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

Resource Library

Research Ethics MonthlyAbout Us

ResourcesControversy/Scandal

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Research ethics: How to Treat People who Participate in Research – NIH (Ezekiel Emanuel, et al | nd)0

Posted by Admin in on January 23, 2019
 

Excerpt from a commentary written by Gary Allen and Mark Israel.

.
Finding a free and polished human research ethics resource from a highly reputable source should be cause for celebration and so its inclusion in an institutional resource library might seem to be a foregone conclusion.
.
But…
.
In this case, AHRECS also suggests caution. We think that, like many international sources of advice, it calls for some local commentary, so the brochure does not have an unexpected negative impact. There is nothing egregious about this document; it may be a really good source of advice for medical research in the United States. Our concern is about the uncritical adoption of such work across disciplines, methodologies and countries.
.

The full commentary is available to USD1/month AHRECS patrons.

Introduction
In Alabama from the 1930s to 1970s, researchers recruited black men to participate in a study of syphilis – a terrible disease that can cause disability and death. The researchers told the men participating that they were getting medical treatment, even though they were not. in fact, when the study began syphilis was untreatable. the researchers instead wanted to study what syphilis does to the body over time. after World War ii, when a treatment – penicillin – was available for syphilis, the researchers kept the men from receiving it because they wanted to study what happened as the disease got worse. What makes this study – the Tuskegee Syphilis Study – unethical? What is wrong with the way the researchers acted?
.
A human exercise experiment or class survey designed by a student for a science fair seems very different from the tuskegee syphilis study. however, is there anything about student studies that might raise ethical concerns?
.
Human subjects research is exactly what it sounds like. it is research that uses people as the subjects of experiments or studies. it can include giving people new drugs, doing tests on their blood, even having them take surveys. Researchers have a duty to treat the people they study ethically and respectfully. in particular, it is important to make sure that researchers do not exploit their subjects. Exploitation is addressed further on page 9. unfortunately, as the Tuskegee Syphilis Study shows, some people were treated.
.
Unfortunately, as the Tuskegee Syphilis Study shows, some people were treated horribly during research studies in the past. German and Japanese researchers, for instance, conducted terrible experiments on prisoners during World War ii. Many other incidents took place before the 1970s, when some u.s. doctors experimented on hospital patients without telling them or failed to provide medicines that would have treated potentially deadly diseases. Today, there are ethical principles for research to help ensure that people who participate are not harmed and that the scandals of the past do not occur again.these principles even apply to student research projects with humans, and they are important for you to think about as you design experiments.

Access  the brochure

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction 3
Introduction to the 7 Principles 4
Other Important Concepts and Issues 8
Applying the Principles 10
Further Reading

Emanuel, E, Abodler, E. and Stunkel, L. (nd) Research ethics: How to Treat People who Participate in Research. US National Institutes of Health.
https://bioethics.nih.gov/education/FNIH_BioethicsBrochure_WEB.PDF

(US) Temple Will Pay $5.5M to Settle Suits Over False Rankings Data – Inside Higher ED (Scott Jaschik | January 20190

Posted by Admin in on January 22, 2019
 

University admitted that its business school submitting fabricated statistics for years to U.S. News. Students filed a class action

If this report is accurate it is a useful demonstration of why institutional research integrity arrangements need to include research that is conducted for operational reasons (in addition to academic research).

Temple University announced in December that it has settled class action lawsuits from students who were outraged to learn that the business school’s top ranking for its online program was based on false data.
.
The university will pay $4 million to those who are or were students in the online M.B.A. program and another $1,475,000 to settle claims of students in other M.B.A. programs and several other master’s programs and one online bachelor’s program in the business school.
.
“The settlement does not constitute an admission of liability,” said a statement from the university. “While the university believes that it could have ultimately prevailed in the litigation, Temple nonetheless chose settlement in the best interests of the university and its students.”
.

Read  the rest of this news story

Blowback Against a Hoax – Inside Higher Ed (Colleen Flaherty | January 2019)0

Posted by Admin in on January 11, 2019
 

Author of a recent academic scam faces disciplinary action by Portland State, for failing to alert his research review board before hoodwinking journal editors with outrageous articles. Many say he’s guilty of bad form, but did he commit misconduct?

There may be value in a covert study such as this, but it has to be argued before the research ethics committee on grounds of merit and justification for covert research. You can’t just say we are going ahead without the research ethics review because there is no way they would approve. You don’t only go to the research ethics committee with studies that they will approve. You need to test your views and argue your case.
.
How would your institution’s research ethics committee approach a proposed project like this and what would your institution do about the failure to seek ethics approval? We agree with Ivan Oransky’s comments at the end get of this news item.

A hoax revealing that academic journals had accepted fake papers on topics from canine “rape culture” in dog parks to “fat bodybuilding” to an adaption of Mein Kampf met with applause and scorn in the fall. Fans of the project tended to agree with the hoaxers that critical studies scholars will validate anything aligned with their politics. Critics said that the researchers acted in bad faith, wasting editors’ and reviewers’ time and very publicly besmirching academe in the process: the story was covered by nearly every major news outlet.
.
Now the controversy has flared up again, with news that one of the project’s authors faces disciplinary action at his home institution. Peter Boghossian, an assistant professor of philosophy at Portland State University and the only one of three researchers on the project to hold a full-time academic position, was found by his institutional review board to have committed research misconduct. Specifically, he failed to secure its approval before proceeding with research on human subjects — in this case, the journal editors and reviewers he was tricking with his absurd but seemingly well-researched papers. Some seven of 20 were published in gender studies and other journals. Seven were rejected. Others were pending before the spoof was uncovered.
.
“An IRB protocol application should have been submitted to the Office of Research Integrity,” reads a determination letter from Portland state’s IRB dated last month. “University policy requires that all research involving human subjects conducted by faculty, other employees and students [on campus] must have prior review and approval by the IRB.”
.

Read the rest of this news item

More science than you think is retracted. Even more should be – The Washington Post (Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky | December 2018)0

Posted by Admin in on January 9, 2019
 

Adam Marcus, the managing editor of Gastroenterology & Endoscopy News, and Ivan Oransky, distinguished writer in residence at New York University’s Arthur Carter Journalism Institute and vice president for editorial at Medscape, are co-founders of Retraction Watch.

The fall from grace wasn’t exactly swift, but it was stunning. Among stem cell researchers, Piero Anversa’s work trying to regrow the human heart in the 1990s and 2000s was legendary. That was then. In October, his former institutions, Harvard Medical School and its affiliate Brigham and Women’s Hospital, asked journals to retract 31 of his lab’s papers. That followed an agreement last year by the Brigham and other hospitals to pay the government $10 million to settle claims that Anversa and a colleague used bogus data to obtain their grant funding.

As dramatic as the Anversa case is, he is far from alone. This month, Anversa’s lab saw 13 papers retracted, but even if all journals honor the retraction requests, he won’t crack the top 10 for scientists who’ve had their articles pulled from the literature. Neither does Cornell University’s Brian Wansink, the food marketing researcher — and former media fixture — who experienced a similar fall over the past few years. The dubious honor for most retractions goes to Yoshitaka Fujii, a Japanese anesthesiologist who fabricated his findings in at least 183 papers, according to a 2012 investigation launched by journal editors and Japanese universities.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

0