Tag: authorship

Bioethics Blogs

Authorship and Pets

The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors is an
influential group that, as expected, takes publication and authorship very
seriously.  They have issued the most
generally accepted definition of the criteria for authorship of scientific
publications. They list these criteria very clearly and unambiguously on their website.
These criteria are:

“The ICMJE
recommends that authorship be based on the following 4 criteria:

  •            Substantial
    contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition,
    analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND

  •          Drafting the
    work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND
  •           Final
    approval of the version to be published; AND
  •          Agreement to
    be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related
    to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately
    investigated and resolved. “
  • They go on to say “All those designated as authors
    should meet all four criteria for authorship, and all who meet the four
    criteria should be identified as authors.” There does not seem to leave much
    doubt as to their meaning. The practise of guest authorship, including authors
    with non-substantive contributions by virtue of their position was once common
    but is now considered inappropriate. However, no simple set of guidelines can
    address all possible circumstances. Which raises the point I am addressing in
    this blog: What about pets?

    An important paper
    on atomic behaviour published in Physical Reviews by Jack Hetherington and
    F.D.C.

    The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

    Bioethics Blogs

    Authorship and Pets

    The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors is an
    influential group that, as expected, takes publication and authorship very
    seriously.  They have issued the most
    generally accepted definition of the criteria for authorship of scientific
    publications. They list these criteria very clearly and unambiguously on their website.
    These criteria are:

    “The ICMJE
    recommends that authorship be based on the following 4 criteria:

      Substantial
    contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition,
    analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND

      Drafting the
    work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AN

      Final
    approval of the version to be published; AND

      Agreement to
    be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related
    to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. “

    They go on to say “All those designated as authors
    should meet all four criteria for authorship, and all who meet the four
    criteria should be identified as authors.” There does not seem to leave much
    doubt as to their meaning. The practise of guest authorship, including authors
    with non-substantive contributions by virtue of their position was once common
    but is now considered inappropriate. However, no simple set of guidelines can
    address all possible circumstances. Which raises the point I am addressing in
    this blog: What about pets?

    An important paper
    on atomic behaviour published in Physical Reviews by Jack Hetherington and
    F.D.C. Willard is the object of this question.

    The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

    Bioethics Blogs

    Recapping the recent plagiarism scandal

    Parts of the paper that are nearly identical to my blog

    A year ago, I received a message from Anna Powell-Smith about a research paper that was a mirror image of a post I wrote on my personal blog1 roughly two years prior. The structure of the document was the same, as was the rationale, the methods, and the conclusions drawn. There were entire sentences that were identical to my post. Some wording changes were introduced, but the words were unmistakably mine. The authors had also changed some of the details of the methods, and in doing so introduced technical errors, which confounded proper replication. The paper had been press-released by the journal,2 and even noted by Retraction Watch.3

    I checked my site’s analytics and found a record of a user from the University of Cambridge computer network accessing the blog post in question three times on 2015 December 7 and again on 2016 February 16, ten days prior to the original publication of the paper in question on 2016 February 26.4

    At first, I was amused by the absurdity of the situation. The blog post was, ironically, a method for preventing certain kinds of scientific fraud. I was flattered that anyone noticed my blog at all, and I believed that academic publishing would have a means for correcting itself when the wrong people are credited with an idea. But as time went on, I became more and more frustrated by the fact that none of the institutions that were meant to prevent this sort of thing were working.

    The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

    Bioethics Blogs

    The ethnographic case: series conclusion by Emily Yates-Doerr

    Editors note: This entry concludes the series “The Ethnographic Case” which ran every other Monday between June 2015 and July 2016. The bookCase, which holds 27 cases, can be accessed here.

    One day, early on in the series, we received two submissions. Their similar anatomy was striking. Each featured a medical waiting room. Someone entered the space with a gift for the clinical personnel, the gift was accepted, and something shifted in the resulting care.

    In Aaron Ansell’s case, set within gardens of an informal clinic in Piauí, Brazil, the gift was a small satchel of milk. Rima Praspaliauskiene’s was set in a Lithuanian public hospital and the gift was a rich chocolate cake. Aaron, who works and teaches on legal orders, analyzed the exchange as a challenge to hospital norms of equalitarianism. He helped us to see how the give-and-take of milk interrupts the requirements of a deracinated liberal democracy, offering instead the warm sociality of personal affinity. Rima, who focuses on medical care and valuing, used the object of the cake to query the social scientist’s impulse to explain why people do what they do. She shows us how this impulse may rest upon the linearity and equivalence of rational calculation, uncomfortably treating sociality as a commodity.

