Tag: misconduct

Bioethics Blogs

Ethics & Society Newsfeed: August 18, 2017

Image via 

Politics

Neil Gorsuch Speech at Trump Hotel Raises Ethical Questions
“Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, President Trump’s Supreme Court appointee, is scheduled to address a conservative group at the Trump International Hotel in Washington next month, less than two weeks before the court is set to hear arguments on Mr. Trump’s travel ban.”

Trump’s Washington DC hotel turns $2m profit amid ethics concerns
“Donald Trump’s company is said to have taken home nearly $2m in profits this year at its extravagant hotel in Washington, DC – amid ethics concerns stemming from the President’s refusal to fully divest from his businesses while he is in office.”

3 representatives want to officially censure Trump after Charlottesville
“In response to Donald Trump’s controversial remarks about the violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, three Democrats want to censure the president.”

Does Trump’s Slippery Slope Argument About Confederate Statues Have Merit?
“NPR’s Robert Siegal talks with Ilya Somin, a professor of George Mason University, about President Trump’s warning that pulling down Confederate statues may lead to a slippery slope in which monuments to the Founding Fathers are torn down.”

Bioethics/Medical Ethics and Research Ethics

Vaccination: Costly clash between autonomy, public health
Bioethical principles in conflict with medical exemptions to vaccinations

CRISPR and the Ethics of Human Embryo Research
“Although scientists in China and the United Kingdom have already used gene editing on human embryos, the announcement that the research is now being done in the United States makes a U.S. policy response all the more urgent.”

Exclusive: Inside The Lab Where Scientists Are Editing DNA In Human Embryos
“[Critics] fear editing DNA in human embryos is unsafe, unnecessary and could open the door to “designer babies” and possibly someday to genetically enhanced people who are considered superior by society.”

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 News

Guess Who’s Tracking Your Prescription Drugs?

August 3, 2017

Be the first to like.
Share

As drug overdose deaths continue their record climb, Missouri last month became the 50th state to launch a prescription drug monitoring program, or PDMP. These state-run databases, which track prescriptions of certain potentially addictive or dangerous medications, are widely regarded as an essential tool to stem the opioid epidemic. Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens last month announced he was creating one in what had been the lone holdout state; legislative efforts to establish a program there had repeatedly failed because of lawmakers’ concerns about privacy.

Their concerns were not unfounded.

Federal courts in Utah and Oregon recently ruled that the Drug Enforcement Administration, in its effort to investigate suspected drug abusers or pill mills, can access information in those states’ PDMPs without a warrant, even over the states’ objections. And last month in California, the state supreme court ruled that the state medical board could view hundreds of patients’ prescription drug records in the course of its investigation of a physician accused of misconduct. “Physicians and patients have no reasonable expectation of privacy in the highly regulated prescription drug industry,” District Judge David Nuffer wrote in the Utah case.

… Read More

Image via Flickr Attribution Some rights reserved by sfxeric

Be the first to like.
Share

The Marshall Project

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

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; 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

    Webinar Follow-Up: Introduction to Research Misconduct for IACUC, IRB, and IBC Professionals

    In May, PRIM&R hosted the webinar Introduction to Research Misconduct for IACUC, IRB, and IBC Professionals. This webinar provided foundational knowledge in research misconduct for regulatory professionals who work in the human subjects protections and animal care and use fields. After the webinar, one of the presenters, Jim Kroll, PhD, responded to some of the attendee questions that time didn’t permit us to answer live. We’re pleased to share those answers with the readers of Ampersand.

    The post Webinar Follow-Up: Introduction to Research Misconduct for IACUC, IRB, and IBC Professionals 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

    Access to Physicians’ Prescription Habits

    Jean-Christophe Bélisle-Pipon calls attention to issues of accessibility and transparency related to the collection and sale of physician prescribing data by data solution companies.

