ACN - 101321555 Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Resource Library

Research Ethics MonthlyAbout Us

ResourcesConflicts of interest

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

(Australia Queensland case) Universal Medicine research conducted by devotees won’t be pulled by Queensland uni – ABC (Josh Robertson | March 2019)0

Posted by Admin in on March 25, 2019

A top Australian university has stood by studies into the health benefits of a group that a jury found was a “dangerous cult” making false healing claims, despite its own medical researchers failing to disclose they were devotees.

The investigation finding, as reported by the ABC, isn’t the most bewildering/troubling element of this case – but it’s pretty close.

A 10-month investigation by the University of Queensland (UQ) has cleared the researchers of academic misconduct despite finding they did not fully detail their involvement with Universal Medicine (UM).

The studies were published in overseas journals and explored the benefits of UM treatments including “esoteric breast massage” and proposed clinical studies in Vietnamese hospitals that would be forbidden in Australia.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

An idea to promote research integrity: adding badges to papers where the authors fought against the results being suppressed or sanitised – LSE Impact Blog (Adrian Barnett | July 2018)0

Posted by Admin in on March 11, 2019

Some journals, including Biostatistics and BMJ Open Science, add prominent badges to research papers for which the authors have shared the data and/or statistical code. The badge is intended to recognise the additional work undertaken by the authors to curate and deposit their data and code. It also rewards good research practice, because sharing data and code helps with reproducibility and increases the value of research by allowing other researchers to run new studies. Evidence from two observational studies shows that badges have increased the rate of data sharing at journals.

I am a supporter of open science and have shared data without receiving a badge. However, if I could add badges to any of my papers, it would be where there was an attempt to suppress or sanitise the results. These are the papers I am most proud of publishing.

I’ve experienced three instances of suppression or sanitisation: two papers were eventually published in whole, but one other was sanitised, much to my enduring chagrin. In all three cases I believe the attempted suppression occurred because the study’s sponsor did not like the results. There is a similar story on the COPE website (Committee on Publication Ethics) involving a disagreement between a drug company and academic researchers.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

He Jiankui’s Germline Editing Ethics Article Retracted by The CRISPR Journal – GEN (Julianna LeMieux – February 2019)0

Posted by Admin in on March 2, 2019

Failure to disclose conflicts of interest was “unacceptable”

Twelve weeks after publishing a perspective on the ethics of gene editing by He Jiankui, PhD, the scientist reportedly responsible for the first gene-edited humans, the editors of The CRISPR Journal have decided to retract the article, GEN can exclusively report.

This isn’t the only bewildering facet of the CRISPR Babies’ story, but it surely comes close to being the strangest.

In late November, the shocking news of the genetically edited twin girls broke out on the eve of the second international Human Genome Editing Summit in Hong Kong. The creation of germline-edited humans was unprecedented and not something that the scientific community had prepared for.

Most of the attention focused on the actions of 34-year-old He, formerly a professor at the Southern University of Science and Technology (SUSTech) in Shenzhen. He’s decision to ignore advice from prominent members of the scientific community and serious questions over the technical and ethical procedures prompted an immediate investigation by Chinese authorities while he was held under house arrest, culminating in his dismissal by SUSTech last month.|

Read the rest of this discussion piece


Supervision and HDR candidate research outputs (Resource material: Griffith University | June 2018) UPDATED 14/02/190

Posted by Admin in on February 13, 2019

[This resource paper has been updated to reflect: the release of the Australian Code (2018); the release of the Griffith University Responsible Conduct of Research policy; changes to the NHMRC and Griffith University websites; and refreshing some of the links. Full disclaimer AHRECS senior consultant Dr Gary Allen co-authored this document.].

Griffith University has produced a resource paper for HDR supervisors about HDR candidate research outputs titled Planning for success and avoiding pitfalls. This work is licensed under an Attribution CC BY Version 4.0 International licence. You are free to use this work as long as you reference as follows: This document based upon a resource created at Griffith University.

The resource paper (principally produced by Dr Gary Allen) includes the following sections:

1.0 Defining authorship
2.0 Advantages of co-authorship
3.0 National and Griffith University policy frameworks
4.0 International guidelines
5.0 Who can/should be listed as authors for a candidate’s research outputs?
6.0 Order of authorship
7.0 Publication Plan
8.0 Publication Ethics
9.0 Conflicts of Interest
10.0 Selecting a Publisher
11.0 Collegiate discussion but prudent practice
12.0 Sources of advice
13.0 Specialist Workshops
A list of tips
Links to further resources
It includes recommended further reading