Ethical considerations in social network studies are grounded in the general principles of human subjects’ research, including avoidance of harm, promotion of justice, equitable distribution of burdens and benefits, respect for human dignity, and protection of confidentiality. To help navigate these challenges, this article presents recommendations for conducting ethical network research, developed by a multi-disciplinary and multi-national working group. The article is divided in three main sections where there are certain recommendations identified for each one of them: data collections, use, and availability. Discovering how others addressed and solved problems can be a way for all of us to improve our capacity to stand up to the scrutiny of ethical governance bodies, while also increasing our capacity to responsibly address novel, rare, or otherwise difficult situations for which institutions provide limited guidance. We see this as a first step toward a virtuous circle, or a form of “generalized indirect reciprocity” whereby researchers share information that may be relevant for others, and benefit at the same time from the information given by other members of the social networks analysis community. Our goal is to continue to produce and promote scientifically solid, ethical social network research.

Beginning in 1998 under the first Tri Council Policy Statement (TCPS 1), Canadian political science has been increasingly subject to standardized institutional ethics review for work involving human participants. Some contend that this ethics regime has overburdened the social sciences with clinically-oriented and legally risk-averse processes. In turn, this may create an ethics chill that pushes social scientists, particularly graduate students, away from human participant research. To date, however, there has been no empirical demonstration of this phenomenon within political science. Has Canadian institutional research ethics review under TCPS chilled human participant-driven research production in political science doctoral theses? This article tests the ethics chill hypothesis using an original dataset of English and French political science PhD dissertations across 11 Canadian universities from 1990 to 2019. Its results suggest no concrete evidence of an ethics chill under TCPS.

Considering the welfare of animals used in research is crucial for both the validity of the results obtained and for the social acceptance of animal research. In Europe, the majority of the 5,784 primates currently used for scientific purposes are macaques (Macaca fascicularis and M. mulatta). Inadequate housing conditions can lead to various physiological and behavioural alterations that indicate poor welfare and can impact upon the quality of the data collected. Although there are a number of documents that summarise scientific knowledge on welfare issues and describe the basic needs of macaques, a specific and comprehensive welfare evaluation tool is lacking for the two aforementioned species when housed in a research context. The objective of the Primate Welfare INdicators (PWIN) project is to develop a welfare assessment tool for macaques used in scientific research, through the adaptation of the existing AWIN protocol for farm animals. PWIN aims to provide an objective lifelong assessment of macaque welfare, with repeated evaluations taking place not only during studies but also before and after experimental procedures. The tool comprises an evaluation of macaque housing, nutrition, health and behaviour, complemented by behavioural observations using 10-min continuous focal sampling. PWIN will support ethical research practices, facilitate compliance with regulatory requirements, and enhance information transparency during inspections and project authorisation processes. Beyond tool development, this research seeks to encourage laboratory teams, including researchers, caretakers, and veterinarians, to regularly monitor macaque welfare at the individual level. The imperative to enhance animal welfare considerations in scientific research aligns with European legislation and the 3Rs principle. By establishing a versatile, species-specific method, this research aims to improve existing practices and support ethical, sustainable primate research.

This paper calls for a critical re-evaluation of research ethics in applied linguistics (AL) and second language acquisition (SLA) research, particularly concerning the ethical treatment of members of the disabled community. Historically, AL and SLA research has often perpetuated deficit views of disability by focusing on cognitive or affective differences. This paper examines the ethical implications of deficit-based research and tensions between institutional research policies and everyday ethical dilemmas through a disability justice lens. To address these gaps within the field, we propose an emancipatory, rights-based framework that fundamentally reimagines research ethics in AL and SLA by centering respect, representation and reciprocity, informed consent, privacy and confidentiality, and accessibility. Through a focus on disability rights and actionable guidelines, this framework seeks to dismantle systemic barriers in research ethics. It also highlights more equitable and inclusive research practices for disabled people and marginalized groups in AL and SLA research.

Ethics has been recognized as an integral part of Health Technology Assessment (HTA) since its beginning. However, the integration of ethical analysis in HTA practice has been limited and challenging. Members of the Health Technology Assessment international (HTAi) Interest Group (IG) for Ethical Issues in HTA reflected upon this situation, during a workshop and online meetings, to identify which challenges hinder integration of ethics in HTA and how to move the discipline forward. In this article, we present the results of that discussion, describing different ways that ethical analysis can occupy a more central role in HTA practice. We also describe developments in HTA that create a momentum for reflecting upon such integral role for ethical analysis in HTA: artificial intelligence-based health technologies, changes in the evidence landscape, assessing the environmental impact of health technology, and the new EU regulation on HTA.

