ACN - 101321555 Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)
Generic filters
Exact text matches only
Search into
Filter by Categories
Research integrity
Filter by Categories
Human Research Ethics

Resource Library

Research Ethics MonthlyAbout Us

ResourcesResearch integrity

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Science Communications In the Time of Coronavirus – WYNC Studios (March 2020)0

Posted by Admin in on April 12, 2020

We are all now, it seems, amateur epidemiologists, trying to find a way past the contagion that’s overturned our lives. We follow the headlines: A blood test that may detect coronavirus antibodies. Potential treatments for the associated pneumonia. You might learn about breakthroughs on Twitter or Facebook, but often they first appear on what are called preprint servers. In fact, Ivan Oransky, professor of medical journalism at NYU and co-founder of Retraction Watch, says that many of the purported breakthroughs around the virus are being shared in spaces that are unfamiliar to many civilians, and mostly unvetted. Here, Oransky explains to Brooke why these preprints — which have been so essential for scientists sharing their research and data — should, as with all science publishing, be approached with some skepticism.

This is a segment from our March 27, 2020 program, Playing The Hero.

Access the page and stream or download the file

(US) She Blew the Whistle on Pathogens That Escaped From a Government Lab. Now She’s Being Fired – Vice (Maddie Bender | February 2020)0

Posted by Admin in on April 10, 2020

A scientist who manages a biosafety lab in Washington State says she’s being retaliated against for reporting a leak of an unknown quantity of unknown aquatic pathogens into Lake Washington.

A career scientist who works for the U.S. government is alleging that her supervisors have retaliated against her for sounding an alarm about biosafety and workplace hazards. Her lawyers claim that she has been unfairly targeted for complaining about a litany of issues at a government science research center since 2017, including requesting an investigation after an unknown quantity of pathogens were released from her organization’s biosafety laboratory into the second-largest body of water in Washington State.

Evi Emmenegger worked at the Western Fisheries Research Center (WFRC) in Seattle since 1996 until this January, when she was placed on administrative leave and served with a notice of proposed separation. The center is a branch of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), which studies natural resources and environmental and ecosystem health, water use, and Earth science.

Emmenegger managed an aquatic biosafety level 3 (BSL-3) lab, one of the few in the U.S. built for studying aquatic pathogens that pose a high risk to the environment. She also conducted research on fish diseases in a BSL-2 facility and the BSL-3 lab contained within it.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

(US) Fired cancer scientist says ‘good people are being crushed’ by overzealous probes into possible Chinese ties – Science (Jeffrey Mervis | March 2020)0

Posted by Admin in on April 10, 2020

One of Pearlie Epling-Burnette’s students expects to receive her Ph.D. in cancer biology this spring from the University of South Florida. But Epling-Burnett won’t be there to help the student defend her dissertation, the last step before earning her diploma. That’s because, on 19 December 2019, the Moffitt Cancer Center told Epling-Burnette it would fire her unless she resigned immediately.

Another ‘good’ example of the principle the true picture and the complexity of a situation may not be clear in the headline from the quick characterisation of a situation.

According to Moffitt, Epling-Burnette and five other senior scientists got the boot because they were involved in collaborations with institutions in China that “violated multiple Moffitt policies and federal grant standards.” But the 59-year-old Epling-Burnette, an immunologist who began working at Moffitt in 1988 and held its equivalent of tenure, disputes that conclusion.

In an exclusive interview with ScienceInsider, she says she is being blamed for things that never happened. Her actions violated no federal or institutional policies, she asserts. All her dealings with China, she adds, fell within the scope of a longstanding joint venture between Moffitt and Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital (TMUCIH), for which Tianjin pays Moffitt $500,000 annually. And she says everything was done with Moffitt’s knowledge and consent.

Read the rest of this discussion piece

A message for mentors from dissatisfied graduate students – Nature (Chris Woolston | November 2019)0

Posted by Admin in on April 8, 2020

In this second article to mark Nature’s 2019 graduate survey, respondents call for more one-to-one support and better career guidance.

When Peter Butler started his PhD programme in physics at the University of Bristol, UK, he saw himself spending many hours at a whiteboard working on problems, with his supervisor by his side. Those long hours of togetherness never materialized. In that sense, he says, “I didn’t get what I expected.” However, he adds that his supervisor gave him plenty of good strategic advice and helped him to get published. And having to turn to other people for support was useful, he adds. “I had to act like a scientist.”

This commentary and the survey that underpins it (data available online) points to serious dissatisfaction among HDR candidates, which should prompt institutions to reflect on their guidance and monitoring of supervisors.  We have included links to ten related items.

Butler was one of more than 6,300 graduate students worldwide who responded to Nature’s fifth biennial PhD survey. These students had much to say about the state of mentorship at their institutions and in the scientific community. Their answers and free-text comments made clear that they often aren’t getting what they expect, or need, from their supervisors. The full data set is available at One telling statistic was that nearly one in four said they would change their supervisor if they could start their programme again; the 2017 figure was similar.

The survey — created with Shift Learning, a London-based market-research company — had its bright spots. Overall, 67% of respondents said they were satisfied with their relationship with their supervisors, with 41% of those in Africa and South America saying they were very satisfied. Some are especially grateful. “When I started my PhD, I didn’t know about all of the possibilities,” says Marina Kovačević, a PhD student in physical chemistry at the University of Novi Sad in Serbia. Now, she hopes to run her own laboratory, a goal that her co-supervisors encourage by letting her help to write proposals and take on other tasks of a lab leader. ”She is truly one of the most devoted PhD students,” says one supervisor, Branislav Jovic.

Read the rest of this discussion piece