Podcasts about research integrity

Dans cet épisode : expériences de pensées et aventures réflexives hautement «trippatives» autour des enjeux philosophiques, éthiques et socioéconomiques de l'intelligence artificielle.Au programme: Idéaux et imaginaires socio-techniques - Les rêves éveillés de Sam Altman et de la Silicone Valley.L'intégration de l'IA dans le monde académique et de la recherche en science: ChatGPT, le processus de révision par les pairs, et ses maladresses! L' «homme diminué» et la décharge cognitive – Les origines et le futur de la lecture, de l'individualité, de l'empathie et la pensée réflexive à l'ère de l'IA.Bonne écoute! Production et animation: Jean-François Sénéchal, Ph.DCollaborateurs et collaboratrices (BaristIAs):  Frédérick Plamondon et Sylvain Munger Ph.D.Collaborateurs et collaboratrices:  Véronique Tremblay, Stéphane Minéo, Frédérick Plamondon, Shirley Plumerand, Sylvain Munger Ph.D, Ève Gaumond, Benjamin Leblanc.Textes et sources mentionnés: Cavalié, A. (2016). Maryanne Wolf, Proust et le calamar : Éd. Abeille et castor, 2015 [2007, trad. de l'anglais par Lisa Stupar], 412 p., 22€. Revue Projet, (5), 92-92.Karen Hao (2025). Empire of AI : Dreams and Nightmares in Sam Altman's OpenAI, Penguin Press. Livre audio disponible sur Spotify.Podcast, This IS research, avec Nick Berente et Jan Recker. (« IS » pour Information Systems)Biswas, S., Dobaria, D., & Cohen, H. L. (2023). ChatGPT and the Future of Journal Reviews : A FeasibilityStudy. The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, 96(3), 415‑420. https://doi.org/10.59249/SKDH9286Ebadi, S., Nejadghanbar, H., Salman, A. R., & Khosravi, H. (2025). Exploring the Impact of Generative AI on Peer Review : Insights from Journal Reviewers. Journal of Academic Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-025-09604-4Hosseini, M., & Horbach, S. P. J. M. (2023). Fighting reviewer fatigue or amplifying bias? Considerations and recommendations for use of ChatGPT and other large language models in scholarly peer review. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 8(1), 4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-023-00133-5Spinellis, D. (2025). False authorship : An explorative case study around an AI-generated article published under my name. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 10(1), 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-025-00165-zOBVIA Observatoire international sur les impacts sociétaux de l'intelligence artificielleDisclaimer: This post contains affiliate links. If you make a purchase, I may receive a commission at no extra cost to you.Support the show

In this episode of HSS Presents, Dr. Kyle Kunze, chief orthopedic surgery resident at Hospital for Special Surgery, sits down with Dr. Ayoosh Pareek, orthopedic surgeon and Medical Director of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Health at HSS. Together, they explore the evolving role of AI in musculoskeletal care—from automating clinical workflows to enhancing diagnostic capabilities—and discuss how physicians are uniquely positioned to guide ethical and effective AI integration into patient care. The conversation spans current applications such as ambient scribe technology, predictive analytics, and AI-driven patient triage, as well as long-term possibilities like agentic AI and robotics. Drs. Kunze and Pareek also examine challenges around trust, explainability, and research integrity, offering insights into how clinicians and data scientists can collaborate to ensure AI tools are both safe and impactful. This episode previews the upcoming special edition of HSS Journal, guest edited by Dr. Kunze, focused on artificial intelligence and digital health in orthopedic practice.

Notes:Paper mills are fraudulent commercial enterprises that fabricate scientific papers and sell authorship, citations, and other academic credentials—often at scale.Sarah Eaton and Sabina Alam first collaborated through COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) and later worked together in United2Act, an international initiative focused on tackling paper mills.The conversation draws parallels between scientific paper mills and contract cheating in higher education, both of which undermine academic integrity for financial gain.Eaton and Alam discuss how metrics-based performance systems in universities and publishing environments create conditions ripe for abuse.Publishers and universities historically avoided transparency, but the scale of the problem has led to greater collaboration between stakeholders.The duo share insights into early warning signs of fraudulent submissions and describe the development of technological and administrative countermeasures.Particular attention is given to the harm paper mills cause: from corrupting citation networks to potentially endangering lives with fabricated data in medical journals.The “Andrew Vickers Curse” is discussed as a case study illustrating how citation manipulation by paper mills can entangle innocent researchers.The episode closes with a call for broader participation in the second phase of United2Act, particularly from research funders, IT specialists, and institutional stakeholders.About our guests:Dr. Sarah Elaine Eatonhttps://profiles.ucalgary.ca/sarah-eatonhttps://drsaraheaton.com/about/Dr. Sabina Alamhttps://www.taylorandfrancis.com/about/ethics-integrity/https://www.csescienceeditor.org/article/dr-sabina-alam-shaping-critical-thinking-about-science/ Papers or resources mentioned in this episode:United2Act initiative: https://united2act.orgMagazinov, Alexander. (2023). The Andrew Vickers Curse: secret revealed!, For Better Sciencehttps://forbetterscience.com/2023/07/31/the-vickers-curse-secret-revealed/ Other:Glossary of terms and acronyms:COPE – Committee on Publication Ethics: An international body that provides advice to editors and publishers on all aspects of publication ethics.STM – International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers: A global trade association supporting academic publishing and information dissemination.Q1/Q2 Journal – Journals ranked in the top (Q1) or second (Q2) quartile based on impact metrics such as citation counts or journal reputation.Term paper mill – A business that sells pre-written or custom academic papers, often used in contract cheating by students.Contract cheating – A form of academic dishonesty where students outsource assessments to third parties.Retraction – The removal of a published article from the scientific record, typically due to error or misconduct.Desk reject – When a manuscript is rejected by a journal editor before it is sent out for peer review.Citation ring – A group of papers or authors who cite each other extensively to artificially inflate citation metrics.Paper Mills - Organisations or individuals that aim to profit from the creation, sale, peer review and/or citation of manuscripts at scale which contain low value or fraudulent content and/or authorship, with the aim of publication in scholarly journals.A big thank you to the United2Act people for coming out of their comfort zone and chatting to me about this.  This bravery is how science as an interdisciplinary pursuit driven by curiosity and collaboration happens.  

In this episode, YS Chi interviews Laura Hassink, Managing Director of Elsevier journals. Elsevier publishes 17 percent of the world's research output across its 3,000 journals. This gives it a unique vantage point on some of the biggest issues currently discussed in the research and scientific communities: research integrity, trust in science, AI, and the 'pay to read' and 'pay to publish' models. Laura discusses these issues head on. This episode is also available on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdfVzdzUKLQ

