Explore the vast range of titles available.

As defined by the International Federation of Social Workers, social work is a human rights profession. This is explicitly stated in the professional codes of ethics in many nations. However, the most recent version of the Code of Ethics of the National Association of Social Workers continues to exclude any mention of human rights, fitting in with the history of U.S. exceptionalism on this subject. Social workers around the world have a long history of working for the achievement of human rights, including an explicit grounding of practice in human rights principles: human dignity, nondiscrimination, participation, transparency, and accountability. Utilizing these principles, U.S. social workers can move from the deficit model of the needs-based approach to competently contextualizing individual issues in their larger human rights framework. In this way, social work can address larger social problems and make way for the concurrent achievement of human rights. This article explains these principles and provides a case example of how to apply them in practice.

Science and technology are key to economic and social development, yet the capacity for scientific innovation remains globally unequally distributed. Although a priority for development cooperation, building or developing research capacity is often reduced in practice to promoting knowledge transfers, for example through North–South partnerships. Research capacity building/development tends to focus on developing scientists’ technical competencies through training, without parallel investments to develop and sustain the socioeconomic and political structures that facilitate knowledge creation. This, the paper argues, significantly contributes to the scientific divide between developed and developing countries more than any skills shortage. Using Charles Taylor’s concept of irreducibly social goods, the paper extends Sen’s Capabilities Approach beyond its traditional focus on individual entitlements to present a view of scientific knowledge as a social good and the capability to produce it as a social capability. Expanding this capability requires going beyond current fragmented approaches to research capacity building to holistically strengthen the different social, political and economic structures that make up a nation’s innovation system. This has implications for the interpretation of human rights instruments beyond their current focus on access to knowledge and for focusing science policy and global research partnerships to design approaches to capacity building/development beyond individual training/skills building.

Tribal groups work tirelessly to maintain sovereignty rights, preserving and upholding tribal authority and protection over their land, people, businesses, and health. Moreover, the conduct of health science research by outsiders has had its share of an unethical, misguided, and abusive past. Tribally based institutional review boards (IRBs) are addressing these issues in an effort to control new health science research, set their own research agenda, and protect their people in the same spirit as has been accomplished through the perpetuation of sovereignty rights. We describe the success of a tribally based IRB at creating new capacity for health research and enhanced levels of trust, including bidirectional cultural education between academic researchers and tribal IRB committee members.

Global surgery, while historically a small niche, is becoming a larger part of the global health enterprise. This article discusses the burden of global surgery, emphasizing the importance of addressing surgical needs in low- and middle-income countries. It describes the barriers to surgical care in the developing world, the ethical challenges that these barriers create, and strategies to overcome these barriers. It emphasizes the crucial role of preparation for global surgical interventions as a way to maximize benefits as well as minimize harms and ethical challenges. It ends with the cautionary statement that preparation does not eliminate ethical problems, so surgical volunteers must be prepared not only for the technical challenges of global surgery but also for the ethical challenges.

Recent scholarship has considered what, if anything, rich people owe to poor people to achieve justice in global health and the implications of this for international research. Yet this work has primarily focused on international clinical research. Health systems research is increasingly being performed in low and middle income countries and is essential to reducing global health disparities. This paper provides an initial description of the ethical issues related to priority setting, capacity-building, and the provision of post-study benefits that arise during the conduct of such research. It presents a selection of issues discussed in the health systems research literature and argues that they constitute ethical concerns based on their being inconsistent with a particular theory of global justice (the health capability paradigm). Issues identified include the fact that priority setting for health systems research at the global level is often not driven by national priorities and that capacity-building efforts frequently utilize one-size-fits-all approaches.

We describe the research ethics capacity needs of the countries from the Middle East region. Against this background, we relate the experience of an international training program focused on providing long-term training in research ethics to individuals from lowand middle-income countries in the Middle East area. We describe our pedagogical approach to training, program changes to address challenges faced, and accomplishments of trainees. Many former trainees developed research ethics curricula in their home institutions, established or enhanced their institutions’ research ethics committees, provided leadership to national research ethics systems, and conducted research in research ethics. Based on our analysis, we make recommendations for how trainees can further address current regional research ethics needs in the Middle East and conduct future research. This paper is part of a collection of papers analyzing the Fogarty International Center’s International Research Ethics Education and Curriculum Development program.

The post-Communist countries of Central and Eastern Europe and Central Asia are at various stages of development with respect to their capacity to protect human research participants. We examined the impact of two Fogarty-funded programs in this region, the Union Graduate College–Vilnius University Advanced Certificate Program and the Case Western Reserve University Master’s Degree Program, by surveying these programs’ graduates and by examining alumni activities. Alumni have served in leadership roles on research ethics committees, developed and taught new courses in research ethics, and contributed to scholarship. However, political, social, and economic challenges impede the ability of graduates to maximize their effectiveness. Additional curricular attention is needed in research methodology, policy development and implementation, and the interplay between research ethics and human rights.

Vulnerability of participants in research and the provision of special protections for vulnerable research participants are key concepts in research ethics. Despite international consensus requiring special protections for vulnerable research participants, both the concept of vulnerability and the nature and adequacy of strategies to reduce vulnerability remain vague and, consequently, are subject to varying interpretations. We report on observations of the challenges faced in understanding this key concept by 20 Russian and Romanian trainees participating in a one-year M.A. training program in research ethics from 2000 through 2011. We describe how trainees’ understanding of and appreciation for the need for special protections of vulnerable research participants was nurtured. This paper is part of a collection of papers analyzing the Fogarty International Center’s International Research Ethics Education and Curriculum Development program.

WE REPORT THE FINDINGS OF A PRELIMINARY study of social science researchers' experiences of ethics review from a developing country perspective. Social science researchers' experiences of ethics review were coded as negative (42.6%), positive (21.3%), or mixed (36.2%). Ethics review was primarily experienced as negative for pragmatic reasons such as slow turnaround time, inadequate review and problems with the centralization of review. Our finding that South African researchers experience the same problems and frustrations with RECs as developed country researchers affirms that South Africa's problems with ethics review are not due to it being a less developed system, but to general review practices as they arise naturally in institutions. Developing countries thus have a unique opportunity to learn from the reported dissatisfactions and mistakes of developed countries, to avoid procedures that have hindered ethics review of much social science research in developed countries, and to fashion their own review procedures in ways that are more appropriate to key ethical issues arising in social science research and local conditions and resources.

PRACTITIONERS OF COMMUNITY-BASED participatory research (CBPR) must overcome numerous barriers in order to include research participants as equal partners in decision-making. The decision-making processes of stakeholders (including research participants) of one international CBPR project based in the middle belt of Ghana were analyzed through qualitative focus group and interview data, as well as direct observation of formal meetings. Using modified grounded theory to interpret our data, we find that despite the intentions of extracommunity stakeholders, ordinary community members do not experience full ownership of the governance of the research enterprise. We conclude that organizational philosophy, cultural expectations, and environmental context can help to explain differential perceptions of stakeholders and function as barriers to full partnership.