The trouble with circRNAs- are researchers going around in circles?
In this very interesting post, Professor Jennifer Byrne (University of Sydney Faculty of Medicine and Health, NSW Health Pathology) looks at the mistakes being made in circRNAs papers, even in high-profile, supposedly high-quality and distinguished publications.
She reflects on what might be the cause of those mistakes, why they are a big deal what could be the consequences.
Why is it that honest researchers make such a serious mistake?
Is a sign of lack of experience, insight and knowledge? Or is it an indication something far more dubious and questionable?
This very accessible post does a great job of explaining complex genetic concepts in lay terms.
This points to the need for research institutions and research publishers to have sufficient expertise in the topic, to truly understand circRNAs and reagents.
Can reading Australian novels help us become more ethical researchers?
If someone asked you for some recommended reading or viewing to help them understand human research ethics, animal ethics or research integrity, what would you recommend?
The policies and standards issued by National governments, learned societies, funding bodies and academic publications are generally not especially engaging or entertaining.
In this blog post, Sally Dalton-Brown discusses a couple of options from the streaming and fiction publishing offerings.
They won’t exactly discuss, explain or define the principles of ethical or responsible conduct. Neither will they explain how to adhere to national requirements or instutiona policy. That isn’t surprising, but that is probably not the point. Entertainment, enjoyment and a bit of fun is a great way to engage people with the important elements of ethical and responsible behaviour in the design and conduct of research.
This material could be usefully included in the resource library for members of an institution’s research ethics committee.
Unnatural justice: Public allegations could cause significant harm to vital clinical trial activity
In this thought-provoking post, Nik Zeps (a consultant with AHRECS and a partner at Chrysalis) discusses the serious harm (in terms of reputation and career, as well as lost useful lines of inquiry) when there are complaints that allege ethical problems with clinical research.
These relate to situations where the clinical research is evaluating different kinds of intervention, where the evidence for the ‘accepted’ treatment might not be clear.
A misunderstanding of such research designs and a visceral reaction to apparent breaches aren’t helpful.
When such allegations are made, the researchers are rarely afforded an opportunity to respond and explain. If they were, one assumes that the manner could be easily cleared up.
We are embarrassed to admit in our own reporting of the cited case we really didn’t grasp the realities of what occurred or called out the very emotive reaction.
Confidence versus mandatory reporting
In this post find out why Gary is cranky about the proposed good practice guide for Australian Research Integrity Advisers.
#SPOILERALERT It is because he believes institutions need a network of collegiate Research Integrity Advisers to nurture and support a community of practice within their institution.
He also thinks mandatory reporting and telling people to speak in hypotheticals are STUPID.
While Gary describes this as a personal opinion, we agree. We don’t see how mandatory reporting will make serving as an RIA would be appealing or encourage anyone to consult them about whether an individual’s practice is appropriate.
AHRECS provides desktop audit and blueprint on Research Integrity within an institution and conducts professional development for RIAs.
Contact enquiry@ahrecs.com to discuss.
Interest in ‘self-plagiarism’
Mark Israel Mark Israel’s article in Research Ethics Monthly on ‘Self-plagiarism?’ has been receiving a little interest outside Australia and New Zealand.
New research integrity professional development resource
All Australian research institutions that receive NHMRC or ARC research funding or otherwise operate under the auspices of Universities Australia
The Retraction Watch Database has launched. Here’s what you need to know
We’ve been anticipating the launch of the Retraction Watch database because we’re often asked by HDR candidates and other early career researchers how to
Griffith University’s implementation of the Australian Code (2018)
Dr Amanda Fernie, Manager Research Ethics & Integrity, Griffith University Dr Gary Allen, Senior Policy Officer, Griffith University AUSTRALIAN CODE
Categories
Featured posts
Constructive Voices Online Panels – Australian Code session 08/11/2018 – Information for registrants
To register for this event complete the short form at https://zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_nsbPkzfbT6S4YWzeEekKxA Date Panel members
The Ethics of Evaluation Research
Evaluation research is used to assess the value of such things as services, interventions,
A users perspective on the ethics application process in Australia-room for improvement
Suat Chin Ng. MBBS, BMedSc, FRACS. Department of Surgery, Eastern Health, Melbourne, Australia. Wei
When is research not research?
Most institutions have processes for differentiating between Quality Assurance/Quality Improvement (QA/QI) activities and those