Dr. Gary Null provides a commentary on "Universal  Healthcare"       Universal Healthcare is the Solution to a Broken Medical System Gary Null, PhD Progressive Radio Network, March 3, 2025 For over 50 years, there has been no concerted or successful effort to bring down medical costs in the American healthcare system. Nor are the federal health agencies making disease prevention a priority. Regardless whether the political left or right sponsors proposals for reform, such measures are repeatedly defeated by both parties in Congress. As a result, the nation's healthcare system remains one of the most expensive and least efficient in the developed world. For the past 30 years, medical bills contributing to personal debt regularly rank among the top three causes of personal bankruptcy. This is a reality that reflects not only the financial strain on ordinary Americans but the systemic failure of the healthcare system itself. The urgent question is: If President Trump and his administration are truly seeking to reduce the nation's $36 trillion deficit, why is there no serious effort to reform the most bloated and corrupt sector of the economy? A key obstacle is the widespread misinformation campaign that falsely claims universal health care would cost an additional $2 trillion annually and further balloon the national debt. However, a more honest assessment reveals the opposite. If the US adopted a universal single-payer system, the nation could actually save up to $20 trillion over the next 10 years rather than add to the deficit. Even with the most ambitious efforts by people like Elon Musk to rein in federal spending or optimize government efficiency, the estimated savings would only amount to $500 billion. This is only a fraction of what could be achieved through comprehensive healthcare reform alone. Healthcare is the largest single expenditure of the federal budget. A careful examination of where the $5 trillion spent annually on healthcare actually goes reveals massive systemic fraud and inefficiency. Aside from emergency medicine, which accounts for only 10-12 percent of total healthcare expenditures, the bulk of this spending does not deliver better health outcomes nor reduce trends in physical and mental illness. Applying Ockham's Razor, the principle that the simplest solution is often the best, the obvious conclusion is that America's astronomical healthcare costs are the direct result of price gouging on an unimaginable scale. For example, in most small businesses, profit margins range between 1.6 and 2.5 percent, such as in grocery retail. Yet the pharmaceutical industrial complex routinely operates on markup rates as high as 150,000 percent for many prescription drugs. The chart below highlights the astronomical gap between the retail price of some top-selling patented pharmaceutical medications and their generic equivalents. Drug Condition Patent Price (per unit) Generic Price Estimated Manufacture Cost Markup Source Insulin (Humalog) Diabetes $300 $30 $3 10,000% Rand (2021) EpiPen Allergic reactions $600 $30 $10 6,000% BMJ (2022) Daraprim Toxoplasmosis $750/pill $2 $0.50 150,000% JAMA (2019) Harvoni Hepatitis C $94,500 (12 weeks) $30,000 $200 47,000% WHO Report (2018) Lipitor Cholesterol $150 $10 $0.50 29,900% Health Affairs (2020) Xarelto Blood Thinner $450 $25 $1.50 30,000% NEJM (2020) Abilify Schizophrenia $800 (30 tablets) $15 $2 39,900% AJMC (2019) Revlimid Cancer $16,000/mo $450 $150 10,500% Kaiser Health News (2021) Humira Arthritis $2,984/dose $400 $50 5,868% Rand (2021) Sovaldi Hepatitis C $1,000/pill $10 $2 49,900% JAMA (2021) Xolair Asthma $2,400/dose $300 $50 4,800% NEJM (2020) Gleevec Leukemia $10,000/mo $350 $200 4,900% Harvard Public Health Review (2020) OxyContin Pain Relief $600 (30 tablets) $15 $0.50 119,900% BMJ (2022) Remdesivir Covid-19 $3,120 (5 doses) N/A $10 31,100% The Lancet (2020) The corruption extends far beyond price gouging. Many pharmaceutical companies convince federal health agencies to fund their basic research and drug development with taxpayer dollars. Yet when these companies bring successful products to market, the profits are kept entirely by the corporations or shared with the agencies or groups of government scientists. On the other hand, the public, who funded the research, receives no financial return. This amounts to a systemic betrayal of the public trust on a scale of hundreds of billions of dollars annually. Another significant contributor to rising healthcare costs is the widespread practice of defensive medicine that is driven by the constant threat of litigation. Over the past 40 years, defensive medicine has become a cottage industry. Physicians order excessive diagnostic tests and unnecessary treatments simply to protect themselves from lawsuits. Study after study has shown that these over-performed procedures not only inflate costs but lead to iatrogenesis or medical injury and death caused by the medical  system and practices itself. The solution is simple: adopting no-fault healthcare coverage for everyone where patients receive care without needing to sue and thereby freeing doctors from the burden of excessive malpractice insurance. A single-payer universal healthcare system could fundamentally transform the entire industry by capping profits at every level — from drug manufacturers to hospitals to medical equipment suppliers. The Department of Health and Human Services would have the authority to set profit margins for medical procedures. This would ensure that healthcare is determined by outcomes, not profits. Additionally, the growing influence of private equity firms and vulture capitalists buying up hospitals and medical clinics across America must be reined in. These equity firms prioritize profit extraction over improving the quality of care. They often slash staff, raise prices, and dictate medical procedures based on what will yield the highest returns. Another vital reform would be to provide free medical education for doctors and nurses in exchange for five years of service under the universal system. Medical professionals would earn a realistic salary cap to prevent them from being lured into equity partnerships or charging exorbitant rates. The biggest single expense in the current system, however, is the private health insurance industry, which consumes 33 percent of the $5 trillion healthcare budget. Health insurance CEOs consistently rank among the highest-paid executives in the country. Their companies, who are nothing more than bean counters, decide what procedures and drugs will be covered, partially covered, or denied altogether. This entire industry is designed to place profits above patients' lives. If the US dismantled its existing insurance-based system and replaced it with a fully reformed national healthcare model, the country could save $2.7 trillion annually while simultaneously improving health outcomes. Over the course of 10 years, those savings would amount to $27 trillion. This could wipe out nearly the entire national debt in a short time. This solution has been available for decades but has been systematically blocked by corporate lobbying and bipartisan corruption in Washington. The path forward is clear but only if American citizens demand a system where healthcare is valued as a public service and not a commodity. The national healthcare crisis is not just a fiscal issue. It is a crucial moral failure of the highest order. With the right reforms, the nation could simultaneously restore its financial health and deliver the kind of healthcare system its citizens have long deserved. American Healthcare: Corrupt, Broken and Lethal Richard Gale and Gary Null Progressive Radio Network, March 3, 2025 For a nation that prides itself on being the world's wealthiest, most innovative and technologically advanced, the US' healthcare system is nothing less than a disaster and disgrace. Not only are Americans the least healthy among the most developed nations, but the US' health system ranks dead last among high-income countries. Despite rising costs and our unshakeable faith in American medical exceptionalism, average life expectancy in the US has remained lower than other OECD nations for many years and continues to decline. The United Nations recognizes healthcare as a human right. In 2018, former UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon denounced the American healthcare system as "politically and morally wrong." During the pandemic it is estimated that two to three years was lost on average life expectancy. On the other hand, before the Covid-19 pandemic, countries with universal healthcare coverage found their average life expectancy stable or slowly increasing. The fundamental problem in the U.S. is that politics have been far too beholden to the pharmaceutical, HMO and private insurance industries. Neither party has made any concerted effort to reign in the corruption of corporate campaign funding and do what is sensible, financially feasible and morally correct to improve Americans' quality of health and well-being.   The fact that our healthcare system is horribly broken is proof that moneyed interests have become so powerful to keep single-payer debate out of the media spotlight and censored. Poll after poll shows that the American public favors the expansion of public health coverage. Other incremental proposals, including Medicare and Medicaid buy-in plans, are also widely preferred to the Affordable Care Act or Obamacare mess we are currently stuck with.   It is not difficult to understand how the dismal state of American medicine is the result of a system that has been sold out to the free-market and the bottom line interests of drug makers and an inflated private insurance industry. How advanced and ethically sound can a healthcare system be if tens of millions of people have no access to medical care because it is financially out of their reach?  The figures speak for themselves. The U.S. is burdened with a $41 trillion Medicare liability. The number of uninsured has declined during the past several years but still lingers around 25 million. An additional 30-35 million are underinsured. There are currently 65 million Medicare enrollees and 89 million Medicaid recipients. This is an extremely unhealthy snapshot of the country's ability to provide affordable healthcare and it is certainly unsustainable. The system is a public economic failure, benefiting no one except the large and increasingly consolidated insurance and pharmaceutical firms at the top that supervise the racket.   Our political parties have wrestled with single-payer or universal healthcare for decades. Obama ran his first 2008 presidential campaign on a single-payer platform. Since 1985, his campaign health adviser, the late Dr. Quentin Young from the University of Illinois Medical School, was one of the nation's leading voices calling for universal health coverage.  During a private conversation with Dr. Young shortly before his passing in 2016, he conveyed his sense of betrayal at the hands of the Obama administration. Dr. Young was in his 80s when he joined the Obama campaign team to help lead the young Senator to victory on a promise that America would finally catch up with other nations. The doctor sounded defeated. He shared how he was manipulated, and that Obama held no sincere intention to make universal healthcare a part of his administration's agenda. During the closed-door negotiations, which spawned the weak and compromised Affordable Care Act, Dr. Young was neither consulted nor invited to participate. In fact, he told us that he never heard from Obama again after his White House victory.   Past efforts to even raise the issue have been viciously attacked. A huge army of private interests is determined to keep the public enslaved to private insurers and high medical costs. The failure of our healthcare is in no small measure due to it being a fully for-profit operation. Last year, private health insurance accounted for 65 percent of coverage. Consider that there are over 900 private insurance companies in the US. National Health Expenditures (NHE) grew to $4.5 trillion in 2022, which was 17.3 percent of GDP. Older corporate rank-and-file Democrats and Republicans argue that a single-payer or socialized medical program is unaffordable. However, not only is single-payer affordable, it will end bankruptcies due to unpayable medical debt. In addition, universal healthcare, structured on a preventative model, will reduce disease rates at the outset.    Corporate Democrats argue that Obama's Affordable Care Act (ACA) was a positive step inching the country towards complete public coverage. However, aside from providing coverage to the poorest of Americans, Obamacare turned into another financial anchor around the necks of millions more. According to the health policy research group KFF, the average annual health insurance premium for single coverage is $8,400 and almost $24,000 for a family. In addition, patient out-of-pocket costs continue to increase, a 6.6% increase to $471 billion in 2022. Rather than healthcare spending falling, it has exploded, and the Trump and Biden administrations made matters worse.    Clearly, a universal healthcare program will require flipping the script on the entire private insurance industry, which employed over half a million people last year.  Obviously, the most volatile debate concerning a national universal healthcare system concerns cost. Although there is already a socialized healthcare system in place -- every federal legislator, bureaucrat, government employee and veteran benefits from it -- fiscal Republican conservatives and groups such as the Koch Brothers network are single-mindedly dedicated to preventing the expansion of Medicare and Medicaid. A Koch-funded Mercatus analysis made the outrageous claim that a single-payer system would increase federal health spending by $32 trillion in ten years. However, analyses and reviews by the Congressional Budget Office in the early 1990s concluded that such a system would only increase spending at the start; enormous savings would quickly offset it as the years pass. In one analysis, "the savings in administrative costs [10 percent of health spending] would be more than enough to offset the expense of universal coverage."    Defenders of those advocating for funding a National Health Program argue this can primarily be accomplished by raising taxes to levels comparable to other developed nations. This was a platform Senator Bernie Sanders and some of the younger progressive Democrats in the House campaigned on. The strategy was to tax the highest multimillion-dollar earners 60-70 percent. Despite the outrage of its critics, including old rank-and-file multi-millionaire Democrats like Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, this is still far less than in the past. During the Korean War, the top tax rate was 91 percent; it declined to 70 percent in the late 1960s. Throughout most of the 1970s, those in the lowest income bracket were taxed at 14 percent. We are not advocating for this strategy because it ignores where the funding is going, and the corruption in the system that is contributing to exorbitant waste.    But Democratic supporters of the ACA who oppose a universal healthcare plan ignore the additional taxes Obama levied to pay for the program. These included surtaxes on investment income, Medicare taxes from those earning over $200,000, taxes on tanning services, an excise tax on medical equipment, and a 40 percent tax on health coverage for costs over the designated cap that applied to flexible savings and health savings accounts. The entire ACA was reckless, sloppy and unnecessarily complicated from the start.    The fact that Obamacare further strengthened the distinctions between two parallel systems -- federal and private -- with entirely different economic structures created a labyrinth of red tape, rules, and wasteful bureaucracy. Since the ACA went into effect, over 150 new boards, agencies and programs have had to be established to monitor its 2,700 pages of gibberish. A federal single-payer system would easily eliminate this bureaucracy and waste.    A medical New Deal to establish universal healthcare coverage is a decisive step in the correct direction. But we must look at the crisis holistically and in a systematic way. Simply shuffling private insurance into a federal Medicare-for-all or buy-in program, funded by taxing the wealthiest of citizens, would only temporarily reduce costs. It will neither curtail nor slash escalating disease rates e. Any effective healthcare reform must also tackle the underlying reasons for Americans' poor state of health. We cannot shy away from examining the social illnesses infecting our entire free-market capitalist culture and its addiction to deregulation. A viable healthcare model would have to structurally transform how the medical economy operates. Finally, a successful medical New Deal must honestly evaluate the best and most reliable scientific evidence in order to effectively redirect public health spending.    For example, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a former Obama healthcare adviser, observed that AIDS-HIV measures consume the most public health spending, even though the disease "ranked 75th on the list of diseases by personal health expenditures." On the other hand, according to the American Medical Association, a large percentage of the nation's $3.4 trillion healthcare spending goes towards treating preventable diseases, notably diabetes, common forms of heart disease, and back and neck pain conditions. In 2016, these three conditions were the most costly and accounted for approximately $277 billion in spending. Last year, the CDC announced the autism rate is now 1 in 36 children compared to 1 in 44 two years ago. A retracted study by Mark Blaxill, an autism activist at the Holland Center and a friend of the authors, estimates that ASD costs will reach $589 billion annually by 2030. There are no signs that this alarming trend will reverse and decline; and yet, our entire federal health system has failed to conscientiously investigate the underlying causes of this epidemic. All explanations that might interfere with the pharmaceutical industry's unchecked growth, such as over-vaccination, are ignored and viciously discredited without any sound scientific evidence. Therefore, a proper medical New Deal will require a systemic overhaul and reform of our federal health agencies, especially the HHS, CDC and FDA. Only the Robert Kennedy Jr presidential campaign is even addressing the crisis and has an inexpensive and comprehensive plan to deal with it. For any medical revolution to succeed in advancing universal healthcare, the plan must prioritize spending in a manner that serves public health and not private interests. It will also require reshuffling private corporate interests and their lobbyists to the sidelines, away from any strategic planning, in order to break up the private interests' control over federal agencies and its revolving door policies. Aside from those who benefit from this medical corruption, the overwhelming majority of Americans would agree with this criticism. However, there is a complete lack of national trust that our legislators, including the so-called progressives, would be willing to undertake such actions.    In addition, America's healthcare system ignores the single most critical initiative to reduce costs - that is, preventative efforts and programs instead of deregulation and closing loopholes designed to protect the drug and insurance industries' bottom line. Prevention can begin with banning toxic chemicals that are proven health hazards associated with current disease epidemics, and it can begin by removing a 1,000-plus toxins already banned in Europe. This should be a no-brainer for any legislator who cares for public health. For example, Stacy Malkan, co-founder of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, notes that "the policy approach in the US and Europe is dramatically different" when it comes to chemical allowances in cosmetic products. Whereas the EU has banned 1,328 toxic substances from the cosmetic industry alone, the US has banned only 11. The US continues to allow carcinogenic formaldehyde, petroleum, forever chemicals, many parabens (an estrogen mimicker and endocrine hormone destroyer), the highly allergenic p-phenylenediamine or PBD, triclosan, which has been associated with the rise in antibiotic resistant bacteria, avobenzone, and many others to be used in cosmetics, sunscreens, shampoo and hair dyes.   Next, the food Americans consume can be reevaluated for its health benefits. There should be no hesitation to tax the unhealthiest foods, such as commercial junk food, sodas and candy relying on high fructose corn syrup, products that contain ingredients proven to be toxic, and meat products laden with dangerous chemicals including growth hormones and antibiotics. The scientific evidence that the average American diet is contributing to rising disease trends is indisputable. We could also implement additional taxes on the public advertising of these demonstrably unhealthy products. All such tax revenue would accrue to a national universal health program to offset medical expenditures associated with the very illnesses linked to these products. Although such tax measures would help pay for a new medical New Deal, it may be combined with programs to educate the public about healthy nutrition if it is to produce a reduction in the most common preventable diseases. In fact, comprehensive nutrition courses in medical schools should be mandatory because the average physician receives no education in this crucial subject.  In addition, preventative health education should be mandatory throughout public school systems.   Private insurers force hospitals, clinics and private physicians into financial corners, and this is contributing to prodigious waste in money and resources. Annually, healthcare spending towards medical liability insurance costs tens of billions of dollars. In particular, this economic burden has taxed small clinics and physicians. It is well past the time that physician liability insurance is replaced with no-fault options. Today's doctors are spending an inordinate amount of money to protect themselves. Legions of liability and trial lawyers seek big paydays for themselves stemming from physician error. This has created a culture of fear among doctors and hospitals, resulting in the overly cautious practice of defensive medicine, driving up costs and insurance premiums just to avoid lawsuits. Doctors are forced to order unnecessary tests and prescribe more medications and medical procedures just to cover their backsides. No-fault insurance is a common-sense plan that enables physicians to pursue their profession in a manner that will reduce iatrogenic injuries and costs. Individual cases requiring additional medical intervention and loss of income would still be compensated. This would generate huge savings.    No other nation suffers from the scourge of excessive drug price gouging like the US. After many years of haggling to lower prices and increase access to generic drugs, only a minute amount of progress has been made in recent years. A 60 Minutes feature about the Affordable Care Act reported an "orgy of lobbying and backroom deals in which just about everyone with a stake in the $3-trillion-a-year health industry came out ahead—except the taxpayers.” For example, Life Extension magazine reported that an antiviral cream (acyclovir), which had lost its patent protection, "was being sold to pharmacies for 7,500% over the active ingredient cost. The active ingredient (acyclovir) costs only 8 pennies, yet pharmacies are paying a generic maker $600 for this drug and selling it to consumers for around $700." Other examples include the antibiotic Doxycycline. The price per pill averages 7 cents to $3.36 but has a 5,300 percent markup when it reaches the consumer. The antidepressant Clomipramine is marked up 3,780 percent, and the anti-hypertensive drug Captopril's mark-up is 2,850 percent. And these are generic drugs!    Medication costs need to be dramatically cut to allow drug manufacturers a reasonable but not obscene profit margin. By capping profits approximately 100 percent above all costs, we would save our system hundreds of billions of dollars. Such a measure would also extirpate the growing corporate misdemeanors of pricing fraud, which forces patients to pay out-of-pocket in order to make up for the costs insurers are unwilling to pay.    Finally, we can acknowledge that our healthcare is fundamentally a despotic rationing system based upon high insurance costs vis-a-vis a toss of the dice to determine where a person sits on the economic ladder. For the past three decades it has contributed to inequality. The present insurance-based economic metrics cast millions of Americans out of coverage because private insurance costs are beyond their means. Uwe Reinhardt, a Princeton University political economist, has called our system "brutal" because it "rations [people] out of the system." He defined rationing as "withholding something from someone that is beneficial." Discriminatory healthcare rationing now affects upwards to 60 million people who have been either priced out of the system or under insured. They make too much to qualify for Medicare under Obamacare, yet earn far too little to afford private insurance costs and premiums. In the final analysis, the entire system is discriminatory and predatory.    However, we must be realistic. Almost every member of Congress has benefited from Big Pharma and private insurance lobbyists. The only way to begin to bring our healthcare program up to the level of a truly developed nation is to remove the drug industry's rampant and unnecessary profiteering from the equation.     How did Fauci memory-hole a cure for AIDS and get away with it?   By Helen Buyniski   Over 700,000 Americans have died of AIDS since 1981, with the disease claiming some 42.3 million victims worldwide. While an HIV diagnosis is no longer considered a certain death sentence, the disease looms large in the public imagination and in public health funding, with contemporary treatments running into thousands of dollars per patient annually.   But was there a cure for AIDS all this time - an affordable and safe treatment that was ruthlessly suppressed and attacked by the US public health bureaucracy and its agents? Could this have saved millions of lives and billions of dollars spent on AZT, ddI and failed HIV vaccine trials? What could possibly justify the decision to disappear a safe and effective approach down the memory hole?   The inventor of the cure, Gary Null, already had several decades of experience creating healing protocols for physicians to help patients not responding well to conventional treatments by the time AIDS was officially defined in 1981. Null, a registered dietitian and board-certified nutritionist with a PhD in human nutrition and public health science, was a senior research fellow and Director of Anti-Aging Medicine at the Institute of Applied Biology for 36 years and has published over 950 papers, conducting groundbreaking experiments in reversing biological aging as confirmed with DNA methylation testing. Additionally, Null is a multi-award-winning documentary filmmaker, bestselling author, and investigative journalist whose work exposing crimes against humanity over the last 50 years has highlighted abuses by Big Pharma, the military-industrial complex, the financial industry, and the permanent government stay-behind networks that have come to be known as the Deep State.   Null was contacted in 1974 by Dr. Stephen Caiazza, a physician working with a subculture of gay men in New York living the so-called “fast track” lifestyle, an extreme manifestation of the gay liberation movement that began with the Stonewall riots. Defined by rampant sexual promiscuity and copious use of illegal and prescription drugs, including heavy antibiotic use for a cornucopia of sexually-transmitted diseases, the fast-track never included more than about two percent of gay men, though these dominated many of the bathhouses and clubs that defined gay nightlife in the era. These patients had become seriously ill as a result of their indulgence, generally arriving at the clinic with multiple STDs including cytomegalovirus and several types of herpes and hepatitis, along with candida overgrowth, nutritional deficiencies, gut issues, and recurring pneumonia. Every week for the next 10 years, Null would counsel two or three of these men - a total of 800 patients - on how to detoxify their bodies and de-stress their lives, tracking their progress with Caiazza and the other providers at weekly feedback meetings that he credits with allowing the team to quickly evaluate which treatments were most effective. He observed that it only took about two years on the “fast track” for a healthy young person to begin seeing muscle loss and the recurrent, lingering opportunistic infections that would later come to be associated with AIDS - while those willing to commit to a healthier lifestyle could regain their health in about a year.    It was with this background that Null established the Tri-State Healing Center in Manhattan in 1980, staffing the facility with what would eventually run to 22 certified health professionals to offer safe, natural, and effective low- and no-cost treatments to thousands of patients with HIV and AIDS-defining conditions. Null and his staff used variations of the protocols he had perfected with Caiazza's patients, a multifactorial patient-tailored approach that included high-dose vitamin C drips, intravenous ozone therapy, juicing and nutritional improvements and supplementation, aspects of homeopathy and naturopathy with some Traditional Chinese Medicine and Ayurvedic practices. Additional services offered on-site included acupuncture and holistic dentistry, while peer support groups were also held at the facility so that patients could find community and a positive environment, healing their minds and spirits while they healed their bodies.   “Instead of trying to kill the virus with antiretroviral pharmaceuticals designed to stop viral replication before it kills patients, we focused on what benefits could be gained by building up the patients' natural immunity and restoring biochemical integrity so the body could fight for itself,” Null wrote in a 2014 article describing the philosophy behind the Center's approach, which was wholly at odds with the pharmaceutical model.1   Patients were comprehensively tested every week, with any “recovery” defined solely by the labs, which documented AIDS patient after patient - 1,200 of them - returning to good health and reversing their debilitating conditions. Null claims to have never lost an AIDS patient in the Center's care, even as the death toll for the disease - and its pharmaceutical standard of care AZT - reached an all-time high in the early 1990s. Eight patients who had opted for a more intensive course of treatment - visiting the Center six days a week rather than one - actually sero-deconverted, with repeated subsequent testing showing no trace of HIV in their bodies.   As an experienced clinical researcher himself, Null recognized that any claims made by the Center would be massively scrutinized, challenging as they did the prevailing scientific consensus that AIDS was an incurable, terminal illness. He freely gave his protocols to any medical practitioner who asked, understanding that his own work could be considered scientifically valid only if others could replicate it under the same conditions. After weeks of daily observational visits to the Center, Dr. Robert Cathcart took the protocols back to San Francisco, where he excitedly reported that patients were no longer dying in his care.    Null's own colleague at the Institute of Applied Biology, senior research fellow Elana Avram, set up IV drip rooms at the Institute and used his intensive protocols to sero-deconvert 10 patients over a two-year period. While the experiment had been conducted in secret, as the Institute had been funded by Big Pharma since its inception half a century earlier, Avram had hoped she would be able to publish a journal article to further publicize Null's protocols and potentially help AIDS patients, who were still dying at incredibly high rates thanks to Burroughs Wellcome's noxious but profitable AZT. But as she would later explain in a 2019 letter to Null, their groundbreaking research never made it into print - despite meticulous documentation of their successes - because the Institute's director and board feared their pharmaceutical benefactors would withdraw the funding on which they depended, given that Null's protocols did not involve any patentable or otherwise profitable drugs. When Avram approached them about publication, the board vetoed the idea, arguing that it would “draw negative attention because [the work] was contrary to standard drug treatments.” With no real point in continuing experiments along those lines without institutional support and no hope of obtaining funding from elsewhere, the department she had created specifically for these experiments shut down after a two-year followup with her test subjects - all of whom remained alive and healthy - was completed.2   While the Center was receiving regular visits by this time from medical professionals and, increasingly, black celebrities like Stokely Carmichael and Isaac Hayes, who would occasionally perform for the patients, the news was spreading by word of mouth alone - not a single media outlet had dared to document the clinic that was curing AIDS patients for free. Instead, they gave airtime to Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases, who had for years been spreading baseless, hysteria-fueling claims about HIV and AIDS to any news outlet that would put him on. His claim that children could contract the virus from “ordinary household conduct” with an infected relative proved so outrageous he had to walk it back,3 and he never really stopped insisting the deadly plague associated with gays and drug users was about to explode like a nuclear bomb among the law-abiding heterosexual population. Fauci by this time controlled all government science funding through NIAID, and his zero-tolerance approach to dissent on the HIV/AIDS front had already seen prominent scientists like virologist Peter Duesberg stripped of the resources they needed for their work because they had dared to question his commandment: There is no cause of AIDS but HIV, and AZT is its treatment. Even the AIDS activist groups, which by then had been coopted by Big Pharma and essentially reduced to astroturfing for the toxic failed chemotherapy drug AZT backed by the institutional might of Fauci's NIAID,4 didn't seem to want to hear that there was a cure. Unconcerned with the irrationality of denouncing the man touting his free AIDS cure as an  “AIDS denier,” they warned journalists that platforming Null or anyone else rejecting the mainstream medical line would be met with organized demands for their firing.    Determined to breach the institutional iron curtain and get his message to the masses, Null and his team staged a press conference in New York, inviting scientists and doctors from around the world to share their research on alternative approaches to HIV and AIDS in 1993. To emphasize the sound scientific basis of the Center's protocols and encourage guests to adopt them into their own practices, Null printed out thousands of abstracts in support of each nutrient and treatment being used. However, despite over 7,000 invitations sent three times to major media, government figures, scientists, and activists, almost none of the intended audience members showed up. Over 100 AIDS patients and their doctors, whose charts exhaustively documented their improvements using natural and nontoxic modalities over the preceding 12 months, gave filmed testimonials, declaring that the feared disease was no longer a death sentence, but the conference had effectively been silenced. Bill Tatum, publisher of the Amsterdam News, suggested Null and his patients would find a more welcoming audience in his home neighborhood of Harlem - specifically, its iconic Apollo Theatre. For three nights, the theater was packed to capacity. Hit especially hard by the epidemic and distrustful of a medical system that had only recently stopped being openly racist (the Tuskegee syphilis experiment only ended in 1972), black Americans, at least, did not seem to care what Anthony Fauci would do if he found out they were investigating alternatives to AZT and death.    PBS journalist Tony Brown, having obtained a copy of the video of patient testimonials from the failed press conference, was among a handful of black journalists who began visiting the Center to investigate the legitimacy of Null's claims. Satisfied they had something significant to offer his audience, Brown invited eight patients - along with Null himself - onto his program over the course of several episodes to discuss the work. It was the first time these protocols had received any attention in the media, despite Null having released nearly two dozen articles and multiple documentaries on the subject by that time. A typical patient on one program, Al, a recovered IV drug user who was diagnosed with AIDS at age 32, described how he “panicked,” saw a doctor and started taking AZT despite his misgivings - only to be forced to discontinue the drug after just a few weeks due to his condition deteriorating rapidly. Researching alternatives brought him to Null, and after six months of “detoxing [his] lifestyle,” he observed his initial symptoms - swollen lymph nodes and weight loss - begin to reverse, culminating with sero-deconversion. On Bill McCreary's Channel 5 program, a married couple diagnosed with HIV described how they watched their T-cell counts increase as they cut out sugar, caffeine, smoking, and drinking and began eating a healthy diet. They also saw the virus leave their bodies.   For HIV-positive viewers surrounded by fear and negativity, watching healthy-looking, cheerful “AIDS patients” detail their recovery while Null backed up their claims with charts must have been balm for the soul. But the TV programs were also a form of outreach to the medical community, with patients' charts always on hand to convince skeptics the cure was scientifically valid. Null brought patients' charts to every program, urging them to keep an open mind: “Other physicians and public health officials should know that there's good science in the alternative perspective. It may not be a therapy that they're familiar with, because they're just not trained in it, but if the results are positive, and you can document them…” He challenged doubters to send in charts from their own sero-deconverted patients on AZT, and volunteered to debate proponents of the orthodox treatment paradigm - though the NIH and WHO both refused to participate in such a debate on Tony Brown's Journal, following Fauci's directive prohibiting engagement with forbidden ideas.    Aside from those few TV programs and Null's own films, suppression of Null's AIDS cure beyond word of mouth was total. The 2021 documentary The Cost of Denial, produced by the Society for Independent Journalists, tells the story of the Tri-State Healing Center and the medical paradigm that sought to destroy it, lamenting the loss of the lives that might have been saved in a more enlightened society. Nurse practitioner Luanne Pennesi, who treated many of the AIDS patients at the Center, speculated in the film that the refusal by the scientific establishment and AIDS activists to accept their successes was financially motivated. “It was as if they didn't want this information to get out. Understand that our healthcare system as we know it is a corporation, it's a corporate model, and it's about generating revenue. My concern was that maybe they couldn't generate enough revenue from these natural approaches.”5   Funding was certainly the main disciplinary tool Fauci's NIAID used to keep the scientific community in line. Despite the massive community interest in the work being done at the Center, no foundation or institution would defy Fauci and risk getting itself blacklisted, leaving Null to continue funding the operation out of his pocket with the profits from book sales. After 15 years, he left the Center in 1995, convinced the mainstream model had so thoroughly been institutionalized that there was no chance of overthrowing it. He has continued to counsel patients and advocate for a reappraisal of the HIV=AIDS hypothesis and its pharmaceutical treatments, highlighting the deeply flawed science underpinning the model of the disease espoused by the scientific establishment in 39 articles, six documentaries and a 700-page textbook on AIDS, but the Center's achievements have been effectively memory-holed by Fauci's multi-billion-dollar propaganda apparatus.     FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE   To understand just how much of a threat Null's work was to the HIV/AIDS establishment, it is instructive to revisit the 1984 paper, published by Dr. Robert Gallo of the National Cancer Institute, that established HIV as the sole cause of AIDS. The CDC's official recognition of AIDS in 1981 had done little to quell the mounting public panic over the mysterious illness afflicting gay men in the US, as the agency had effectively admitted it had no idea what was causing them to sicken and die. As years passed with no progress determining the causative agent of the plague, activist groups like Gay Men's Health Crisis disrupted public events and threatened further mass civil disobedience as they excoriated the NIH for its sluggish allocation of government science funding to uncovering the cause of the “gay cancer.”6 When Gallo published his paper declaring that the retrovirus we now know as HIV was the sole “probable” cause of AIDS, its simple, single-factor hypothesis was the answer to the scientific establishment's prayers. This was particularly true for Fauci, as the NIAID chief was able to claim the hot new disease as his agency's own domain in what has been described as a “dramatic confrontation” with his rival Sam Broder at the National Cancer Institute. After all, Fauci pointed out, Gallo's findings - presented by Health and Human Services Secretary Margaret Heckler as if they were gospel truth before any other scientists had had a chance to inspect them, never mind conduct a full peer review - clearly classified AIDS as an infectious disease, and not a cancer like the Kaposi's sarcoma which was at the time its most visible manifestation. Money and media attention began pouring in, even as funding for the investigation of other potential causes of AIDS dried up. Having already patented a diagnostic test for “his” retrovirus before introducing it to the world, Gallo was poised for a financial windfall, while Fauci was busily leveraging the discovery into full bureaucratic empire of the US scientific apparatus.   While it would serve as the sole basis for all US government-backed AIDS research to follow - quickly turning Gallo into the most-cited scientist in the world during the 1980s,7 Gallo's “discovery” of HIV was deeply problematic. The sample that yielded the momentous discovery actually belonged to Prof. Luc Montagnier of the French Institut Pasteur, a fact Gallo finally admitted in 1991, four years after a lawsuit from the French government challenged his patent on the HIV antibody test, forcing the US government to negotiate a hasty profit-sharing agreement between Gallo's and Montagnier's labs. That lawsuit triggered a cascade of official investigations into scientific misconduct by Gallo, and evidence submitted during one of these probes, unearthed in 2008 by journalist Janine Roberts, revealed a much deeper problem with the seminal “discovery.” While Gallo's co-author, Mikulas Popovic, had concluded after numerous experiments with the French samples that the virus they contained was not the cause of AIDS, Gallo had drastically altered the paper's conclusion, scribbling his notes in the margins, and submitted it for publication to the journal Science without informing his co-author.   After Roberts shared her discovery with contacts in the scientific community, 37 scientific experts wrote to the journal demanding that Gallo's career-defining HIV paper be retracted from Science for lacking scientific integrity.8 Their call, backed by an endorsement from the 2,600-member scientific organization Rethinking AIDS, was ignored by the publication and by the rest of mainstream science despite - or perhaps because of - its profound implications.   That 2008 letter, addressed to Science editor-in-chief Bruce Alberts and copied to American Association for the Advancement of Science CEO Alan Leshner, is worth reproducing here in its entirety, as it utterly dismantles Gallo's hypothesis - and with them the entire HIV is the sole cause of AIDS dogma upon which the contemporary medical model of the disease rests:   On May 4, 1984 your journal published four papers by a group led by Dr. Robert Gallo. We are writing to express our serious concerns with regard to the integrity and veracity of the lead paper among these four of which Dr. Mikulas Popovic is the lead author.[1] The other three are also of concern because they rely upon the conclusions of the lead paper .[2][3][4]  In the early 1990s, several highly critical reports on the research underlying these papers were produced as a result of governmental inquiries working under the supervision of scientists nominated by the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine. The Office of Research Integrity of the US Department of Health and Human Services concluded that the lead paper was “fraught with false and erroneous statements,” and that the “ORI believes that the careless and unacceptable keeping of research records...reflects irresponsible laboratory management that has permanently impaired the ability to retrace the important steps taken.”[5] Further, a Congressional Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations led by US Representative John D. Dingell of Michigan produced a staff report on the papers which contains scathing criticisms of their integrity.[6]  Despite the publically available record of challenges to their veracity, these papers have remained uncorrected and continue to be part of the scientific record.  What prompts our communication today is the recent revelation of an astonishing number of previously unreported deletions and unjustified alterations made by Gallo to the lead paper. There are several documents originating from Gallo's laboratory that, while available for some time, have only recently been fully analyzed. These include a draft of the lead paper typewritten by Popovic which contains handwritten changes made to it by Gallo.[7] This draft was the key evidence used in the above described inquiries to establish that Gallo had concealed his laboratory's use of a cell culture sample (known as LAV) which it received from the Institut Pasteur.  These earlier inquiries verified that the typed manuscript draft was produced by Popovic who had carried out the recorded experiment while his laboratory chief, Gallo, was in Europe and that, upon his return, Gallo changed the document by hand a few days before it was submitted to Science on March 30, 1984. According to the ORI investigation, “Dr. Gallo systematically rewrote the manuscript for what would become a renowned LTCB [Gallo's laboratory at the National Cancer Institute] paper.”[5]  This document provided the important evidence that established the basis for awarding Dr. Luc Montagnier and Dr. Francoise Barré-Sinoussi the 2008 Nobel Prize in Medicine for the discovery of the AIDS virus by proving it was their samples of LAV that Popovic used in his key experiment. The draft reveals that Popovic had forthrightly admitted using the French samples of LAV renamed as Gallo's virus, HTLV-III, and that Gallo had deleted this admission, concealing their use of LAV.  However, it has not been previously reported that on page three of this same document Gallo had also deleted Popovic's unambiguous statement that, "Despite intensive research efforts, the causative agent of AIDS has not yet been identified,” replacing it in the published paper with a statement that said practically the opposite, namely, “That a retrovirus of the HTLV family might be an etiologic agent of AIDS was suggested by the findings.”  It is clear that the rest of Popovic's typed paper is entirely consistent with his statement that the cause of AIDS had not been found, despite his use of the French LAV. Popovic's final conclusion was that the culture he produced “provides the possibility” for detailed studies. He claimed to have achieved nothing more. At no point in his paper did Popovic attempt to prove that any virus caused AIDS, and it is evident that Gallo concealed these key elements in Popovic's experimental findings.  It is astonishing now to discover these unreported changes to such a seminal document. We can only assume that Gallo's alterations of Popovic's conclusions were not highlighted by earlier inquiries because the focus at the time was on establishing that the sample used by Gallo's lab came from Montagnier and was not independently collected by Gallo. In fact, the only attention paid to the deletions made by Gallo pertains to his effort to hide the identity of the sample. The questions of whether Gallo and Popovic's research proved that LAV or any other virus was the cause of AIDS were clearly not considered.  Related to these questions are other long overlooked documents that merit your attention. One of these is a letter from Dr. Matthew A. Gonda, then Head of the Electron Microscopy Laboratory at the National Cancer Institute, which is addressed to Popovic, copied to Gallo and dated just four days prior to Gallo's submission to Science.[8] In this letter, Gonda remarks on samples he had been sent for imaging because “Dr Gallo wanted these micrographs for publication because they contain HTLV.” He states, “I do not believe any of the particles photographed are of HTLV-I, II or III.” According to Gonda, one sample contained cellular debris, while another had no particles near the size of a retrovirus. Despite Gonda's clearly worded statement, Science published on May 4, 1984 papers attributed to Gallo et al with micrographs attributed to Gonda and described unequivocally as HTLV-III.  In another letter by Gallo, dated one day before he submitted his papers to Science, Gallo states, “It's extremely rare to find fresh cells [from AIDS patients] expressing the virus... cell culture seems to be necessary to induce virus,” a statement which raises the possibility he was working with a laboratory artifact. [9]  Included here are copies of these documents and links to the same. The very serious flaws they reveal in the preparation of the lead paper published in your journal in 1984 prompts our request that this paper be withdrawn. It appears that key experimental findings have been concealed. We further request that the three associated papers published on the same date also be withdrawn as they depend on the accuracy of this paper.  For the scientific record to be reliable, it is vital that papers shown to be flawed, or falsified be retracted. Because a very public record now exists showing that the Gallo papers drew unjustified conclusions, their withdrawal from Science is all the more important to maintain integrity. Future researchers must also understand they cannot rely on the 1984 Gallo papers for statements about HIV and AIDS, and all authors of papers that previously relied on this set of four papers should have the opportunity to consider whether their own conclusions are weakened by these revelations.      Gallo's handwritten revision, submitted without his colleague's knowledge despite multiple experiments that failed to support the new conclusion, was the sole foundation for the HIV=AIDS hypothesis. Had Science published the manuscript the way Popovic had typed it, there would be no AIDS “pandemic” - merely small clusters of people with AIDS. Without a viral hypothesis backing the development of expensive and deadly pharmaceuticals, would Fauci have allowed these patients to learn about the cure that existed all along?   Faced with a potential rebellion, Fauci marshaled the full resources under his control to squelch the publication of the investigations into Gallo and restrict any discussion of competing hypotheses in the scientific and mainstream press, which had been running virus-scare stories full-time since 1984. The effect was total, according to biochemist Dr. Kary Mullis, inventor of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) procedure. In a 2009 interview, Mullis recalled his own shock when he attempted to unearth the experimental basis for the HIV=AIDS hypothesis. Despite his extensive inquiry into the literature, “there wasn't a scientific reference…[that] said ‘here's how come we know that HIV is the probable cause of AIDS.' There was nothing out there like that.”9 This yawning void at the core of HIV/AIDS “science" turned him into a strident critic of AIDS dogma - and those views made him persona non grata where the scientific press was concerned, suddenly unable to publish a single paper despite having won the Nobel Prize for his invention of the PCR test just weeks before.  10   DISSENT BECOMES “DENIAL”   While many of those who dissent from the orthodox HIV=AIDS view believe HIV plays a role in the development of AIDS, they point to lifestyle and other co-factors as being equally if not more important. Individuals who test positive for HIV can live for decades in perfect health - so long as they don't take AZT or the other toxic antivirals fast-tracked by Fauci's NIAID - but those who developed full-blown AIDS generally engaged in highly risky behaviors like extreme promiscuity and prodigious drug abuse, contracting STDs they took large quantities of antibiotics to treat, further running down their immune systems. While AIDS was largely portrayed as a “gay disease,” it was only the “fast track” gays, hooking up with dozens of partners nightly in sex marathons fueled by “poppers” (nitrate inhalants notorious for their own devastating effects on the immune system), who became sick. Kaposi's sarcoma, one of the original AIDS-defining conditions, was widespread among poppers-using gay men, but never appeared among IV drug users or hemophiliacs, the other two main risk groups during the early years of the epidemic. Even Robert Gallo himself, at a 1994 conference on poppers held by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, would admit that the previously-rare form of skin cancer surging among gay men was not primarily caused by HIV - and that it was immune stimulation, rather than suppression, that was likely responsible.11 Similarly, IV drug users are often riddled with opportunistic infections as their habit depresses the immune system and their focus on maintaining their addiction means that healthier habits - like good nutrition and even basic hygiene - fall by the wayside.    Supporting the call for revising the HIV=AIDS hypothesis to include co-factors is the fact that the mass heterosexual outbreaks long predicted by Fauci and his ilk in seemingly every country on Earth have failed to materialize, except - supposedly - in Africa, where the diagnostic standard for AIDS differs dramatically from those of the West. Given the prohibitively high cost of HIV testing for poor African nations, the WHO in 1985 crafted a diagnostic loophole that became known as the “Bangui definition,” allowing medical professionals to diagnose AIDS in the absence of a test using just clinical symptoms: high fever, persistent cough, at least 30 days of diarrhea, and the loss of 10% of one's body weight within two months. Often suffering from malnutrition and without access to clean drinking water, many of the inhabitants of sub-Saharan Africa fit the bill, especially when the WHO added tuberculosis to the list of AIDS-defining illnesses in 1993 - a move which may be responsible for as many as one half of African “AIDS” cases, according to journalist Christine Johnson. The WHO's former Chief of Global HIV Surveillance, James Chin, acknowledged their manipulation of statistics, but stressed that it was the entire AIDS industry - not just his organization - perpetrating the fraud. “There's the saying that, if you knew what sausages are made of, most people would hesitate to sort of eat them, because they wouldn't like what's in it. And if you knew how HIV/AIDS numbers are cooked, or made up, you would use them with extreme caution,” Chin told an interviewer in 2009.12   With infected numbers stubbornly remaining constant in the US despite Fauci's fearmongering projections of the looming heterosexually-transmitted plague, the CDC in 1993 broadened its definition of AIDS to include asymptomatic (that is, healthy) HIV-positive people with low T-cell counts - an absurd criteria given that an individual's T-cell count can fluctuate by hundreds within a single day. As a result, the number of “AIDS cases” in the US immediately doubled. Supervised by Fauci, the NIAID had been quietly piling on diseases into the “AIDS-related” category for years, bloating the list from just two conditions - pneumocystis carinii pneumonia and Kaposi's sarcoma - to 30 so fast it raised eyebrows among some of science's leading lights. Deeming the entire process “bizarre” and unprecedented, Kary Mullis wondered aloud why no one had called the AIDS establishment out: “There's something wrong here. And it's got to be financial.”13   Indeed, an early CDC public relations campaign was exposed by the Wall Street Journal in 1987 as having deliberately mischaracterized AIDS as a threat to the entire population so as to garner increased public and private funding for what was very much a niche issue, with the risk to average heterosexuals from a single act of sex “smaller than the risk of ever getting hit by lightning.” Ironically, the ads, which sought to humanize AIDS patients in an era when few Americans knew anyone with the disease and more than half the adult population thought infected people should be forced to carry cards warning of their status, could be seen as a reaction to the fear tactics deployed by Fauci early on.14   It's hard to tell where fraud ends and incompetence begins with Gallo's HIV antibody test. Much like Covid-19 would become a “pandemic of testing,” with murder victims and motorcycle crashes lumped into “Covid deaths” thanks to over-sensitized PCR tests that yielded as many as 90% false positives,15 HIV testing is fraught with false positives - and unlike with Covid-19, most people who hear they are HIV-positive still believe they are receiving a death sentence. Due to the difficulty of isolating HIV itself from human samples, the most common diagnostic tests, ELISA and the Western Blot, are designed to detect not the virus but antibodies to it, upending the traditional medical understanding that the presence of antibodies indicates only exposure - and often that the body has actually vanquished the pathogen. Patients are known to test positive for HIV antibodies in the absence of the virus due to at least 70 other conditions, including hepatitis, lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, syphilis, recent vaccination or even pregnancy. (https://www.chcfl.org/diseases-that-can-cause-a-false-positive-hiv-test/) Positive results are often followed up with a PCR “viral load” test, even though the inventor of the PCR technique Kary Mullis famously condemned its misuse as a tool for diagnosing infection. Packaging inserts for all three tests warn the user that they cannot be reliably used to diagnose HIV.16 The ELISA HIV antibody test explicitly states: “At present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence and absence of HIV antibody in human blood.”17   That the public remains largely unaware of these and other massive holes in the supposedly airtight HIV=AIDS=DEATH paradigm is a testament to Fauci's multi-layered control of the press. Like the writers of the Great Barrington Declaration and other Covid-19 dissidents, scientists who question HIV/AIDS dogma have been brutally punished for their heresy, no matter how prestigious their prior standing in the field and no matter how much evidence they have for their own claims. In 1987, the year the FDA's approval of AZT made AIDS the most profitable epidemic yet (a dubious designation Covid-19 has since surpassed), Fauci made it clearer than ever that scientific inquiry and debate - the basis of the scientific method - would no longer be welcome in the American public health sector, eliminating retrovirologist Peter Duesberg, then one of the most prominent opponents of the HIV=AIDS hypothesis, from the scientific conversation with a professional disemboweling that would make a cartel hitman blush. Duesberg had just eviscerated Gallo's 1984 HIV paper with an article of his own in the journal Cancer Research, pointing out that retroviruses had never before been found to cause a single disease in humans - let alone 30 AIDS-defining diseases. Rather than allow Gallo or any of the other scientists in his camp to respond to the challenge, Fauci waged a scorched-earth campaign against Duesberg, who had until then been one of the most highly regarded researchers in his field. Every research grant he requested was denied; every media appearance was canceled or preempted. The University of California at Berkeley, unable to fully fire him due to tenure, took away his lab, his graduate students, and the rest of his funding. The few colleagues who dared speak up for him in public were also attacked, while enemies and opportunists were encouraged to slander Duesberg at the conferences he was barred from attending and in the journals that would no longer publish his replies. When Duesberg was summoned to the White House later that year by then-President Ronald Reagan to debate Fauci on the origins of AIDS, Fauci convinced the president to cancel, allegedly pulling rank on the Commander-in-Chief with an accusation that the “White House was interfering in scientific matters that belonged to the NIH and the Office of Science and Technology Assessment.” After seven years of this treatment, Duesberg was contacted by NIH official Stephen O'Brien and offered an escape from professional purgatory. He could have “everything back,” he was told, and shown a manuscript of a scientific paper - apparently commissioned by the editor of the journal Nature - “HIV Causes AIDS: Koch's Postulates Fulfilled” with his own name listed alongside O'Brien's as an author.18 His refusal to take the bribe effectively guaranteed the epithet “AIDS denier” will appear on his tombstone. The character assassination of Duesberg became a template that would be deployed to great effectiveness wherever Fauci encountered dissent - never debate, only demonize, deplatform and destroy.    Even Luc Montagnier, the real discoverer of HIV, soon found himself on the wrong side of the Fauci machine. With his 1990 declaration that “the HIV virus [by itself] is harmless and passive, a benign virus,” Montagnier began distancing himself from Gallo's fraud, effectively placing a target on his own back. In a 1995 interview, he elaborated: “four factors that have come together to account for the sudden epidemic [of AIDS]: HIV presence, immune hyper-activation, increased sexually transmitted disease incidence, sexual behavior changes and other behavioral changes” such as drug use, poor nutrition and stress - all of which he said had to occur “essentially simultaneously” for HIV to be transmitted, creating the modern epidemic. Like the professionals at the Tri-State Healing Center, Montagnier advocated for the use of antioxidants like vitamin C and N-acetyl cysteine, naming oxidative stress as a critical factor in the progression from HIV to AIDS.19 When Montagnier died in 2022, Fauci's media mouthpieces sneered that the scientist (who was awarded the Nobel Prize in 2008 for his discovery of HIV, despite his flagging faith in that discovery's significance) “started espousing views devoid of a scientific basis” in the late 2000s, leading him to be “shunned by the scientific community.”20 In a particularly egregious jab, the Washington Post's obit sings the praises of Robert Gallo, implying it was the American scientist who really should have won the Nobel for HIV, while dismissing as “

