
ANZCCART Fact Sheets (September 2020)
About Australian & New Zealand Council for the Care of Animals in Research and Teaching (ANZCCART) ANZCCART is located in
About Australian & New Zealand Council for the Care of Animals in Research and Teaching (ANZCCART) ANZCCART is located in
Introduction The use of animals or animal tissues in laboratory classes is a privilege that brings with it responsibilities. These
Another AFL concussion story, but not about the controversy swirling around Dr Paul McCrory. This one is about Associate Prof Alan Pearce, who claims the league is frustrating research on the horrors of CTE. Such work is vital so the lifelong consequences of these terrible sporting injuries can be better understood and mitigated. So if this report is true, it is mystifying.
A researcher who fails to disclose or discuss the steps taken to mitigate a conflict of interest is never a good look. It is especially a concern if someone involved in a clinical trial fails to deal with (at least a perceived) conflict relating to funding from a pharmaceutical company. This can seriously harm the reputation of individual researchers, potentially their host institution, the publication where their research is reported and potentially clinical research in general.
Given how influential Paul McCrory’s work has been in Australia and globally, this developing story is of huge significance. His work has informed good practice in sport and the concern now is, can that position and advice be trusted?
Exclusive: League confirms sports neurologist’s departure from committees in January 2021, well before plagiarism allegations The AFL has confirmed that
In this video, we chat with Dr Daniel Barr and Dr David Blades from the RMIT University research integrity network,
If you were hoping common sense or faith in the scientific and peer review process would win out, sorry not so much, welcome to the farce of modern Australian politics. The very idea that politicians can decide whether it is politically palatable or expedient to overturn a decision by an impartial peer review process is offensive and outrageous. The implications are that academic freedom only extends as far as politicians are prepared to let it. The repost from the Senate committee is ominous and alarming. Having rejected the very idea that politicians shouldn’t be able to overturn peer review outcomes, their response is that a peek Australian research funding body needs to be reviewed.