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

Resource Library

Research Ethics MonthlyAbout Us

ResourcesData management

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Knowledge and attitudes among life scientists towards reproducibility within journal articles (Papers: Evanthia Kaimaklioti Samota and Robert P. Davey | June 2019)0

Posted by Admin in on July 16, 2019
 

Abstract

We constructed a survey to understand how authors and scientists view the issues around reproducibility, and how solutions such as interactive figures could enable the reproducibility of experiments from within a research article. This manuscript reports the results of this survey on the views of 251 researchers, including authors who have published in eLIFE Sciences, and those who work at the Norwich Biosciences Institutes (NBI). The survey also outlines to what extent researchers are occupied with reproducing experiments themselves and what are their desirable features of an interactive figure. Respondents considered various features for an interactive figure within a research article that would allow for them to better understand and reproduce in situ the experiment presented in the figure. Respondents said that the most important element that would enable the better reproducibility of published research would be that authors describe methods and analyses in detail. The respondents believe that having interactive figures in published papers is a beneficial element. Whilst interactive figures are potential solutions for demonstrating technical reproducibility, we find that there are equally pressing cultural demands on researchers that need to be addressed to achieve greater success in reproducibility in the life sciences.

Samota, E. K. and R. P. Davey (2019). Knowledge and attitudes among life scientists towards reproducibility within journal articles. bioRxiv: 581033. doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/581033
Publisher: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/581033v2
This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed

Credit data generators for data reuse – Nature (Heather H. Pierce, et al | June 2019)0

Posted by Admin in on July 14, 2019
 

To promote effective sharing, we must create an enduring link between the people who generate data and its future uses, urge Heather H. Pierce and colleagues.

Much effort has gone towards crafting mandates and standards for researchers to share their data1–3. Considerably less time has been spent measuring just how valuable data sharing is, or recognizing the scientific contributions of the people responsible for those data sets. The impact of research continues to be measured by primary publications, rather than by subsequent uses of the data.

To incentivize the sharing of useful data, the scientific enterprise needs a well-defined system that links individuals with reuse of data sets they generate4. To further this goal, the Association of American Medical Colleges (where H.H.P. and A.D. work) and the Multi-Regional Clinical Trials Center at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School (where E.S. and B.E.B. work), along with The New England Journal of Medicine, convened a 2018 workshop of representatives from 50 organizations to discuss and validate such a system. The workshop included major journals, funders, data-citation groups and academic centres (see Supplementary Information, Participant list) and was preceded by numerous meetings.

Here we propose a system for leveraging existing initiatives and infrastructure to track the use, reuse and impact of scientific data through the consistent adoption of unique identifiers. Our system begins when researchers deposit a data set that they have generated. It then links every use and published analysis of that data set back to the original researchers (see ‘Virtuous cycle’).

Read the rest of this discussion piece

Forced Migration Review – Issue 61 (Papers: Marion Couldrey and Jenny Peebles Editors | June 2019)0

Posted by Admin in on July 2, 2019
 

the ETHICS issue
exploring ethical questions that confront us in our work

We each live according to our own personal code of ethics but what moral principles guide our work? The 19 feature theme articles in this issue debate many of the ethical questions that confront us in programming, research, safeguarding and volunteering, and in our use of data, new technologies, messaging and images. Prepare to be enlightened, unsettled and challenged. This issue is being published in tribute to Barbara Harrell-Bond, founder of the Refugee Studies Centre and FMR, who died in July 2018.

Forced Migration Review issue 61 www.fmreview.org/ethics
PDF copy of this edition

Contents

  • 4 Big data, little ethics: confidentiality and consent Nicole Behnam and Kristy Crabtree
  • 7 New technologies in migration: human rights impacts Petra Molnar
  • 9 Social media screening: Norway’s asylum system Jan-Paul Brekke and Anne Balke Staver
  • 12 Developing ethical guidelines for research Christina Clark-Kazak
  • 15 ‘Over-researched’ and ‘under-researched’ refugees Naohiko Omata
  • 18 Research fatigue among Rwandan refugees in Uganda Cleophas Karooma
  • 20 Over-researching migration ‘hotspots’? Ethical issues from the Carteret Islands Johannes M Lutz
  • 23 Ethics and accountability in researching sexual violence against men and boys Sarah Chynoweth and Sarah Martin
  • 26 Ethics and consent in settlement service delivery Carla Nayton and Sally Baker
  • 28 Ethical primary research by humanitarian actors Prisca Benelli and Tamara Low
  • 30 EU migration strategy: compromising principled humanitarian action Anaïs Faure Atger
  • 33 A humanitarian approach to travel medicine? Marta Aleksandra Balinska
  • 36 Principled humanitarian assistance and non-State armed groups Ruta Nimkar, Viren Falcao, Matthew Tebbutt and Emily Savage
  • 39 Ethical dilemmas posed by unethical behaviour by persons of concern Anna Turus
  • 41 Ethical quandaries in volunteering Ashley Witcher
  • 44 The ethical use of images and messaging Dualta Roughneen
  • 47 Representing refugees in advocacy campaigns Natalie Slade
  • 49 Putting safeguarding commitments into practice Agnes Olusese and Catherine Hingley
  • 52 Safeguarding in conflict and crisis Sarah Blakemore and Rosa Freedman Tribute to Barbara Harrell-Bond
  • 55 A Life Not Ordinary: our colleague Barbara Harrell-Bond Matthew Gibney, Dawn Chatty and Roger Zetter
  • 56 A lifelong commitment to justice HRH Prince El Hassan bin Talal of Jordan
  • 58 A refugee-centred perspective Anita H Fábos
  • 60 Building expert witness reports: Barbara’s legacy Maja Grundler
  • 62 The helpfulness of Imposing Aid: a tribute from the Refugee Law Project Chris Dolan
  • 65 Barbara’s ethics of antagonism Joshua Craze
  • 67 AMERA: delivering a refugee-centred approach to protection Sarah Elliott and Megan Denise Smith
  • 69 From a critique of camps to better forms of aid Alyoscia D’Onofrio
  • 72 Resist injustice Olivier Rukundo

(US) Rounding up the Belmont Report Retrospectives – Amp@sand (May 2019)0

Posted by Admin in on June 27, 2019
 

Last month brought the 40th anniversary of the publishing of the Belmont Report, and along with that milestone came a reflection on how its values, conclusions, and imperatives have changed in the intervening years. A celebration of its durability has been accompanied by a necessary reckoning with the ways that a 40-year-old document may be ill-equipped to process the ethical issues brought about by technological, cultural, and political changes. Here, we’ve gathered a range of resources that look back on 40 years of the Belmont Report.

Safeguards for human studies can’t cope with big data
Nature
This provocative piece explores the ways in which the Belmont Report is insufficient for dealing with revolutionary digital technologies, arguing that “data science overlooks risks to human participants by default” and that it is “past time for a Belmont 2.0.” That new summit, the author argues, would need to engage with the currently “poorly understood risks and harms” that big data researches poses to humans.

A Belmont Report for Health Data (abstract available)
The New England Journal of Medicine
HIPAA offers robust protection of a limited range of data, but in 2019, the demands on humans’ health data come from far more directions than the 1996 legislation could anticipate. The authors of this NEJM piece call for a coordinated expansion of the scope of ethical review of the gathering, use, and manipulation of health data to account for sources such as “social-media platforms, health and wellness apps, smartphones [and] life insurers,” citing concerns about reidentification of deidentified data, discrimination, health profiling, and more.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

0