This episode is sponsored by Digital Science, a global leader in AI-driven technology, providing advanced software and data solutions that empower researchers, universities, and organizations across the research ecosystem. Born out of the research community itself, Digital Science was founded by researchers who sought to solve the challenges they were facing. Now Digital Science is dedicated to making open, collaborative, and inclusive research a reality, partnering with academic institutions to provide pioneering AI-powered tools that enhance decision-making, foster innovation, and help shape a future where trusted, collaborative research drives progress for all. Learn more at https://www.digital-science.com/. Today's episode features Caroline Goldsmith, Associate Director, Charleston Hub, who talks with Dr. Leslie McIntosh, Founder, Ripeta, and VP, Research Integrity, Digital Science.  Leslie talks with us about how she defines research integrity, and the major issues she sees currently facing the scholarly communication industry around research integrity.  Leslie dedicates her work to improving research and investigating and reducing mis- and disinformation in science. She founded Ripeta in 2017 to improve research quality and integrity using algorithms which lead in detecting trust markers of research manuscripts. Leslie has given hundreds of talks to the US-NIH, NASA, and World Congress, and her work was the most read Retraction Watch post in 2022.  She also talks about the work being done at Digital Science and the new tool, Dimensions Author Check, which supports publishers with the author verification process.   The video of this interview can be found here: https://youtu.be/x8lA-59Zi08 Social Media: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/caroline-goldsmith-94459112/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/leslie-mcintosh/ Keywords: #DigitalScience, #digital, #ResearchTransformation, #Research Quality, #ResearchEthics, #OpenResearch, #ResearchInnovation, #EmergingTechnologies, #AcademicResearch, #DigitalLibrarian, #DigitalLibrary, , #ResearchReliability, #ResearchIntegrity, #PublishingIntegrity, #PoweringResearch, #ScientificMisconduct, #Retractions, #AuthorVerification, #ScienceTalks, #Misinformation, #Disinformation, #knowledge,  #awareness, #efficiency, #innovation, #partnerships, #CommunityEngagement, #collaboration, #scholcomm, #ScholarlyCommunication, #libraries, #librarianship, #LibraryNeeds, #LibraryLove, #ScholarlyPublishing, #AcademicPublishing, #publishing, #LibrariesAndPublishers, #podcasts

