To preserve the integrity of science and human research ethics arrangements it is important that journal editorial processes and human research ethics processes are mindful of potential human rights abuses. Such can come up anywhere but in the last few years, we have seen a run of them from China.
If the Royal Society (New Zealand) hoped that dropping the formal inquiry into the two academics (who wrote an open letter complaining they were required to talk about Māori beliefs and traditional practices with regard to medicine when conducting a talk about biomedicine) they badly misread the situation. The two academics have very publically resigned from the Royal Society. Rather than quietening down a loud and toxic argument, it seems the Royal Society has managed to inflame both sides.
WHO joins other UN agencies and partners in new research agenda for FGM Research on female genital mutilation (FGM) over
There is a long and shameful history of US researchers trampling Indigenous protocols and needs. This isn’t just matters in living history, it is incredibly current. So something must change! It should be said that the US is not alone in this being the experience of First People. Reflecting on respect, justice and data sovereignty must be a component of professional development for HDR candidates, supervisors, all researchers and research ethics reviewers. Genuine engagement and respect should start at the earliest phases of planning a project and continue far past the publication of research outputs.
These Canadian guidelines for human research ethics professional development are a sensible move and other jurisdictions should emulate them. We especially like the fact that these guidelines were developed by academics, with a solid eye on pedagogy, rather than governance. This can only be a help when some students transition to doing research as postgraduates.
There are numerous reasons why faked clinical trial data are a concern: 1. Falsified data might lead to unsafe treatments for patients. 2. It might also lead to later researchers either pursuing a junk path or rejecting a useful path based on flawed information. 3. It might perpetuate crazy theories and crackpot treatments. 4. It might harm the reputation of science and research in the minds of the general public, the media and politicians.
Discussions about the research ethics review of research projects involving work with human biospecimens is a topic we are frequently asked to cover in our research ethics committee professional development. AHRECS is now also working in the animal ethics sphere. Contact us at enquiry@ahrecs.com to discuss engaging us.
This story provides another unfortunate example of apparent human research ethics breaches having research integrity consequences. It is also the latest instalment of consent issues resulting in forced retractions.