    __________________________________________

    QuintilesIMS is a data solution company that provides services to the pharmaceutical industry. In 2002, the company was authorized by the Commission d’accès à l’information du Québec to receive and make use of personal information held by Québec pharmacies about physician prescribing practices, provided that: 1) specific professional acts were not linked to specific professionals; 2) physicians could refuse to have their information used; and 3) use of the information was restricted to reaching out, informing and training physicians. Data related to physician prescribing practices is sold by Québec pharmacies to QuintilesIMS. In turn, QuintilesIMS collects, collates this data and sells it to pharmaceutical companies for marketing purposes.

    Recently, information related to QuintilesIMS business practices were leaked to the media.

    Allegations have been made suggesting that data detailing the prescribing practices of 7,000 Québec physicians (including identifying information) have been disclosed to pharmaceutical companies. If proven true, this would represent an unauthorized practice, that contravenes the Act respecting the protection of personal information in the private sector. The issue at stake in the allegations is not the disclosure to companies, but rather, the disclosure of identifying information.

    Physician prescribing data must be clustered in groups of 30 that have similar prescribing profiles. Thus, it is impossible in Canada (contrary to the US) to have access to individual physician prescribing profiles. In Québec, physicians can opt out of this data collection, and those who allow their information to be used, freely have access to their own prescribing profile.

    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

    Internal investigation of research misconduct often fails

    What characterizes a research scandal? In a short article in Hastings Center Report, Carl Elliott uses as an example the case of Paolo Macchiarini at the Swedish Karolinska Institutet.

    Macchiarini’s deadly experiments with stem cell-covered artificial trachea, transplanted to patients who did not have life-threatening diseases, have unique features linked to the personality and charisma of the researcher. However, the scandal resembles other scandals on one point, Elliott says. Whistle-blowers who use internal channels at the home university to handle research misconduct often fail. Justice is not done until the press reveals the scandal. In this case, a Swedish documentary film, The Experiments, exposed the scandal.

    If Elliott is right, I personally draw two conclusions. The first is that investigative journalism is important. It reveals misconduct that would otherwise not be exposed. My second conclusion is that we cannot be satisfied with this.

    Angry customers who want to force the shop assistant to correct what they think went wrong can threaten: “If you don’t fix this, I’ll contact the local newspaper.” A responsible person who suspects research misconduct should not have to act in a way that others can interpret as partial exercise of power. It poisons the situation and increases the risk for the whistle-blower.

    If internal channels often fail to handle research misconduct, as Elliott claims, a system of external management is required. Therefore, it is good that a Swedish public inquiry recently suggested that an independent agency should investigate suspected research misconduct.

    Contacting the media should not have to be “the way” of effectively exposing research misconduct; it is a way out if the standard way fails.

    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 News

    Wounded Troops Discharged for Misconduct Often Had PTSD or TBI

    Three-fifths of troops discharged from the military for misconduct in recent years had a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injury or another associated condition, according to a report released Tuesday by the Government Accountability Office

    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

    Where to publish and not to publish in bioethics – the 2017 list

    Allegedly, there are over 8.000 so called predatory journals out there. Instead of supporting readers and science, these journals serve their own economic interests first and at best offer dubious merits for scholars. We believe that scholars working in any academic discipline have a professional interest and a responsibility to keep track of these journals. It is our job to warn the young or inexperienced of journals where a publication or editorship could be detrimental to their career and science is not served. We have seen “predatory” publishing take off in a big way and noticed how colleagues start to turn up in the pages of some of these journals. While many have assumed that this phenomenon mainly is a problem for low status universities, there are strong indications that predatory publishing is a part of a major trend towards the industrialization of misconduct and that it affects many top-flight research institutions (see Priyanka Pulla: “In India, elite institutes in shady journals”, Science 354(6319): 1511-1512). This trend, referred to by some as the dark side of publishing, needs to be reversed.

    Gert Helgesson, Professor of Medical Ethics, Karolinska InstitutetThus we published this blog post in 2016. This is our first annual update (the previous version can be found here). At first, we relied heavily on the work of Jeffrey Beall, a librarian at the University of Colorado, who runs blacklists of “potential, possible, or probable” predatory publishers and journals. His lists have since been removed although they live on in new form (anonymous) at the Stop predatory journals site (SPJ) and they can also be found archived.

    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.