In this conversation, Michael Sodini and Rob Pincus discuss their experiences at a recent gun violence prevention conference in Seattle. They reflect on the interactive nature of the event, the importance of engaging with researchers, and the challenges of addressing outdated data and misconceptions about gun ownership. The discussion highlights the need for more research focused on affected populations, particularly regarding suicide prevention, and the influence of funding on research outcomes. Throughout the conversation, they emphasize the importance of honest dialogue and the recognition of responsible gun ownership. In this conversation, Rob Pincus and Michael Sodini discuss the complexities of gun research, the intersection of activism and objectivity in scientific inquiry, and the challenges faced by gun owners in a politically charged environment. They reflect on a recent conference where the keynote speaker's approach raised concerns about research integrity, and they critique the presence of gun control advocates at the event. The discussion emphasizes the need for diverse perspectives in gun research, the importance of mental health considerations in gun laws, and the upcoming Walk the Talk America survey aimed at gathering data from real gun owners.Chapters00:00 Introduction and Conference Overview01:51 Interactive Learning and Engagement at the Conference04:26 Positive Interactions and Challenging Perspectives08:15 Addressing Outdated Data and Misconceptions11:48 The Importance of Acknowledging Limitations in Research14:09 Funding and Research Focus on Affected Populations18:41 Navigating Sensitive Topics in Gun Violence Discussions22:14 The Role of Funding in Research and Outcomes27:10 Common Themes and Misconceptions in Gun Research29:08 Research and Narrative Conflicts30:03 Keynote Speaker Insights31:58 Activism vs. Objectivity in Research33:25 Gun Control Pep Rally at the Conference36:45 Confronting Gun Control Advocates39:29 The Need for Diverse Perspectives42:06 Collaboration with Opposing Views44:11 Lack of Research on Assault Weapons46:24 The Importance of Mental Health in Gun Laws48:57 Upcoming Walk the Talk America SurveySend us a text