    The juxtaposition of these submissions is emblematic – a case, if you will – of something we have seen throughout this series: the art of ethnographic writing resides in a relation between what is there and what is done with it.

    Beginnings

    We might trace the origin of the series to a business meeting at the AAAs, when we offered the idea of “the ethnographic case” for a Somatosphere series.

    The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

    Bioethics Blogs

    Research Ethics Roundup: New Data Authorship System Proposed, San People’s New Code of Research Ethics, More Details on Proposed NIH Cuts, and Revisiting Handling of Lab Mice

    This week’s Research Ethics Roundup reviews how experts think data sharing can be accelerated with data authorship attribution, how southern Africa’s San people are combatting exploitative research, the President’s plan for National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants, and a better way to transport laboratory mice.

    The post Research Ethics Roundup: New Data Authorship System Proposed, San People’s New Code of Research Ethics, More Details on Proposed NIH Cuts, and Revisiting Handling of Lab Mice appeared first on Ampersand.

    The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

    Bioethics Blogs

    Lenore Manderson, Elizabeth Cartwright and Anita Hardon’s The Routledge Handbook of Medical Anthropology by Casey Golomski

    The Routledge Handbook of Medical Anthropology

    Edited by Lenore Manderson, Elizabeth Cartwright and Anita Hardon

    Routledge, 2016, 393 pages.

     

    This is not a run-of-the-mill medical anthropology reader. Thank Routledge, its editors, and contributors for it. As someone who regularly convenes intermediate-advanced courses in medical anthropology, I’m grateful for its readability, teachable qualities, and particular theoretical angles. I’m going to trace four areas where I think the new Routledge Handbook of Medical Anthropology is innovative among the current offerings of similar edited volumes on the market for our discipline.

     

    Visual innovation :: contextualized photographic figures

    Recently, there’s been hot and necessary discussion about the images used for anthropology book covers: Tunstall and Esperanza (2016) over at Savage Minds provide interesting practical guidelines for book cover image selection as a way to decolonize anthropology. Ethnographies of medicine, suffering, and war with nuanced photographic figures of belabored people arguably make these books more compelling and help them win awards (De Leòn with Wells 2015, Biehl with Eskerod 2007, 2013), and also raise ethical questions about the images we choose to give life to our writing. The Routledge Handbook contains 16 photographic figures, taken by both contributors and others selected from a global Internet-based call-for-submissions in 2015, each placed as a ‘prelude’ (xii) to its respective chapter. A thoughtful, roughly 150-175 word description by the photographer accompanies each figure, giving it fuller context beyond the usual one sentence caption.

    I appreciate projects that aim to decolonize higher education, the academy and our respective discipline, and find Tunstall and Esperanza’s approach insightful.

    The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

    Bioethics Blogs

    TADA Medical Futility Reaches the Supreme Court of Texas

    The Supreme Court of Texas has been asked to rule on an issue relating to the Texas Advance Directives Act.


    In March 2014, Bob Deuell was a candidate in the Republican primary for re-election as State Senator, and he drew two challengers. Deuell and challenger Hall were to face each other in the run-off election in May. 


    During the previous Texas Legislature, Deuell had authored Senate Bill 303, which was related to advance directives. Texas Right to Life Committee opposed SB 303. During the runoff election season, TRLC entered into a contract to secure the production of a radio advertisement criticizing Deuell for his authorship of SB 303 and urging voters to vote for Hall.


    TRTL secured airtime with two radio stations which began airing the advertisement. Deuell’s lawyers sent cease-and-desist letters to the stations, urging that they cease airing the advertisement because it contained false and defamatory statements. 


    That same day, the stations notified TRTL that attorneys for Deuell had contacted them and that they were suspending the airing of the advertisements based upon the legal threats made. 


    TRTL sued Deuell for tortious interference with contract and sought damages for the expenses it incurred to produce the new advertisement and to buy additional airtime. 


    Deuell moved to dismiss the suit pursuant to the Texas Citizen’s Participation Act.  But his motion was denied.  The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of Deuell’s motion.  Deuell is now seeking review in the Supreme Court.  

