 |
 |
Well, it appears I clicked send before the reminder of what is in the Declaration of Helsinki (thanks Trish!). Patricia, I wonder if you wish to comment on how that squares with trainee human subjects research? It seems quite clear and doesn't make exceptions. Rich Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -----Original Message----- From: [log in to unmask] Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 13:03:39 To: <[log in to unmask]> Reply-To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: unpublished research - is it ethical I offer a clarification. While it is true that an ethics committee could require trial registration, trial registration generally occurs because of other reasons like drug approval agency requirements and journal editor requirements. Human subjects regulations and principles don't specify registration. Perhaps more importantly, although some registries allow registration of observational studies, it is usually the case that a requirement for registration is limited to trials and not the vast amount of other human research. So in the end it is incumbent on the investigator to disseminate their work in some way or another, to at least make it available. Best Rich Saitz Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -----Original Message----- From: Tamara Kredo <[log in to unmask]> Sender: "Evidence based health (EBH)" <[log in to unmask]> Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 09:08:11 To: <[log in to unmask]> Reply-To: Tamara Kredo <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: unpublished research - is it ethical Hi all, I believe that the role of the ethics committee is to ensure that the proposed research be prospectively registered in an accessible/ search-able clinical trials registry such as www.pactr.org or clinicaltrials.gov. In this way, work that is not published (and there are many reasons for this), may be identified by others in a transparent process. This helps in two ways - avoiding unethical duplication of research and the ability to share results and information amongst researchers. best wishes Tamara Dr Tamara Kredo South African Cochrane Centre, South African Medical Research Council cel +27 84 588 0388 tel +27 21 938 0508 fax +27 21 938 0836 On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 4:28 AM, Jordan Panayotov <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Yes Richard, you are right. > > However, this different direction is about something which is also > important for everybody: academic & non-academic authors, users of the new > knowledge, and tax payers who foot the bill in the end from both sides: (a) > creating the knowledge (academic grants) and (b) the use of it for the > benefit of the public (public health and healthcare). > > What is the position of BMJ Group for acknowledging of original works from > non-academics in the publications of BMJ Group? > > Does BMJ Group leave this only to the conscience of the authors, or is it > something actively required? > > What happens if an author of earlier original work informs BMJ Group that > his moral rights have been infringed by a later publication in BMJ Group? > > All the best, > > > Jordan > > ******** > Jordan Panayotov, MEc, MPH (Health Economics) > Director > Independent Centre for Analysis & Research of Economies > Melbourne, Australia > www.icare.biz > [log in to unmask] > > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Saitz" <[log in to unmask]> > > To: <[log in to unmask]> > Sent: Friday, March 11, 2011 12:02 PM > Subject: Re: unpublished research - is it ethical > > > > Seems to me the issue here is not about publication in journals. >> >> When research is done there are risks to participants. Those risks are >> only >> justified if there are benefits (to them or to science). If the research >> results are not available to anyone then they cannot benefit anyone >> (beyond >> those in the study). If they cannot benefit anyone else, then the risk of >> the study was not justified. (an internationally accepted ethical >> principle). >> >> One can make a solid case for peer review (not that it is perfect but it >> is >> difficult to argue that zero review is a better system for vetting >> scientific results). But the issue here is not (in my view) publication >> in >> peer review journals. The ethical issue is making the results available >> because if that is not done, the risk was not justified (and one could >> ask--why was it done if not to share it). >> >> One might imagine doing a study and telling participants---we will do this >> study but we will never publish the results. Anywhere. Because we don't >> think peer reviewed journals are good. We will keep them secret. Or, we >> wont >> share them because we are too busy to write them down... >> >> Would the participant agree? Should they? Is that ethical? And to return >> to >> the focus of the listserve, what is the impact on systematic reviews that >> try to determine the efficacy of interventions when such studies are not >> reported? (they become either useless or unknowingly biased...) >> >> Best >> Rich Saitz >> > -- Dr Tamara Kredo cel +27 84 588 0388 tel +27 21 938 0508 fax +27 21 938 0836 ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________