Grant fraud encompasses four critical issues that can have severe repercussions for institutions and individuals:Foreign Influence and Funding:Failing to disclose foreign government support, as seen in Ohio State University's $875,000 settlement (November 2022).Similar allegations against U Ming Qing Xiao in the Southern District of Illinois (April 2022).Misrepresenting Data for Funding:Using falsified or fabricated data to secure grants undermines the integrity of funding decisions.The DOJ actively pursues cases, as demonstrated in Duke University's case (March 2019).Misrepresenting Data Arising from Grants:Cases like those of Carlos Berley (Yale University) and Dr. Johnny He (Rosalind Franklin University) illustrate intentional falsification, fabrication, and plagiarism in grant-funded research.These practices result in disciplinary actions by the Office of Research Integrity.Misuse of Grant Funds:Examples include personal expenses being charged to NIH funds, as seen with Jeffrey Parsons and Hunter College.Misappropriated funds included international trips, personal celebrations, and unapproved bonuses, leading to legal settlements.Grant fraud isn't just unethical—it attracts significant scrutiny from federal agencies like the DOJ and the Office of Research Integrity. Ensuring compliance is vital to avoid legal, financial, and reputational damage.Support the show

In this episode, we explore the fascinating intersection of artificial intelligence (AI) and academic publishing with Gráinne McNamara, a Research Integrity and Publication Ethics Manager.Gráinne shares her insights on how AI is revolutionising the publishing process, helping to detect plagiarism, image manipulation, and ensuring reproducibility in scientific research. We discuss the ethical challenges of deploying AI in this space, including data privacy concerns and the risk of reinforcing biases in peer review.This conversation dives into the current tools and technologies being used to maintain integrity, the limitations of AI in fraud detection, and the opportunities for AI to improve trust and credibility in academic publishing. Gráinne also provides a glimpse into the future of AI in ensuring methodological and result reproducibility while highlighting the industry's ongoing efforts to stay ahead of emerging trends and challenges.Guest:Gráinne McNamara - Research Integrity and Publication Ethics Manager, specialising in leveraging AI to ensure credibility and ethical standards in scientific publishing.Topics Covered:The Importance of Integrity in Academic PublishingAI Tools for Detecting Plagiarism and Image ManipulationEnhancing Peer Review with AIEthical Concerns and Data Privacy in AI for PublishingChallenges of Bias in AI ModelsThe Future of Reproducibility in Scientific ResearchClick to connect with Dr. Andree Bates for more information in this episode: https://eularis.com/AI For Pharma Growth is the podcast from pioneering Pharma Artificial Intelligence entrepreneur Dr. Andree Bates created to help organisations understand how the use of AI based technologies can easily save them time and grow their brands and business. This show blends deep experience in the sector with demystifying AI for all pharma people, from start up biotech right through to Big Pharma. In this podcast Dr Andree will teach you the tried and true secrets to building a pharma company using AI that anyone can use, at any budget.As the author of many peer-reviewed journals and having addressed over 500 industry conferences across the globe, Dr Andree Bates uses her obsession with all things AI and futuretech to help you to navigate through the, sometimes confusing but, magical world of AI powered tools to grow pharma businesses. This podcast features many experts who have developed powerful AI powered tools that are the secret behind some time saving and supercharged revenue generating business results. Those who share their stories and expertise show how AI can be applied to sales, marketing, production, social media, psychology, customer insights and so much more.

In this episode of Join the Docs, our ever-curious hosts, Professor Jonathan Sackier and Doctor Nigel Guest, take a deep dive into the labyrinthine world of medical research. With their signature blend of wit and wisdom, they aim to demystify the intricate processes behind drug discovery and clinical trials, making it as clear as a well-written prescription minus the totally illegible doctor's handwriting of course!How does Professor Sackier set the tone for the discussion? He compares drug discovery to dating. You have to kiss a lot of frogs before you find your prince—or in this case, your blockbuster drug! Dr. Guest, not to be outdone, quips back, "And just like dating, it can cost you an arm and a leg, but hopefully not your liver!"The  Docs delve into the various types of research, from basic science to clinical studies with a nod to the ridiculous. Ethical considerations are next on the menu, and Dr. Guest serves up a hearty helping of humour. The Docs discuss the importance of informed consent, patient safety, and the moral dilemmas that can arise, all while keeping the tone light and engaging. However, sometimes people go astray and medics are not immune; The Docs explore cases where some very naughty people did rather terrible things with publications - you won't want to miss these stories!The episode emphasises the role of curiosity and the unwavering commitment to improving patient care as the key motivators for doctors. Curiosity didn't just kill the cat, says Sackier, it also cured it! Well, metaphorically speaking, of course. They share heartwarming and hilarious anecdotes about their own experiences in the field, making the complex topic relatable and entertaining.With their infectious humour and deep knowledge, Professor Jonathan Sackier and Doctor Nigel Guest make this episode of Join the Docs a must-listen for anyone curious about the world of medical research. So grab your lab coat and stethoscope, and get ready for a rollercoaster ride through the fascinating, funny, and sometimes downright bizarre world of drug discovery and clinical trials!—--DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed on Join the Docs are those of Dr. Nigel Guest, Jonathan Sackier and other people on our show. Be aware that Join the Docs is not intended to be medical advice, it is for information and entertainment purposes only - please, always take any health concerns to your doctor or other healthcare provider. We respect the privacy of patients and never identify individuals unless they have consented. We may change details, dates, place names and so on to protect privacy. Listening to Join the Docs, interacting on our social media, emailing or writing to us does not establish a doctor patient relationship.To Contact Us: For a deeper dive on this episode's issue, merchandise and exclusive content, head to www.jointhedocs.comFollow us on youtube.com/JoinTheDocs Follow us on instgram.com/JoinTheDocsFollow us on tiktok.com/JoinTheDocsFollow us on: facebok.com/JoinTheDocsFollow us on: x.com/JoinTheDocs

In this episode, Dr. Allison Ratterman, Director of the Office of Research Integrity at the University of Louisville, delves into the complexities of authorship and scholarly publishing in academia. With over 20 years of experience, she discusses the importance of maintaining research integrity, streamlining compliance processes, and addressing issues like AI-written manuscripts and unethical authorship practices. Dr. Ratterman shares insights on how universities can protect scholars' work and offers guidance on managing expectations for authorship in evolving research projects. Tune in to learn about the challenges of publishing in today's academic landscape and strategies for navigating them.   Do you have comments or questions about Faculty Feed? Contact us at FacFeed@louisville.edu. We look forward to hearing from you.

In this episode of WCG Talks Trials, we are joined by host Joanne Thomas, Clinical Reviewer and Patient Advicate at WCG, along with our guest Currien MacDonald, WCG's Medical Chair Director. This episode covers the roles of IRB in ethical clinical research, frequently asked questions, and a general overview of the IRB's role in clinical trials. 

Audio from Day Two, Part Two of the 2023 Charleston In Between Today we're featuring Audio from Day Two, Part Two of the 2023 Charleston In Between.  In this session, we'll feature a large publisher's perspective on publishing integrity, including challenges and solutions, Wiley's Research Integrity organization and strategy, and the importance of collaboration.  This session is presented by Michael Streeter, Director of Research Integrity and Publishing Ethics, Wiley. This session was organized and moderated by Leah Hinds, Executive Director, Charleston Hub, and Sven Fund, Managing Director, Reviewer Credits. Video of the presentation available at:  https://youtu.be/e_t32vTflLs?si=ViILK6LaUXTwSLC4 Social Media: https://www.linkedin.com/in/mike-streeter-a9a63021/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/svenfund/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/leah-hinds-297b31144/ Twitter: Keywords: #Research, #ResearchIntegrity, #ResearchSharing, #PublishingIntegrity, #PeerReview, #AcademicWriting, #ScholarlyWriting, #ScholarlyResource, #AcademicJournal,  #scholcomm, #collaboration,  #engagement, #problemsolvers, #academics, #publishing, #ScholarlyPublishing, #publishingnews, #informationaccess, #AcademicPublishing, #libraries, #librarians, #information, #2023ChsConf,  #LibrariesAndVendors, #libraryvendors, #LibrariesAndPublishers, #libraryissues, #libraryneeds,#librarylove, #librarychallenges, #libraryconference #podcast  

Today we're featuring Audio from Day Two, Part One of the 2023 Charleston In Between.  In this session, we'll feature both a small publisher's perspective and then a large publisher's perspective on publishing integrity.  This session is presented by John Chen, Director of Development, Tech Science Press, and Michael Streeter, Director of Research Integrity and Publishing Ethics, Wiley. This session was organized and moderated by Leah Hinds, Executive Director, Charleston Hub, and Sven Fund, Managing Director, Reviewer Credits. Video of the presentation available at:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CKemRwP3Ck Social Media: https://www.linkedin.com/in/john-chen-2a82971b7/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/mike-streeter-a9a63021/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/svenfund/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/leah-hinds-297b31144/ Twitter: Keywords: #Research, #ResearchIntegrity, #ResearchSharing, #PublishingIntegrity, #PeerReview, #AcademicWriting, #ScholarlyWriting, #ScholarlyResource, #AcademicJournal,  #scholcomm, #collaboration,  #engagement, #problemsolvers, #academics, #publishing, #ScholarlyPublishing, #publishingnews, #informationaccess, #AcademicPublishing, #libraries, #librarians, #information, #2023ChsConf,  #LibrariesAndVendors, #libraryvendors, #LibrariesAndPublishers, #libraryissues, #libraryneeds,#librarylove, #librarychallenges, #libraryconference #podcast  

Maha Said is a post-doctoral researcher on the ERC-funded NanoBubbles project which asks the questions how, when, and why does science fail to correct itself. Originally trained in molecular and cellular biology and working close to science and technology studies especially science integrity, she is currently working in 2 sub-projects, the first being post publication peer review in which articles on the topic of interest are critically analyzed and publicly commented on Pubpeer, and second is the reproducibility project in which research articles that describe the use of nanoparticles for intracellular sensing are examined. On this podcast episode, Jo and Maha engage in a conversation focused on research integrity within the field of nanoparticles. Maha shares her journey into this area, driven by experiences of encountering integrity issues during her PhD research, particularly with antibodies. They discuss the challenges of peer review, replicability, and reproducibility, highlighting Maha's current work on post-publication peer review and replicability initiatives within nanoparticle research, specifically intracellular sensing. They also touch on the complexity of defining and implementing registered reports as a tool for ensuring transparency and accountability in research. Throughout their discussion, they emphasize the importance of critical analysis, collaboration across disciplines, and adaptation to changes in scientific processes. Find more podcast episodes here: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://access2perspectives.pubpub.org/podcast⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Host:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Dr Jo Havemann⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, ORCID iD ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠0000-0002-6157-1494 ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Editing: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Ebuka Ezeike⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Music:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Alex Lustig⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, produced by⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Kitty Kat ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ License:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)   ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ At Access 2 Perspectives, we guide you in your complete research workflow toward state-of-the-art research practices and in full compliance with funding and publishing requirements. Leverage your research projects to higher efficiency and increased collaboration opportunities while fostering your explorative spirit and joy. Website: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://access2perspectives.pubpub.org⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/access2perspectives/message

--- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/access2perspectives/message

Rosemarie Bernabe is a Professor of research ethics and research integrity at the University of Oslo; and an adjunct professor of medical research ethics at the University of South-Eastern Norway. With her expertise and leadership, she is dedicated to advancing research ethics and integrity in various contexts and serves as the project coordinator of several initiatives, including: Responsible Open Science in Europe project (ROSiE) Beyond Bad Apples: Towards a Behavioural and Evidence-Based Approach to Promote Research Ethics and Research Integrity in Europe (BEYOND) The Equitable, Inclusive, and Human-Centered XR Project (XR4Human) Improving Post-Trial Access in Africa (AccessAfrica) Strengthening Clinical Trial Regulatory and Ethical Review Oversight in East Africa (AccessAfrica2; https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/101103296) Developing national and global agendas for the ethics of post-trial arrangements in LMICs during pandemics/epidemics (Pandemic Ethics) Ethics in Research and Clinical Practice (ETHIMED) Rosemarie is our guest on this podcast episode and she joins Jo to discuss her involvement in the ROSiE project, her background in research ethics and integrity, the complexities of open science, and the importance of citizen science. They emphasized the broad applicability of citizen science while recognizing the need for careful consideration and equitable inclusion of diverse stakeholders in research projects. Find more podcast episodes here: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://access2perspectives.pubpub.org/podcast⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Host:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Dr Jo Havemann⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, ORCID iD ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠0000-0002-6157-1494 ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Editing: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Ebuka Ezeike⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Music:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Alex Lustig⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, produced by⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Kitty Kat ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ License:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)   ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ At Access 2 Perspectives, we guide you in your complete research workflow toward state-of-the-art research practices and in full compliance with funding and publishing requirements. Leverage your research projects to higher efficiency and increased collaboration opportunities while fostering your explorative spirit and joy. Website: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://access2perspectives.pubpub.org⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/access2perspectives/message

