Ethics reporting in forensic science research publications – A review

Bonsu, Dan Osei Mensah; Afoakwah, Constance B; Abedi, Maxwell; Higgins, Denice; Austin, Jeremy J.

doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2022.111290

Cited by 9 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A recent study by Asplund and Hulter Asberg (2021) found that health and social sciences research in Sweden failed to report ethical review in 6% of publications with somatic focus, 11% with non-somatic focus, and 27% in social sciences. A study by Bonsu et al (2022) examined the reporting of ethical approval and informed consent in research utilizing human or animal subjects published in six forensic science journals. They found that just over a third of all the publications stated that the authors had obtained ethical approval, and a majority of these reported the name of the ethical committee, but only a third provided an approval code.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How do journals publishing palliative and end‐of‐life care research report ethical approval and informed consent?

Godskesen,

Vie,

Bülow

et al. 2023

Learned Publishing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study explores how papers published in international journals in palliative and end‐of‐life care report ethical approval and informed consent. A literature search following PRISMA guidelines was conducted in PubMed, the Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus, the ProQuest Social Science Premium Collection, PsycINFO, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL). A total of 169 empirical studies from 101 journals were deductively coded and analysed. The results showed that 5% of publications provided no information on ethical approval, 12% reported minimal information, 56% reported rudimentary information, and 27% reported comprehensive details. We also found that 13% did not report any information on informed consent, 17% reported minimal information, 50% reported rudimentary information, and 19% reported comprehensive details. The prevalence of missing and incomplete ethical statements and inadequate reporting of informed consent processes in recent publications raises concerns and highlights the need for improvement. We suggest that journals advocate high reporting standards and potentially reject papers that do not meet ethical requirements, as this is the quickest path to improvement.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How do journals publishing palliative and end‐of‐life care research report ethical approval and informed consent?

Godskesen,

Vie,

Bülow

et al. 2023

Learned Publishing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Modern scientific research seeks to protect the dignity, rights, and welfare of research participants by following ethical requirements. Six forensic science journals over the time period of 2010–2019 were examined for their reporting of ethical approval and informed consent in original research using human or animal subjects [ 120 ]. These journals were Forensic Science International: Genetics , Science & Justice , Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine , the Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences , Forensic Science International , and the International Journal of Legal Medicine .…”

Section: Advancements In Current Practicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A total of 3010 studies that described research on human or animal subjects and/or samples were selected from these journals with only 1079 articles (36%) reporting that they had obtained ethical approval and 527 articles (18%) stating that informed consent was sought either by written or verbal agreement. The authors of this study noted that reported compliance with ethical guidelines in forensic science research and publication was below what is considered minimal reporting rates in biomedical research and encouraged widespread adoption of the 2020 guidelines described below [ 120 ].…”

Section: Advancements In Current Practicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Recent advances in forensic biology and forensic DNA typing: INTERPOL review 2019–2022

Butler

2023

Forensic Science International: Synergy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Arguably, this is accompanied by a rhetorical broadening away from a sole focus on ethics as “burdens” (Kayser, 2015, p. 45) to some geneticists openly considering ethical aspects as inherent to their work (Samuel & Prainsack, 2019). And yet, ethical compliance reporting of forensic genetics research in journal publications remains stubbornly low (Bonsu et al, 2022), and despite a focus on the source of biomaterial and the consent of “donors,” debate around the use of samples from marginalized minority groups remains alive (see, e.g., the Uighur in China and the Roma in Europe: Forzano et al, 2021; Lipphardt et al, 2021; Moreau, 2019). Sourcing materials and data, and curating reference databases are a central matter of research ethics, which will remain contentious as long as the forensic genetics community remains equivocal about the protection of research participants, a concern already clearly voiced for forensic science:…”

Section: One Step Forward Two Steps Back?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“Noble cause casuistry” in forensic genetics

Wienroth,

McCartney

2023

WIREs Forensic Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the forensic genetics community, too often one can find what we have called “noble cause casuistry”: scientists believing that, “since we are catching criminals, any ethical shortfalls in our work are negated by good outcomes.” Such casuistry is also characterized by the extrapolation of “success” in individual case work to assumptions of reliability and usefulness for all forensic genetic applications, in all contexts. The increasing and deepening interaction of forensic (epi)genetics technologies with broader surveillance logics, is also rarely problematized within the community, with a notable reticence to address fundamental and complex questions about the role of forensic genetics in society. Furthermore, despite some initial progress, forensic genetics largely remains content to be guided by “thin” empiricist ethics, foregrounding notions that “maths does not lie,” with little acknowledgement of the serious limitations of this approach. Outside of laboratory settings, social and cultural effects of forensic genetics technology alter regardless of the “maths.” As such, the field needs to adopt an ethos that centralizes and deepens their ethical bona fides, approaching ethics as “lived practice,” with community accountability similar to other public‐serving professions and disciplines. This could commence with a commitment to professionalism, with a robust ethos grounded in both integrity and social justice.This article is categorized under: Forensic Biology > Ethical and Social Implications

show abstract

Ethics reporting in forensic science research publications – A review

Cited by 9 publications

References 39 publications

How do journals publishing palliative and end‐of‐life care research report ethical approval and informed consent?

How do journals publishing palliative and end‐of‐life care research report ethical approval and informed consent?

Recent advances in forensic biology and forensic DNA typing: INTERPOL review 2019–2022

“Noble cause casuistry” in forensic genetics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About