This memorial essay introduces the Journal of Law, Medicine, and Ethics special issue on supported decision-making in research by honoring David T. Wasserman (1953–2025), a major organizer of the NIH workshop from which the issue emerged and a coauthor of two papers in the volume. It situates supported decision-making in research as an emerging approach that aims to make participation by people with cognitive disabilities possible without displacing their agency through default reliance on legally authorized representatives. The essay highlights Wasserman’s distinctive contribution to this developing area. He sought a position that is respectful while remaining clear eyed about exploitation risks and about well-intentioned practices that can undermine a participant’s interests, especially in hard cases where meaningful authorization is fragile. Drawing on the two coauthored papers in the issue and on colleagues’ recollections, the essay emphasizes Wasserman’s commitment to conceptual clarity, workable institutional design, and mentorship through collaboration. It closes by reflecting on his intellectual virtues, humor, and lasting influence on disability bioethics and research ethics.

This paper argues that research ethics for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities must attend to the value of non-domination. First, we highlight the role of domination in the history of abusive research practices against individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities, practices which directly led to existing protections for this vulnerable population. Second, we argue that existing protections do not adequately safeguard potential participants from domination in decision-making about whether to participate. This is a distinct concern from the well-established criticisms that existing protections may wrongfully exclude potential participants. Finally, we outline and defend an account of supported decision-making grounded in the value of non-domination in order to safeguard potential participants from domination. Our account nonetheless preserves supported decision-making’s possibilities for greater inclusion of individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities in research participation.

In recent decades, theorists of disability rights have made the moral and legal case for supported decision-making. Whereas surrogate decision-making, the long upheld legal standard, looks to a third party to make a decision for a person deemed to lack the capacity to make that decision for themselves, support in decision-making empowers that person to make their own decisions. In this article, we argue for a significant shift in the norms governing enrollment in clinical trials. Rather than assume that support is only appropriate for individuals who cannot independently make sufficiently informed enrollment decisions, we propose “support in decision-making for all” when research protocols are beyond a certain risk threshold. Drawing inspiration from the universal design movement and feminist insights about autonomy, we argue that making support in decision-making the presumption has substantial expressive and practical benefits, and better empowers all potential research participants to make more informed, autonomous decisions.

In response to the article So You Think You Know Who’s the “Legally Authorized Representative”: Clinical Research Hits a Snag, this invited commentary draws attention to the practical realities that are overlooked in the paper’s examination of enrolling research participants without decisional capacity to provide their own consent. In such scenarios, the participant’s Legally Authorized Representative (LAR) is co-enrolled to consent on the participant’s behalf. Implementation of a research-based LAR is a two-part process that involves identifying the LAR according to legal hierarchy and performing a capacity assessment to determine whether the prospective participant requires an LAR. The paper makes several comparisons between standard care and research approaches to these decisions, most of which the author deems inadequate for clinical research contexts, and suggests that navigating this process may pose “unexpected legal and ethical hazards” for researchers. By offering a practitioner’s perspective in this commentary, I hope to bring clarity to this argument by explaining from direct experience how LAR implementation includes much greater collaboration and thought partnership between researchers and IRBs than the author gives credit for.

Against a backdrop of rapidly expanding health artificial intelligence (AI) development, this paper examines how the European Union’s (EU) stringent digital regulations may incentivise the outsourcing of personal health data collection to low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), fuelling a new form of AI ethics dumping. Drawing on parallels with the historical offshoring of clinical trials, we argue that current EU instruments, such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act) and Medical Devices Regulation, impose robust internal safeguards but do not prevent the use of health data collected unethically beyond EU borders. This regulatory gap enables data colonialism, whereby commercial actors exploit weaker legal environments abroad without equitable benefit-sharing. Building on earlier EU responses to ethics dumping in clinical trials, we propose legal and policy pathways to prevent similar harms in the context of AI.

Anzac Day commemoration centers on the Anzac Legend, that volunteer Australian soldiers gave a sense of Australian nationhood a global presence. As such, it is considered an important institution in Australia. Largely absent, or at least uncomfortably present for some Australians, are the voices of aboriginal Australians. This exclusion needs to be fully understood if the Australian polity is to be considered an unrestrictive and representative democracy. This article considers a manner in which the un-covering of the means of exclusion of aboriginal voices from Anzac Day can be achieved. This depends on a radical democratization of research. The article discusses Actor-Network Theory (ANT) and new materialism as methodological perspectives that fulfill this imperative. The article urges a democratic research process that considers how many disparate entities participate in a commemorative network in order to contribute to broader questions of exclusion, citizenship, identity, and recognition.