Elliott Lumb is the co-creator of Signals, a product that helps to promote research and publication integrity. In 2018, Elliott completed a PhD in medicinal chemistry at Monash University and the University of Nottingham. Following this, he held several roles at Frontiers, including a role within the Strategy and Planning team. In 2021 Elliott launched PeerRef, journal-independent peer review platform. Elliott is also a consultant, helping publishers to grow and optimize their Open Access business. He joins Jo on this podcast episode to further discuss the activities of Signals. Find more podcast episodes here: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://access2perspectives.pubpub.org/podcast⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Host:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Dr Jo Havemann⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, ORCID iD ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠0000-0002-6157-1494 ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Editing: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Ebuka Ezeike⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Music:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Alex Lustig⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, produced by⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Kitty Kat ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ License:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)   ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ At Access 2 Perspectives, we guide you in your complete research workflow toward state-of-the-art research practices and in full compliance with funding and publishing requirements. Leverage your research projects to higher efficiency and increased collaboration opportunities while fostering your explorative spirit and joy. Website: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://access2perspectives.pubpub.org⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/access2perspectives/message

Janet Ranganathan is the Managing Director and Executive Vice President for Strategy, Learning and Results at World Resources Institute (WRI), a global research organization that addresses the urgent sustainability challenges related to food, forests, water, climate, energy, cities and the ocean. She leads the development and execution of WRI's five-year strategy and oversees WRI's Research Integrity, Managing for Results, and Data Lab teams. Janet Ranganathan: “One of the most important lessons I've learned is you can't do anything on your own. You have to do everything together through partnerships and collaborations. You know, if you wanna go far, take many people with you, but don't expect to get there too fast. If you wanna go fast, go alone, but don't expect to get very far. So true.”00:25 Intro to Janet01:21 30 years of changemaking02:02 WRI's method for impact: Count it. Change it. Scale it. 03:48 Feeding people, addressing climate, protecting land05:54 Produce, protect, reduce, restore07:03 A production and consumption problem07:52 Education to enable change09:44 Empowering food companies 12:06 Overview of the Shift Wheel 15:32 How the Cool Food Pledge put the Shift Wheel into practice 17:50 From outputs to outcomes to impact20:40 How WRI connects food and climate change21:44 Establishing collaborative partnerships for long term success23:12 Design and act for impact25:02 Learning from the past to inform the future27:15 Urgency as a motivator28:22 Takeaways for changemakers LinksWRI Report: Creating a Sustainable Food FutureWRI Shift Wheel FrameworkCool Food PledgeWRI Greenhouse Gas ProtocolWRI Strategic Plan 2023-27Keep in TouchSubscribe, rate, review the show at foodlabtalk.comFollow Food Lab talk on YouTube and LinkedIn*The views expressed by the guests in this podcast don't necessarily represent the host's views, nor those of his employer.

“Integrating DEI and sustainability isn't just about ticking boxes. It's about creating events that truly resonate with our diverse global community,” Laura Harvey, Chief Customer Officer for Ex Ordo. Change is everywhere – even in niche areas like scholarly events. And you know how it is with these things. While some of these changes are good, some come with some challenges. Recently, I had the opportunity to sit down via webcam and mic for an interview with Ex Ordo's chief customer officer Laura Harvey, a rising star in the academic conference arena. If this domain is your kind of thing, then this conversation will be of particular interest to you. We discussed many trends that will and already are transforming scholarly events. AssociationChat.com

Allegations of research misconduct deeply threaten academic research enterprises and individual investigators responsible for conducting responsible research and whose eligibility to receive federal funding rely upon assuring that this is the case year after year. Nevertheless, the numbers of reported research misconduct allegations continue to rise and demand growing attention of institutional grant recipients who must address the allegations to the satisfaction of federal oversight agencies. Since 2005, the Public Health Service (PHS) Policies on Research Misconduct have provided the sole framework for how an institution must respond to purported research misconduct in PHS-funded research. The 2005 PHS Regulations have served as a model for countless institutions in implementing internal guidance and expectations on the topic of research integrity. Investigators facing research misconduct allegations regularly consult the 2005 PHS Regulations for guidance on procedure, substantive definitions, and for exercise of their due process rights, in addition to applicable institutional policies. In October 2023, HHS and ORI issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to update the 2005 PHS Regulations for the first time since enacted.   Among other notable changes, the Proposed Rules: · Clarify and further define key terms and responsibilities of the parties · Clarify responsibilities of federal agencies in overseeing the research misconduct process · Suggest a streamlined appeal process for respondents seeking to dispute ORI's findings or administrative actions · Require sub-recipients of PHS funding comply with the regulation.   Our experienced panelists will discuss how the Proposed Rules will impact the evaluation of research misconduct claims and new challenges that may arise as a result of these changes in an interactive discussion.   Questions? Inquiries about program materials? Contact Trenon Browne at tbrowne@bostonbar.org

Discusses the impact of generative artificial intelligence on research integrity.Our guest today is Mohammad Hosseini who is an Assistant Professor at Northwestern University. Mohammad's work explores a broad range of research ethics issues, such as recognizing contributions in academic publications, citations and publication ethics, gender issues in academia, and employing artificial intelligence and large language models in research.Additional resources:· “How ChatGPT is transforming the postdoc experience” (Nordling 2023): https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-03235-8· “An exploratory survey about using ChatGPT in education, healthcare, and research” (Hosseini et al. 2023): https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0292216· CITI Program's Essentials of Responsible AI course: https://about.citiprogram.org/course/essentials-of-responsible-ai/

Today, the UK Committee on Research Integrity has released their first annual statement. It highlights ongoing efforts to ensure UK research is trustworthy, ethical and responsible, and identifies areas for further work. Read it here: https://ukcori.org/our-work/annual-statement-2023/ To discuss the publication is Professor Rachael Gooberman-Hill, Co-Chair of the UK Committee on Research Integrity.

In January 2022 the Biden administration announced its long-awaited strategy to safeguard scientific integrity across US federal research facilities and agencies.But 16 months on, do researchers working in those organisations feel better protected than they did under the administration led by Joe Biden's predecessor, Donald Trump?The Union of Concerned Scientists, a US non-profit and advocacy organisation based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, has tracked more than 200 examples where scientific decision-making processes were politicised during the four-year Trump administration, compared to 98 under the 2001-9 presidency of George W Bush.In the second episode of this six-part Working Scientist podcast series about freedom and safety in science, Jacob Carter, research director at the union's centre for science and democracy, joins Lauren Kurtz, executive director of the US Climate Science Legal Defence Fund, to describe the impact of the Biden strategy in empowering scientist whistleblowers to speak out.“Don't punish the people who do come forward,” says Kurtz. “Even if their claims are found to be not a true violation or there was a misunderstanding or something, it's imperative to not punish people who came forth with good faith claims.”Finally, Evi Emmenegger, who studies aquatic animal pathogens at a US federal research facility, describes what happened after she raised concerns to her supervisors about contaminated waste water being released in nearby wetlands over a six-month period.Each episode in this series concludes with a follow-up sponsored slot from the International Science Council about how it is exploring freedom, responsibility and safety in science. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Any intellectual endeavor runs the risk of bias. Today we explore ways in which political ideology interferes with scholarship, particularly in the social sciences, with a focus on social psychology. My guest is Lee Jussim, a distinguished professor of social psychology and the leader of the Social Perception Laboratory at Rutgers University. Lee is a prolific author and studies stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination; political radicalization; and other problems that impede science and society. Lee's books include Social Perception and Social Reality, which received the American Association of Publishers award for best book in psychology, as well as the edited volumes The Social Psychology of Morality, The Politics of Social Psychology, and Research Integrity. Lee is also a founding member of the Heterodox Academy, the Academic Freedom Alliance, and the Society for Open Inquiry in the Behavioral Sciences.

Erick Turner is an Associate Professor in the Department of Psychiatry at the Oregon Health and Science University (OHSU). He is also a senior scholar with OHSU's Center for Ethics and Health Care. Dr. Turner has been an FDA reviewer and has dedicated his work and life to improving research transparency. He's well known for his work on publication bias and antidepressant trials, but his findings show that psychotherapy research is also riddled with problems. What happens when those we trust with knowledge in our society betray us? In today's interview, we discuss how dubious research practices are not simply the work of a few bad apples but instead built into the way we produce knowledge. We further explore the consequences of these practices on patients and the dangerous tradition of journal worship before exploring how many of these problems can be solved. *** Thank you for being with us to listen to the podcast and read our articles this year. MIA is funded entirely by reader donations. If you value MIA, please help us continue to survive and grow. To find the Mad in America podcast on your preferred podcast player, click here

Hello everyone, and welcome back to Money Power Health. As you know, this podcast is about money, and power, and the role they play in shaping population health. I am particularly interested in the commercial determinants of health, the activities of the private sector, and the structures it operates in, that shape health directly and indirectly. One of the values of taking a commercial determinants lens to these issues, is that it allows us to consider commonalities in commercial incentives, strategies and tactics. A key example of this, is considering commercial influence on science and the generation of knowledge. That is what the topic of todays podcast is, and for this I am joined by Professor Lisa Bero. She is a Professor of Medicine and Public Health, and Chief Scientist at the Center for Bioethics and Humanities at the University of Colorado. She is Senior Editor, Research Integrity for the Cochrane Collaboration, and was co-chair of the Cochrane Governing Board from 2014-2019. She has pioneered the use of internal industry documents and transparency databases to understand corporate tactics and motives for research influence, and has developed a range of qualitative and quantitative methods for assessing bias in the design, conduct and dissemination of research. She also kindly contributed a chapter on industry influence on research for our book, the commercial determinants of health, published by Oxford University Press. In the podcast we talk about how she got interested in this area of research, some of her findings on the cycle of commercial bias in research, the impact of this work, how to communicate it to scientists and to the public, and of course, some advice for early career researchers. You can find more about her work here: https://www.cuanschutz.edu/centers/bioethicshumanities/facultystaff/lisa-bero-phd And some of the work she mentions with Alice Fabbri is here: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30157979/ Here is an example of the use of meta knowledge research, in the context of research on the health effects of salt: https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/45/1/251/2363485 The music for this podcast was composed and recorded by Daniel Maani. You can find out more about his music here: https://youtalktoomuch.band

Acompaña a Araceli Toledo y Ricardo Cartas en una emisión más de la revista cultural De eso se trata, espacio de ciencia, de cultura, de gastronomía, de libros y más, de lunes a viernes de 08:30 a 10:00 horas. En Pie de Página, el Dr. Ricardo Villegas Tovar, coordinador de producción académica y visibilidad internacional, reflexiona sobre el artículo académico: Ten tips for teaching research integrity to early career students: A perspective over 20 years de Maruxa Martínez-Campos en la revista científica Frontiers. La autora explica que los cursos de integridad académica deben ser obligatorios, divertidos, reflexivos, seguros, relevantes, proactivos, híbridos, sistemáticos, y éticos.

Today, with so much information available online, verification of information – who created it and who shared it – has become part of standard operating procedures in many enterprises to create a climate of trust surrounding information that can be used and acted upon. Nowhere is this truer than in the field of scientific research and reporting. In this episode, Nandita Quaderi, editor-in-chief for the Web of Science™ at Clarivate, shares her views on the topic of research integrity. She describes the importance of conducting and presenting research in a way that allows others to have trust and confidence in the methods used. And she warns of the dangers that occur in instances when the scholarly record cannot be trusted. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Data scientists and open knowledge evangelist Paola Masuzza shares with Jo what Open Science means to her, and how Open Science and Research Integrity relate to each other. We talk about the influence that the late Jon Tennant had on each of our careers and look at the next steps for the Open Science MOOC as it is being migrated to the Globally Distributed Open Research and Education (IGDORE). Personal profiles ORCID iD: 0000-0003-3699-1195 Website: theyjustwriteitoff.blogspot.com Twitter: @pcmasuzzo Linkedin: paola-chiara-masuzzo-572a1428 More details at access2perspectives.org/2022/06/a-conversation-with-paola-masuzzo/ Host: Dr Jo Havemann, ORCID iD 0000-0002-6157-1494 Editing: Ebuka Ezeike Music: Alex Lustig, produced by Kitty Kat License: Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) At Access 2 Perspectives, we provide novel insights into the communication and management of Research. Our goal is to equip researchers with the skills and enthusiasm they need to pursue a successful and joyful career. Website: https://access2perspectives.org/ --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/access2perspectives/message

In this issue, we explore how Altasciences maintained early phase research continuity during the COVID-19 pandemic. Click here to download a PDF, readable version of this audiobook: https://www.altasciences.com/sites/default/files/2022-04/The-Altascientist_issue15_Covid-19_2022.pdf Business continuity, especially during times of uncertainty, is vital. Swift and decisive action to mitigate risk and support ongoing viability of activities is crucial. The COVID-19 pandemic challenges the strongest, most actionable plans, and they must be supported by consistent and clear communications. Since the beginning of the pandemic, Altasciences has responded quickly and decisively with the goal of ensuring the safety of our teams, the animals in our care, the study participants, and business continuity for our clients. Thus far, there has been no viral outbreak at any of our sites thanks to all staff following precautionary guidelines, both state and provincial, and our own. CHAPTERS: - 0:08 — Section 1: Introduction - 1:49 — Section 2: Employee Health and Safety - 3:42 — Section 3: Participant Health and Safety - 4:48 — Section 4: Animal Welfare - 5:24 — Section 5: Travel Restrictions and Visitor Screening - 6:38 — Section 6: Communication Strategy - 7:50 — Section 7: Data and Research Integrity - 9:19 — Section 8: Conclusion About Altasciences: Altasciences is an integrated drug development solution company offering pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies a proven, flexible approach to preclinical and clinical pharmacology studies, including formulation, manufacturing, and analytical services. For over 25 years, Altasciences has been partnering with sponsors to help support educated, faster, and more complete early drug development decisions. Altasciences' integrated, full-service solutions include preclinical safety testing, clinical pharmacology and proof of concept, bioanalysis, program management, medical writing, biostatistics, clinical monitoring, and data management, all customizable to specific sponsor requirements. Altasciences helps sponsors get better drugs to the people who need them, faster.

Dr Matthew Salter | Founder & CEO, Akabana Consulting In this video (part 1 of 2), Dr Matthew Salter, CEO and Founder of Akabana Consulting, draws on his extensive experience across publishing, academia, and industry, to explore how research standards and research integrity practices can be upheld in a changing landscape. Matthew sheds light on various threats to research integrity that undermine research rigour, the scientific record and public trust, including the growing problem of predatory and cloned journals. Identifying the scale of authorship and plagiarism breaches against a backdrop of the long-standing ‘publish or perish' mentality, Matthew shares recommendations on how the academic community can be more proactive in their due diligence and cognisant of publisher standards, to achieve research success. How can we nurture responsible conduct of research and keep researchers on the right path? Watch the video to learn more

Dr Matthew Salter | Founder & CEO, Akabana Consulting In this video (part 2 of 2), Dr Matthew Salter, CEO and Founder of Akabana Consulting, continues the discussion on how research standards and research integrity practices can be upheld in a changing landscape. Matthew tackles the serious, growing issue of image manipulation in which researchers give a false impression of research data, and emphasises the need for greater awareness and transparency during the research-writing process before submission to journals, offering tactics to accomplish this. Expanding on the importance of technology in aiding the research effort, Matthew credits research integrity software and tools as “a positive step towards bolstering your credentials as a responsible researcher”. How can the pairing of principles and research integrity technology support the research ecosystem? Watch the video to hear Matthew's perspective.

