted by the 18th WMA General Assembly, Helsinki, Finland, June 1964, and last amendment by the 59th WMA General Assembly, Seoul, October 2008.
10. The Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) in collaboration with the World Health Organization (WHO). International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects. CIOMS, Geneva, 2002.
11. European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies (EGE). Ethical issues of healthcare in the information society. Opinion no 13-30/07/1999. [Internet] 2011 [cited 2011 27 Jan] Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/ european-group-ethics/docs/avis13-en.pdf
12. Rauhala M. Ethical Counselling as a Working Method in Designing Technology for People with Dementia. In: Topo P, Östlund B, editors. Dementia, Design and Technology: Time to Get Involved. Amsterdam: IOS Press; 2009, pp. 97-110.
13. Rauhala M, Edelmayer G, Topo P, Zagler WL. Ethics and Assistive Technology Development - Project Workers' Experiences with Continuous Ethical Review. In: Eizmendi G, Azkoitia JM, Craddock GM, editors. Challenges for Assistive Technology. Proceedings of the 9th European Conference for the Advancement of Assistive Technology in Europe (AAATE). Amsterdam: IOS Press; 2007, Volume 20, pp. 610-614.