    The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

    Bioethics Blogs

    7 Highlights from Nuffield Council

    The UK Nuffield Council on Bioethics’ recently released report, Genome Editing: an ethical review  (full version available here) is the most substantial and thorough assessment of its kind. It delves deeply into the ethical, social, and political underpinnings and implications of genome editing, and touches on related, converging technologies including synthetic biology, gene drives, and de-extinction. A second report with ethical guidance regarding the use of genome editing for human reproduction is due in early 2017 from a Council working group chaired by Karen Yeung

    This first report will be an important reference for people across disciplines for some time, and I will not do justice to its scope and breadth here. However, I want to draw attention to just seven concepts that are particularly helpful and illuminating, as much for their framing of the questions at stake as for their content. I briefly summarize each point, and select key quotes from the report.

    1. On emerging technology and innovation

    Contrary to frequent assumptions, innovation in science and technology is neither linear, autonomous, nor pre-destined. It is continuously co-produced in relation to a complex intersection of actors, institutions, market-drivers, and serendipity. Momentum and sunk costs can however encourage adherence to certain technological pathways, meaning the choice of paths we take should not be undertaken blindly, or lightly.

    “A commonplace but now largely discredited perspective viewed science as a resource from which innovators draw, leading to new technological innovations that provide social or commercial benefits, such as increased wellbeing and productivity. The flaws in this ‘linear model’ are generally thought to stem from its failure to give due attention to the complexity of innovation processes, the importance of feedbacks, the role of markets and other actors, and the effects of uncertainty and serendipity.

    The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

    Bioethics Blogs

    Plagiarism: It is a Big Deal

    by Nanette Elster, JD, MPH

    Election season is in full swing, with the Republican National Convention in Cleveland this week, and the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia next week. In an effort to get things off on a bright note, Melania Trump gave a speech on the first day of the GOP convention praising her husband. Citizens want a sense of who Donald Trump is as a father, husband, and citizen, not a sense of someone else. Unfortunately, that was what viewers were treated to when Mrs. Trump, though poised and sincere, delivered a speech that not only echoed the sentiments of Michelle Obama talking about her husband, but actually used First Lady Obama’s words, verbatim. In academia, we have a word for that . . . it is called plagiarism. According to the Harvard Guide to Using Sources, “it is considered plagiarism to draw any idea or any language from someone else without adequately crediting that source in your paper. It doesn’t matter whether the source is a published author, another student, a Web site without clear authorship, a Web site that sells academic papers, or any other person: Taking credit for anyone else’s work is stealing, and it is unacceptable in all academic situations, whether you do it intentionally or by accident.”

    The Trump campaign, however, initially resisted criticism that Melania and/or her speech writer(s) lifted the words of another author without proper attribution. According to Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, accusations that Melania Trump plagiarized Michelle Obama are not accurate and she just used “common words” to talk about issues that are important to her like “family values.”

    The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

    Bioethics Blogs

    Creative Collaborations: The Making of “Lissa (Still Time):  a graphic medical ethnography of friendship, loss, and revolution” by Sherine Hamdy

    Is there a widely accessible yet conceptually rigorous way to convey anthropological insights into the lived complexities and bioethical dilemmas that attend managing chronic illness in two vastly different contexts: the contemporary Arab world, and the United States? As it turns out, there is: comics. At the time we began to explore this question, we had both been excited by the pedagogical potentials of this genre in our medical anthropological teaching (Hamdy 2014, Nye 2015). Like other scholars working in the growing field of what Ian Williams has termed “graphic medicine,” we found that the combination of text and image in graphic memoirs such as Hyperbole and a Half or Mom’s Cancer can powerfully convey the visceral, temporal, and social dimensions of illness, while the levity of the genre makes it easier to engage with difficult topics such as suicidal depression or cancer. We began to consider that the graphic form might also make it possible to succinctly and effectively visualize medical anthropological concepts such as “structural violence,” “biotechnical embrace,” or “political etiologies.”

    Motivated by the conceptual and pedagogical potentials of comics, we began the process of crafting a collaborative narrative-based graphic adaptation of our original field research (process illustrated here by Hamdy’s daughter in fig. 1). This has led to a richly collaborative multi-dimensional project developed with the guidance of award-winning cartoonist and editor Paul Karasik and illustrated by Rhode Island School of Design students Sarula Bao and Caroline Brewer. We are thrilled to announce that the resulting project, Lissa (Still Time): a graphic medical ethnography of friendship, loss, and revolution, is now forthcoming with University of Toronto Press’s ethnoGRAPHIC series edited by Anne Brackenbury.

    The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.