OMXUS Press
Ethics Submission: Civic Proximity Pilot Study
2026
753 words
~3 min read
11 chapters
OMXUS Press
2026
Ethical Review Protocol — Pre-registration and ethics submission for a community-based intervention study, following IRB/HREC requirements.
Three-phase pilot study:
Protocol, not data. This is the ethics submission that enables data collection. The research itself follows RCT principles adapted for community intervention.
| Domain | Protection | Implementation |
|---|---|---|
| Privacy | Location data for emergency use only | Pseudonymization, edge processing, no persistent tracking |
| Consent | Opt-in with training requirement | Informed consent + competency verification |
| Equity | Coverage across demographics | Stratified recruitment, accessibility analysis |
| Safety | Professional backup always available | Dual dispatch, never replace formal services |
| Withdrawal | Right to exit at any time | One-tap deactivation, no penalty |
"Why Should It Cost So Much To Do Something Normal?" reflects a documented phenomenon:
| What We're Testing | Ethical Risk Level | Bureaucratic Burden |
|---|---|---|
| Can trained neighbors help faster? | Minimal (backup always available) | Full HREC review, 6-12 months |
| Existing programs (PulsePoint, GoodSAM) | Already operational | None (commercial) |
The same intervention deployed commercially requires no ethics review. Studied academically, it requires months of bureaucracy.
ethics_submission/
├── README.md # This file
├── manuscript/
│ └── paper.tex # Ethics submission (LaTeX)
├── data/
│ └── raw/ # (Empty - awaiting approval)
├── references/
│ └── bibliography.md # IRB literature, precedents
├── results/
│ └── figures/ # (Pending)
└── src/
└── templates/ # IRB forms, consent documents
Emanuel, E.J., Wendler, D. & Grady, C. (2000). What makes clinical research ethical? JAMA, 283(20), 2701-2711.
Schrag, Z.M. (2010). Ethical Imperialism: Institutional Review Boards and the Social Sciences. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Brooks, S.C. et al. (2016). PulsePoint AED alerts and bystander defibrillation. Circulation, 134(Suppl_2), A17411.
Smith, C.M. et al. (2020). GoodSAM smartphone app and bystander response. Resuscitation, 154, 89-96.
| This Study | Connects To | Link |
|---|---|---|
| Research enabled | emergency_response | ../emergency_response |
| Alert system design | direct_personal_alerts | ../direct_personal_alerts |
| Mathematical model | mathematical_foundations | ../mathematical_foundations |
| Public framing | anchor_wellbeing | ../anchor_wellbeing |
"We need more research before acting"
This submission documents that the barrier to research is not scientific uncertainty but bureaucratic friction. Programs achieving the same outcomes commercially face no such barriers. The escape route of "we need research first" is invalidated by the observation that research itself is blocked, while unresearched deployment proceeds.
| Claim | Evidence Level | Confidence |
|---|---|---|
| Proximity response is faster | Strong (PulsePoint/GoodSAM data) | High |
| Ethics review delays beneficial research | Moderate (documented delays) | Moderate |
| Bureaucratic friction is systematic | Observational | Moderate |
| Pilot study will generate useful data | Projected | N/A |
src/templates/Protocol documentation © 2026. Released under CC-BY-4.0 for adaptation by other researchers facing similar barriers.
This work began with grief.
Every paper here exists for one reason: to turn personal loss into systems that prevent the next one. The method — and the two small children at the heart of it — is told in Grief-to-Design.
If it moved you, don't let it end on the page. voteaussie.com is where reading becomes doing.