In this video, we chat with Kholah Yaruq Malik and Dr Sarina Shirazi from The Millenium Universal College (TMUC) in Pakistan. They discuss their institution's efforts to uphold academic rigour and integrity in the practice of research and its commercialisation, and equip students with the skills to successfully enter the marketplace and execute on their ideas. With programs underpinned by strong values of entrepreneurship, Kholah and Sarina outline how the TMUC curriculum supports an end-to-end process through the mantra of “discuss it, assess it, protect it, and license it”. Khola and Sarina also identify a key challenge for universities in overcoming academics' often insular approach to research aims, and the need to champion industry-academic linkages for mutual prosperity. How can universities remove barriers to research commercialisation and foster academia's ties with industry? Watch the video to hear Kholah and Sarina's stance.

In this video, we chat with Daniel Barr and Dr David Blades from the RMIT University research integrity network, who share their experience and insights in promoting research integrity within their institution and as representatives in research advisory groups. They explore disruption in the research space and canvass developments in responsible research practices across the Asia Pacific and globally. Considering how research integrity might facilitate better researcher connections and collaborations by leveraging trust and efficiencies, they advocate for the use of principle-based guidelines and planning tools as a way to unite research efforts and mitigate risk inherent in multi-authored work. Additionally, they call for improvement to research evaluation and rewards systems to help motivate research best practice. How will research integrity evolve as we navigate changes in research practice? Watch the video to get Dan and David's perspective.

In this video, we chat with Dr Esther Gan, a Scientist at Nuevocor in Singapore, who shares her insights and experience in conducting medical research for a biopharmaceutical startup, and how the COVID-19 pandemic has been a catalyst for change in certain areas of research practice. Noting the key driver of research integrity as the principle to do no harm and to positively impact society, she explains how research commercialisation helps ensure science is accessible and that the benefits aren't obscured. Shedding light on the research commercialisation ecosystem, Esther uses vaccine development as a timely analogy for the mutual dependence of ‘academic labs' in universities and industry backers in producing solutions to global challenges. How can we drive greater research commercialisation and what steps can institutions take? Watch the video to hear Esther's perspective.

In this video, Turnitin's Gretchen Hanson draws on her background in curating research and supporting researchers in the publication process, to explore the future of research as it relates to growing commercialisation and the role of research integrity. Commenting on the hunger to produce research that raises institutional profile and research impact, Gretchen identifies technology as a major enabler of the quality and speed of future research efforts. She considers the potential of technology to mitigate risks through methods of oversight and offer greater transparency in the research community. Gretchen also addresses the rise of predatory and cloned journals eroding trust in research, skewing conversations in the public sphere and contributing to misinformation. What should institutions and researchers consider to thrive amidst research competition and when looking to commercialise research? Watch the video to hear Gretchen's perspective.

Join us for conversations around Open Science, Research Integrity, Project Management, Scholarly Reading, Writing and Publishing as well as Career Development and gain new perspectives on each of the topics covered by our team and guests. Read more on our website at access2perspectives.org/conversations. Host: Dr Jo Havemann, ORCID iD 0000-0002-6157-1494 Editing: Ebuka Ezeike Music: Alex Lustig, produced by Kitty Kat --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/access2perspectives/message

A sliding door moment. A test of character. A career on the line. What would you do?

Dr Gary Allen is an experienced Human Research Ethics and Research Integrity consultant. He is the Managing Director of AHRECS (www.ahrecs.com), a premier HRE/RI consultancy firm in Australasia, which is now working internationally (see https://www.ahrecs.com/senior-consultants/gary-allen). For about 2 years he has been setting up Enabled.vip (www.enabled.vip) a virtual business incubator for Australians who live with a disability. It is his passion. Connect with Gary Allen on Social Media: Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100063583626783 Twitter: https://twitter.com/enabledgary LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/enabledvip Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYFLsgR68zExvDHoO-Q3uQA Learn more about our podcast Enabled Disabled, please visit: https://www.enableddisabled.com/ Ways to Contribute to the Enabled Disabled Project The Enabled Disabled Project is funded and supported by Gustavo Serafini and patrons like you. Every dollar goes a long way to make this project possible, and to help connect people from around the world. We keep our patrons posted on the latest development and resources made available because of your support. https://www.enableddisabled.com/contribute --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/enableddisabled/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/enableddisabled/support

Dr. Suzanne Rivera is the President of Macalester College. She also is a Professor of Public Affairs, and her scholarship focuses on research ethics and science policy. Rivera has written numerous journal articles and book chapters, and she co-edited the book Specimen Science. Her research has been supported by the NIH, the NSF, the DHHS Office of Research Integrity, and the Cleveland Foundation. She is engaged in numerous civic and municipal leadership roles, including Chair of the Board of Public Responsibility in Medicine and Research (PRIM&R), Appointed Member of the Executive Council for Minnesota's Young Women's Initiative, Board Member of the Science Museum of Minnesota, Board Member of College Possible, and Member of the TeenSHARP National Advisory Board. Rivera received a BA in American Civilization from Brown University, an MSW from UC-Berkeley, and a PhD in public policy from UT Dallas. Head Start ProgramsBrown University Undocumented, First-Generation College, and Low-Income Student Center  Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDSstudents, people, brown, feeling, college, Headstart, Minnesota, Posse, support, low income students, financial aid, St. Paul, sponsored, day, job, brown university, group, Marian Wright Edelman, graduate, phd SPEAKERSResa Lewiss, Sue Rivera Resa Lewiss  00:36Hi, listeners. Thanks so much for joining me with today's episode and I'm gonna start with a quote. You can't be what you can't see. One more time, you can't be what you can't see. Now this was said by Marian Wright Edelman. She was the founder of the Children's Defense Fund and was one of the original founders of the Headstart program. She graduated Spelman College and Yale School of Law. Now Marian Wright Edelman is not my guest in today's conversation, however, she was an inspiration for my guest. Today I'm in conversation with Suzanne M. Rivera, PhD MSW. Sue. Dr. Suzanne Rivera is the president of Macalester College in Minneapolis. She's also a Professor of Public Affairs. Her scholarship focuses on research ethics and science policy. She received her BA in American civilization from Brown University, a master's in social work from UC Berkeley, and a PhD in public policy from UT Dallas. Now Sue and I have a few areas of overlap. Number one, we graduated college one year apart. Number two is the Headstart program. Growing up in my small town, Westerly, Rhode Island, I was exposed to the Headstart program through my mother. My mother is an elementary school educator, and she did preschool testing for children. And my knowledge at the time was she helped with evaluating children for learning disabilities, for challenges with speech, sound, and sight. Let's get to the conversation where when we get started, Sue is explaining her ideas about mentorship, and who her mentors were, or at least a few of them. Sue Rivera  02:47I mean, one thing I tell young people all the time is, don't hold your breath waiting for a mentor who shares all of your attributes who can inspire you because especially if you're from a historically excluded or underserved group, the likelihood that there's going to be some inspirational leader who shares all your attributes is pretty small. So the mentors and sponsors who've made the biggest impact in my life have all been men. They've all been white men, they've all been white men who were significantly older than me and much more accomplished, and who came from backgrounds that were, you know, that had a lot more privileged than my own. And yet, we were able to connect on a deep level and they really opened doors for me. So a couple exams for Harry Spector at UC Berkeley was a great mentor is no longer with us. Another great mentor, for me was a guy named Al Gilman, a Nobel Laureate, who, who I worked for at UT Southwestern in Dallas, Texas, opened a lot of doors for me, encouraged me to go back and get my PhD when I was a 35 year old mother of two school aged kids. And once I got it, promoted me and then what, and then once I had a faculty appointment, invited me to co author a chapter for him with him in the kind of most important pharmacology textbook, that he was responsible for publishing, which means My name is forever linked with his in the literature, which is an incredibly generous gift for him to give to me. People like that have sort of stepped in at at moments where, if not for them, I might not have seen in my self potential that was there. Another person I would mention is a professor from my undergraduate days. Greg Elliot at Brown University in the sociology department, who sort of encouraged me to think about my own interests in social inequality and poverty as things that were worth studying things that were worth studying in a rigorous way as a scholar and not just sort of feeling badly about or complaining about or having a personal interest, but really taking them on as an intellectual project. So he sponsored me for a summer research assistantship, he had me serve as a TA in one of his classes. And he sponsored a group independent study project for me and a bunch of other students. And I'm still in touch with him to this day. He's somebody who certainly helped me think about myself as a scholar at a time where I was really thinking, I was just barely holding on, like, hoping I could graduate with a BA, I wasn't imagining that I could go on to become a professor and eventually a college president. Resa Lewiss  05:36People saw in you what maybe you hadn't yet seen for yourself. I was a sociology concentrator, and I took Professor Elliott's class, and I remember him reading from Kurt Vonnegut Mother Night, and it was really moving, he sort of cut to the punch line of we are who we pretend to be, so we must be very careful who we pretend to be. And that stuck with me. And that also launched a whole lollapalooza of reading Kurt Vonnegut. Sue Rivera  06:07Yeah, actually, this is one of the beautiful things about a liberal arts education, I think is that you know, so you became a physician after being a sociology undergraduate concentrator. I dabbled in a lot of different things as an undergrad did not imagine I would eventually become an academic, but I feel like the tools I got, from that degree have served me really well, moving between jobs. You know, I originally went to go work for the federal government thinking I was going to do policy work. Eventually, I worked in higher education administration, then I went back and got a PhD in public policy. But, you know, all along as I was making career changes, the tools I got as an undergraduate to think critically and communicate effectively and, you know, think in an interdisciplinary way work with people who have really different perspectives than I have. All of that is just priceless. I mean, so so incredibly valuable. Resa Lewiss  07:02Speaking of liberal arts education, let's jump right in and talk about Macalester for audience members that aren't familiar with the college. Tell us about the college and tell us about how it's been to be President. Sue Rivera  07:14Well, it's a wonderful college. It's it's almost 150 years old, and it's a originally was founded by Presbyterians and although still Presbyterian affiliated his is a secular liberal arts college, a small private liberal arts college in St. Paul, Minnesota. It has a deep history of being committed to social justice. It was the first college in the United States to fly the United Nations flag, which is still flying outside my window in my office here. And in fact, Kofi Annan was a graduate of Macalester the four pillars of a Macalester education as they're currently described, our academic excellence, internationalism, multiculturalism and service to society. And I think the character of this place actually is not that dissimilar from the brown that you and I know, in the sense that social justice is really important part of the character read institution, but it also attracts people who dispositional li are attracted to activism, to wanting to make a more just and peaceful world who think about their education in a sense as not only a privilege, but also an obligation to go out and make things better. And so the students we attract at Macalester are really sparky, in the sense that they, they, they're, you know, they're really passionate. They all come with it, let's just set aside that they're really academically talented because they all are so that no longer is a distinguishing characteristic once they get here because they're all academically talented. So what distinguishes them when they get here is all the other stuff in addition to being bright, you know, they're, they're committed athlete, they're a poet. They're a weaver. They're a dancer, they're, they're an aspiring politician involved in political campaigns mean that they're all just how they're debater, you know. So whenever I meet students, one of the first things I say to them is, well, what are you really loving right now? Or, you know, what's keeping you really busy right now, instead of saying, you know, what are you taking? Or what's your major, I'm much less interested in what their major is. And I'm much more interested in like, you know, what's got them really jazzed? What are they spending their time on? What's what's so exciting that they're staying up into the middle of the night working on it, Resa Lewiss  09:40The timing of your start.  There was an overlap with the murder of Mr. George Floyd. And I'm wondering if you can share with the audience how that sort of set a tone and set an inspiration for your work. Sue Rivera  09:55Yeah, it was a really difficult time I actually accepted the job. On January 31, of 2020. So at that time, if you can remember back to the before times, none of us had ever heard of COVID. And the board of trustees who offered me the job, were saying, this is going to be a turnkey operation for you, the previous president had been here for 17 years, smooth sailing, really easy transition, you know, easy peasy. And three weeks later, you know, every college in America started closing because of COVID. And I realized, wow, this job is about to get a lot more challenging. I was in Cleveland, Ohio at the time at Case Western Reserve University. And I was sort of watching as the news was unfolding, but also doing my job at another higher ed institution. So I could anticipate how it was going to get more difficult to come to McAllister, then literally on the day that I got in my car to drive to Cleveland, to drive to St. Paul from Cleveland to take this job was the day that George Floyd was murdered. So as I was driving all day, north of Michigan, and then across the up of Michigan, going west to St. Paul, I would drive all day and then turn on the TV at night and watch the news. And as we approached St. Paul, the city was deeper and deeper in grief and righteous anger and fear National Guard troops were coming in, there were fires all over the place. In fact, I was supposed to start the job on a Monday and arrive on a Saturday and I got a call on that Saturday while I was on the road saying don't try and come into the city because we've got a curfew. And it's not feeling safe right now. Just get in a hotel outside of the city and try and come in tomorrow. So I arrived really on Sunday in St. Paul to start the job on Monday. And I and I recognize that my first day was going to be very different than what any of us had imagined. Because what the, what the moment called for was to name the pain and grief and anger everyone was feeling. And to try to address people's grief in a way that was honest about the challenges offer some comfort, but also a call to action about how we could be how we could be of help how we could be of service. So you know, the first couple things I did that week were one was I attended a silent vigil that was organized by the black clergy of St. Paul from various different faith, faith communities, I also attended a food and hygiene drive that was organized by our students, you know, it's just a lot, you know, we stood up a mutual aid fundraising drive, within the first couple of weeks, it was just a lot of attending to the immediate needs of the community. And also, all of this was complicated by having to do almost everything by zoom, you know, so, you know, Zoom is good for a lot of things. But when people are crying when people are scared when people, you know, our international students, many of them couldn't go home, because of COVID. So they were staying over the summer, it was just very, very complicated and didn't look anything like what we thought it was going to look like. And what I didn't have was a reservoir of trust built up with this community. And the only way I could talk to people was on a computer screen, which doesn't give the full benefit of body language. It doesn't give all you know, everything you learned from being in a room with somebody. The various facial expressions, the way the way that when you talk to a roomful of people, you see two people make eye contact after you've said something and you recognize you have to go follow up with them and see what that was all about. You know, none of that is possible on Zoom. And, and it was just it was just an impossible summer. It was very, very difficult. I was trying to introduce myself at a time where I also had to deliver a lot of bad news to people. You know, we were having to take all sorts of difficult decisions about keeping the residence halls densifying the residence halls by telling some people they couldn't move back in August that was disappointing for them taking decisions related to the college's finances, like suspending contributions to employees retirement accounts for six months until we could understand how we were going to do financially. arranging for testing COVID testing was incredibly expensive and something we hadn't budgeted for figuring out where to put hand sanitizer and plexiglass and what our masking policy should be. I mean, really, it was like being a full time disaster management person not being a college president. And in many ways, the whole first year was was not being a college president. It was it was just one really challenging, ethical or logistical decision after another all year long. Resa Lewiss  14:50According to my reading in 1991, you delivered your graduation class orration and I'm wondering if you can fill us in on about what you spoke Sue Rivera  15:04well, I, you know, I basically I talked about my unlikely journey to being an Ivy League graduate and what that could mean for all of us about the possibilities of you know pathbreaking of moving into uncharted territory. When I, when I went to college, we didn't have the expression first gen, and we didn't have really a sense of pride around being a financial aid student to the contrary, my experience at an elite institution was that if you were there on financial aid, and came from a low income background, that you tried to hide it as much as possible in order to fit in, you know, back then Brown had a policy of limiting financial aid students to 30% of the student population. And that meant even just students who only had loans and got no grant awards. So just imagine an environment it's not like that anymore, I should clarify, Brown is not like that anymore. But back then 70% of the student body were full pay, meaning their parents could write the whole check. And just imagine what that means when the tuition is significantly more than the, you know, median income for a family of four in this country. It means you're, you're in a really elite and I daresay elitist environment. So what that meant if you were a student on financial aid was that it was kind of a scary place, it was kind of an alienating place. And when I arrived there, I really felt like a fish out of water. I thought about transferring, had a job in the Ratty in the dining hall. You know, my work study job, where I was sort of serving other students and feeling I don't know if I would say inferior but definitely had a sense of imposter syndrome. Like you know, one of these days somebody is going to figure out I don't really belong here. And the turning point for me was that in in the spring semester of that first year for me, a chaplain, Reverend Flora Kashagian who I don't know if that's a name, you know, but she offered like a discussion group, she and Beth Zwick, who was the head of the Women's Center offered a discussion group for students struggling with money issues. So I opened the school newspaper one day, and there's an ad in there. That's like, I don't even remember what it said. But it was something like are you struggling with money issues? Are you on financial aid, you know, are things tough at home, and you don't know how to talk about it come to this discussion. And let's rap about it. And for whatever reason, that spoke to me and I, I went, and there were like, 11 or 12 people in the room for this discussion group. But it was like the Island of Misfit Toys. Do you remember that, that that Christmas cartoon where like, every toy is broken in some kind of way, but they all have their gifts, right? Every student who showed up for that thing had a different non traditional path to get to brown and we were all broken in some kind of weird way. You know, for me, I had grown up in an immigrant home on was on public assistance, food stamps, free lunch, you know, you name it. I was there on a on a Pell Grant, which are, you know, the neediest students. And there were other people in the room who came from really different environments. I grew up in New York City, but there were other people who were like, from a rural farm family, or, you know, I mean, just all everybody had different reasons for why they came to that discussion group. But it was magical because we all saw each other in a really like, pure and non judgmental way. And we could all be real with each other. As it turns out, one of the other 11 people was the person who would eventually become my spouse. And other people in the room that day are lifelong friends. I mean, we really bonded, we ended up forming a club called sofa students on financial aid. We even have little T shirts made up that said, so far, so good. And it had like a picture of a couch that was all ripped and torn on on the front. And by making it a student club, that got incorporated by the student government, we kind of created legitimacy for ourselves on campus, and started to create a way of talking about being from a low income background that didn't feel shameful, that felt prideful, not prideful, in the sense of hubris, but in the sense of like, acknowledging the distance traveled was great that we were not born on third base. And yet we were here sort of competing with people who had every advantage in the world and having a sense of deserving to be there or belonging there. So by the time I was a senior and I got selected to give the one of the two oratory addresses at graduation, the theme for me really was one of triumph of having overcome all of those hurdles and feeling like finally I feel like I deserve at this place. I earned my spot here. Resa Lewiss  19:57In my freshman unit, there was a woman with whom I'm still very, very close. She is an attorney. She's an LA county judge. And she transferred from Brown for some of the reasons that you considered transferring. And she to this day says that it's one of her biggest regrets. And also she really feels if they were more visible vocal support for first gen students than she thinks it would have made a huge difference for her. Sue Rivera  20:29Yeah, no doubt and and Brown has come a long way. In this regard. I consider them a real leader. Now they have this you fly center. It's like it's an actual center on campus for people who are undocumented first gen or low income. And they get extra support. They have a dedicated Dean, they have programming. I think it's a real testament to the seriousness with which Brown has taken the unique challenges that face low income students going to a place like that. It also helped a lot that between Vartan, Gregorian and roof Simmons, two presidents, who I greatly admire from Brown, they were able to raise the money to provide financial aid to students who need it, but also to go need blind. So I told you that at the time that I went there, they limited the number of students on financial aid to 30% of the student body, that's no longer true. Now, when you apply to brown, you are admitted without regard to ability to pay and they commit to meet full need. So I think it's a much more socio economically diverse student body today. And I think Brown has really been a leader in how to increase access and support low income students when they get there, because I think it's a two part problem. You know, just letting people in. But allowing them to sink or swim is really not helpful. You need to increase access, but then also provide the support necessary so that the that educational opportunity is a ladder to economic mobility, people have to actually be able to finish, you know, complete the degree, and then go off and have a career afterwards in order for the opportunity to really, you know, fulfill that promise. Resa Lewiss  22:16Yeah, it reminds me a bit of what you described with the Headstart program of not just, you know, supporting this one individual child, but it's actually the system in place. So similar, like it's one thing to get in, but you have to help the student, succeed, thrive. Be healthy in that environment. I believe I've read that you that you're actually doing work to increase access and admission of students that may have fewer resources in the state. Can you talk a little bit about that initiative? Sue Rivera  22:47Yeah, I'd love to. So when I arrived at Macalester again, just like a little over a year ago, Macalester already had a relationship with the quest Bridge Program, which is one way to recruit first gen and low income students. But of course, we take those from all over the country. We also had other cohort programs like the Bonner Scholars Program and the Mellon Mays program. But after the murder of George Floyd, one thing that I heard a lot from people on campus was that while Macalester had done a great job recruiting a diverse student body from not only all over the country, but also all over the world. We have a very international student body that we hadn't done as much to focus on students from right here in Minnesota, especially talented students from historically excluded groups from right here in Minnesota. So we did two things last year. One was that we established a new fund called the Minnesota Opportunity Scholarship Fund, which is an effort to raise scholarship dollars that will be targeted specifically to talented students from Minnesota. And the second thing we did was that we joined forces with the Posse Foundation to sign on as a posse school, whereby Macalester will become recipients of the first posse from the state of Minnesota. I don't know if you're that familiar with posse, but that's a program that's 30 plus years old, that that's based on the Really clever idea that that their founder Debbie Bial had, which is that if you pluck one student from an under resourced High School, and you send them across the country to a private liberal arts college, they may feel like a fish out of water. But if you cultivate a cohort of students from a city, and you give them in high school leadership training and other kinds of support, and you foster trust and friendship among them, and then you take a group or a posse, if you will, and you take those 10 students and send them all to the same liberal arts college, the chances are, that they're going to be better equipped to persist and complete because they have each other you know, they don't have that feeling of walking into the dining hall and not seeing any familiar face. We're not having anybody who knows what it's like in their home city neighborhood. You know, the same feeling I had when I walked into that room and I saw the other Misfit Toys sitting around in a circle. The posse already formed a trusting cohort that can keep each other company and offer support through the four year experience of college. So we are adding posse to our other cohort programs here on campus. But we've specified that the posses gotta come from here in Minnesota, they will come from the Twin Cities, either Minneapolis public schools or St. Paul Public Schools. And we're going to get our first group of 10 in September, and we will give them all full tuition scholarships. It's really exciting. Yeah. Resa Lewiss  25:47Wow. What a conversation and honestly, I could have kept speaking with Sue for quite a while. I think she enjoyed the conversation too, regarding my friend that I referred to in the conversation. Attorney judge Serena Murillo. As I said, we're still friends, and she knows that I had tipped her during this episode. And all I can say is, listen to your heart. Listen to your brain. Have a growth mindset and know that your professional path is not linear. Thanks for joining and see you next week. The visible Voices Podcast amplifies voices both known and unknown, discussing topics of healthcare equity and current trends. If you enjoyed this episode, please rate and review us on Apple podcasts. It helps other people find the show. You can listen on whatever platform you subscribe to podcasts. Our team includes Stacey Gitlin and Dr. Giuliano Di Portu. If you're interested in sponsoring an episode, please contact me resa@thevisiblevoicespodcast.com. I'm based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and I'm on Twitter @ResaELewiss. Thank you so much for listening and as always, to be continued

