Response to open peer commentaries on "Returning to History : The Ethics of Researching Asylum Seeker Health in Australia"

Many commentators on our article “Returning to History: The Ethics of Researching Asylum Seeker Health in Australia” (2010) have suggested that the exclusion of direct asylum seeker participation further exacerbates the silencing and invisibility of these vulnerable people. This criticism raises important issues—namely, how can we claim to speak for others? When should we attempt to do so? What is an acceptable level of risk to participants in research, against what should these risks be balanced, and whose right ought it be to make the judgment?