The Global Centre for Risk and Innovation (GCRI)
Research with people, especially those affected by crises, poverty or discrimination, raises questions of consent, harm, power and benefit. Inclusive research ethics asks that participants be respected and protected, that communities share in shaping and benefiting from research, and that data be governed responsibly. This page sets out the principles and practices involved, how they are assessed, and what evidence serves researchers, ethics committees and funders.
GCRI · In development · service level R0
Research ethics is the set of principles and practices that protect people who take part in research and ensure it is fair. Inclusive research ethics adds that consent be free in unequal settings, data harms be prevented, communities help shape research and benefits return to them.
For inclusive research ethics, in GCRI's spatial-intelligence reading, the map opens on true-colour imagery, population density and land cover with true colour from NASA GIBS, framed on Latin America and the Caribbean; every other NASA layer, live feed and forecast waits in the layer list.
The interactive map needs JavaScript; the layer list and sources are below.
Layers 3
People and exposure, for this page
Keyboard, with the map focused
Hold Ctrl or ⌘ and scroll to zoom
Latest available
NASA GIBS / EOSDIS · ASTER GDEM (METI, NASA) · Blue Marble (NASA) · © OpenStreetMap contributors (ODbL) · Natural Earth
Loading the latest NASA imagery.
Drag to move. Ctrl or ⌘ and scroll, pinch or the buttons to zoom; hover for the values under the pointer; reset returns to the region.
For inclusive research ethics, in GCRI's spatial-intelligence reading, the map opens on true-colour imagery, population density and land cover with true colour from NASA GIBS, framed on Latin America and the Caribbean; every other NASA layer, live feed and forecast waits in the layer list.Satellite and model products as NASA publishes them, each with its own date; indicators, not assessments of any place; claim ceiling INTEGRATED.
Layers and dates
Participation, consent and local knowledge. The dossier below sets out how the risk develops, what is measured, where the data come from, how it is modelled and who decides.
Participants need to understand what research involves and be free to refuse. Crises, dependence on aid and power differences can undermine free consent.
Data can be used to identify, stigmatise or target people. Protecting confidentiality and minimising data collection reduce these risks.
Research designed with communities is more relevant and more likely to benefit them, and helps correct imbalances between researchers and participants.
Results, data and capacity should return to the communities and countries where research takes place.
Each term as this page uses it. Where a standard-setting body defines the term, the wording follows that body.
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
| Informed consent | Voluntary agreement to take part in research based on understanding its purpose, risks and benefits. |
| Ethics committee | A body that reviews research proposals to protect participants' rights and welfare. |
| Community engagement | Involving communities in shaping, conducting and using research that affects them. |
Each indicator carries its unit, its cadence, the kind of source behind it and the evidence label a value would carry. No values are shown: a programme supplies them under its own authority.
| Indicator | Unit | Cadence | Source type | Label |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Studies with ethics review | percent of published studies reporting approval | per review | Publication audits | OBSERVED |
| Research with community engagement documented | percent of projects | per review | Project records | DECLARED |
| Local researchers in authorship | share of authors from study countries | per review | Bibliometric analysis | OBSERVED |
| Data management plans with protection measures | percent of funded projects | per review | Funder records | DECLARED |
| Results returned to participants or communities | percent of projects | per review | Project records | DECLARED |
| Ethics committees with capacity for social research | count | per assessment | Institutional records | REPORTED |
The topic as a computational graph: named sources feed the methods, an evidence review gates the outputs, and the decisions stay with the authorities that hold them.
Fig. 02Nodes carry their type, two metric rows and a state; connectors show what feeds what; dashed frames name the owners; the timeline is the cadence. Design of the pipeline, not a record of a run.
Named public datasets and institutional records, each with its licence class. Sources by agreement are used only under their terms and never republished.
| Source | What it gives | Licence class |
|---|---|---|
| CIOMS International Ethical Guidelines for Health-related Research Involving Humans | Ethical guidance for research in diverse settings | Public, CIOMS terms |
| Global Code of Conduct for Research in Resource-Poor Settings | Principles of fairness, respect, care and honesty | Public, terms to check |
| UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science | Principles on inclusion and equity in science | Public, UNESCO terms |
| CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance | Collective rights in data | Public, GIDA terms |
| Bibliometric databases such as OpenAlex | Authorship and collaboration patterns | Open, CC0 |
Society and Human Development prepares evidence. The decisions below are taken by the authorities named, under their own rules, and never by the platform.
| Who decides | The question | Evidence this page serves |
|---|---|---|
| Ethics committees | Whether research is ethical and how to monitor it | Checklists; protection plans |
| Researchers and research teams | How to design inclusive and protective research | Engagement and benefit-sharing guides |
| Funders | What ethics and equity conditions to set | Audit evidence |
Ethical research begins with respect for persons, beneficence and justice, principles long established in research ethics, applied with care to settings of crisis and inequality. Consent must be informed, voluntary and ongoing, which is difficult when people depend on assistance or fear consequences. Research should minimize burden, avoid repeated assessment of the same communities and stop when risks outweigh benefits.
Participation ranges from consultation to co-design and community-led research. Indigenous data sovereignty principles assert the rights of Indigenous peoples to govern data about them. Local knowledge of hazards, ecosystems and coping often precedes and complements scientific data, and should be credited and used only with permission. Data protection, including minimization, anonymization and secure storage, protects participants from identification and misuse.
Crisis settings add specific duties. Researchers must avoid diverting resources from response, coordinate to prevent over-assessment, protect staff and participants, and recognize that people in distress may agree to take part because they hope for assistance. Clear explanation that research is separate from aid is part of valid consent.
Independent review of protocols before research starts, with attention to risk and consent.
Communities shape questions, methods and interpretation.
Collect only what is needed, protect identities and agree retention and use.
Limits: ethical review cannot anticipate every situation, power imbalances persist even with good procedures, and anonymization can fail when small groups or locations are described.
The current service level is R0: information and enquiries. An enquiry receives a reference and names the next step; applications, payments, compute allocations and registrations open only when their team, terms and review capacity exist.