For those of us in the rest of the world, we might look at this story as an example of how litigious the US is, but it can also be seen as the desperate measures an animal ethics committee sometimes have to take to get their host institution to live up to its responsibilities.  Animal welfare, good housing/handling and training aren't cheap, but they are "the cost" of doing animal work the right way.

There can be little doubt that PLOS One has been a powerhouse in academic publishing but it also can seem beset with publication ethics and research misconduct problems.  This deep dive into what's going on behind the scenes at the publisher is interesting and well worth a read.  We have included links to quite a few related items.

This interesting Scholarly Kitchen piece looks at the nuts and bolts of Plan S, the implications of open access and its possible future.  If the exclusion of researchers from less affluent countries can be resolved it has phenomenal potential to democratise academic publishing and shift resources away from exorbitant subscription fees perhaps toward constructive items.  We have included links to 11 related items.   

Indignant complaints that a policy or approach is guilty of "wokeness" have always been mystifying to us.  None of us has an inviolate right to treat others with disrespect.  Over recent decades the ranks of science have (too slowly) expanded to include a variety of races/cultures, sexes/gender identities, ages and people who live with a disability.  And the readership of our work has definitely expanded.  People do have a reasonable expectation to be treated with respect and to be included in scientific discussions, rather than excluded because of who they are.  Times have changed folks, we all need to change as well.  If you disagree, we will need to agree to disagree.  

Crisis Text Line was an important service with an admirable mission.  It was worthy of the support it received from the tech sector.  But it is no surprise that ethical questions have been raised about the personal data shared with the commercial spin-off, Loris.  The arguments are: 1. The data does not contain personal identifiers.  2. They shared their plans in 2018.  3. Their privacy statement disclosed that there would be sharing.  But the matters raise the questions: (i) Does consent have a spirit that extends beyond a legal contract? (ii) Can an activity be ethical (as defined in ethics standards) and legal (as defined in privacy legislation) but still be in bad faith with participants?