Why social work practitioners need research ethics knowledge.

Social work practitioners are under increasing pressure to understand and use evidencebased practice approaches. At the same time, clinicians, scientists, and government officials have noted that only a handful of assessment and intervention approaches have been adequately tested so they might be disseminated for widespread use.To remedy this situation, a significant increase in the number of community-based research projects is necessary. Although researchers and practitioners seem to come from different worlds, successful communitybased research requires closing the "researcherpractitioner gap." Researcher-practitioner partnerships are underway in many agency settings. For example, the National Child Traumatic Stress Network ([NCTSN] http://www.nctsn.org) is a group of researchers and practitioners who work in 70 rural and metropolitan sites in the United States. NCTSN members use innovative child trauma treatments such as parent-child interaction therapy and trauma-focused cognitive—behavioral therapy. Funded by the U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, NCTSN enables clinicians to work closely with researchers to test the local effectiveness of their work and participate in cross-site evaluation studies to demonstrate the network's national effects. If such trends continue it will become commonplace for social work practitioners to join research projects. And it will be no surprise that social workers will work hard to ensure that their clients' rights as research participants are respected. Human subjects protection is a great challenge for community-based researchers because most clients belong to groups who present as among the most vulnerable to unethical practices. What follows is a brief review of standards that social work practitioners and other researchers should aim to follow when conducting research, including a discussion of the complexities and challenges involved. AU projects should be vetted by an institutional review board (IBJ3) that is affiliated with a university' or other entity that is registered with the federal government's Office of Human Research Protections. One easy way to verify IRB approval (besides checking with the investigator or university) is to inspect the informed consent form that clients are required to understand and sign before they are enrolled into a study. The official IRB stamp or current \Ki\ contact information is always listed on the form. A consent form that contains no such information might mean the study was not approved or that approval has expired. The Code of Federal Regulations (also known as the "Common Rule") designates three majoicategories of vulnerable people: 45 CFR 46 Subpart B discusses pregnant women, fetuses, and neonatos; Subpart C discusses prisoners; and Subpart D discusses children.The reader can see that each of these groups might be exploited because of their conipromised status in society, cognitive limitations associated with age, or their medical vulnerabilities. In addition, history has taught us that these groups have been improperly treated by researchers in the past. As an illustration, I discuss some of the complexities of i^ediatric research, especially because so many social workers employed in child welfare agencies, schools, hospitals, and mental health settings are now or soon will be involved in projects investigating child assessment and treatment technologies. Historically, U.S. federal policies effectively excluded children from all research to protect them from exploitation. Relatively recently this policy was revised because it had created a "pédiatrie gap" in research knowledge about critical interventions such as medications, surgical procedures, and psychotherapies. In addition, the lack of evidence did not routinely prevent many practitioners from using unproven therapies with children. Although practitioners often use treatments demonstrated to be effective with adults, there are no guarantees