Dr Sumit Narula, Deputy Dean, Research (Publications & Citations) | Amity University, Gwalior In this video, Dr Sumit Narula explores his role in championing research integrity and educating researchers on the harm of cloned and predatory journals that undermine academia and research ethics. In teaching students about the consequences of research malpractice and fraudulent publishing, Sumit describes the need for early intervention to catch errors as they happen and form good research habits. Shedding an important light on the phenomena of predatory and cloned journals prevalent in India and South-East Asia, Sumit likens cloned journals to a form of ‘cyber phishing of academics'. He warns researchers against hurrying to publish and to exercise due diligence, so as to avoid these forms of research fraud. How can universities build on academic integrity approaches to inform better research practices? Watch the video to hear Sumit's insights.

World Bank President David Malpass says the World Bank will keep pushing to help developing countries improve their business climates when asked about the bank's decision to cancel its flagship “Doing Business” reports after a series of data irregularities and claims of data manipulation.Malpass says strong research products remained a high priority for the bank and said it had taken several steps to improve research integrity, including elevating chief economist Carmen Reinhart to a role in senior management.

World Bank President David Malpass says the World Bank will keep pushing to help developing countries improve their business climates when asked about the bank's decision to cancel its flagship “Doing Business” reports after a series of data irregularities and claims of data manipulation.Malpass says strong research products remained a high priority for the bank and said it had taken several steps to improve research integrity, including elevating chief economist Carmen Reinhart to a role in senior management.

World Bank President David Malpass says the World Bank will keep pushing to help developing countries improve their business climates when asked about the bank's decision to cancel its flagship “Doing Business” reports after a series of data irregularities and claims of data manipulation.Malpass says strong research products remained a high priority for the bank and said it had taken several steps to improve research integrity, including elevating chief economist Carmen Reinhart to a role in senior management.

What do we mean by “research integrity,” and how can we as publishers, editors, and peer reviewers play a role in addressing the manipulation of research?

This has been a long time coming.  But luckily we found Gowri Gopalakrishna and Krishma Labib from Amsterdam UMC , and they we're more than happy to be part of this conversation of the role of diversity in research integrity. They told us about their own research on research integrity (fx the Netherlands Research Integrity Survey and the diversity of the 7th World Conference on Research Integrity), and why some people in the field do not necessarily think diversity should play a role when talking about research integrity. They also shared some of their experiences of being women of colour in research, and as always we are grateful for people sharing personal stories like that. Finally, they share how those of you in supporting roles can advance diversity in research integrity. Research integrity is a developing research area, and with people like Gowri and Krishma working in this space we feel certain it will develop in a positive direction. You can find our guests at: Gowri Gopalakrishna:  https://research.vumc.nl/en/persons/gowri-gopalakrishna (You can also follow her at Twitter as @gowrigopala)Krishma Labib: https://research.vumc.nl/en/persons/krishma-labibYou can read more about the National Survey on Research Integrity here: https://www.nsri2020.nl/research-integrity-covid-19 where you can also read about research integrity concerns concerning COVID-19 and vaccines. Thanks for listening. Do please share, rate, review and follow us on Twitter @Divrespod .If you're interested in our work with diversity and internationalisation in research please visit www.diversiunity.com 

Richard Oloruntoba | Associate Professor of Supply Chain Management & Supply Chain Lead, Curtin Business School, Curtin University In this video, Richard Oloruntoba discusses his role as Associate Professor of Supply Chain Management at Curtin University, focusing on upholding research integrity in the postgraduate/PhD student context, in accordance with the institution’s robust research framework. Richard’s own research background in humanitarian logistics and supply chains for emergency response, and his teaching of commercial supply chain management, is the basis for his lifelong commitment and modelling of research integrity, that he explores through the prism of research accuracy, transparency and accountability. Detailing Curtin’s commitment to compliance, training and safeguarding of data to ensure a robust research integrity framework that adheres to institutional policies in addition to broader legislation, Richard advocates for making research integrity more visible, and less hidden. He contends that research integrity is not an automatic transfer of knowledge and must be explicitly taught and learnt, through demonstration of best (and bad) practices, towards saturation throughout an institution. Richard shares his experience in managing the risks and breaches associated with research integrity, including reconciling expectations from international students conforming to Australian policies. He also identifies source attribution as the biggest pitfall for students, situating it as largely the product of a learning gap, as opposed to deliberate misconduct. Finally, Richard reflects on the importance of edtech tools in reinforcing research integrity and detecting breaches - including Turnitin’s iThenticate platform - giving examples of their value when checking student research proposals. He further considers the potential of artificial intelligence and machine learning for future decision-making support when engaging with big data and supporting the research endeavour.

Recorded February 24, 2021Current Episodes at https://walkinverse.buzzsprout.com/I am moving all podcast here slowly. I will keep buzzsprout for all public reports and here for member only content.Report #38, "Big Pharma Experiment: mRNA Injection."In this report, we will dig into the connection between Big Pharma and the push behind the dangerous mRNA backed by facts—adverse reactions and death seen around the globe.Grab a pen and notebook and enjoy the report.E-Book ReportWIV Reports — Uncensored is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Report References* 2 people in India die after receiving Covid jab as Bharat Biotech says vaccine too risky for some [Internet]. RT International. 2021 [cited 2021 Jan 19]. Available from: https://www.rt.com/news/512914-india-deaths-covid-vaccine/* Tom Ozimek. 4 Oregonians Test Positive for COVID-19 After 2nd Vaccine Dose [Internet]. www.theepochtimes.com. 2021 [cited 2021 Feb 16]. Available from: https://www.theepochtimes.com/4-oregonians-test-positive-for-covid-19-after-2nd-vaccine-dose_3697172.html* N/A. 7 die at Spanish care home after getting Pfizer Covid-19 jab as ALL residents test positive for virus, second doses still to come [Internet]. RT International. 2021 [cited 2021 Feb 1]. Available from: https://www.rt.com/news/514303-deaths-pfizer-vaccine-covid-spain/* 10 dead in Germany within 4 days of Covid-19 vaccine inoculation; probe ordered [Internet]. Republic World. 2021 [cited 2021 Feb 16]. Available from: https://www.republicworld.com/world-news/europe/10-dead-in-germany-within-4-days-of-covid-19-vaccine-inoculation-probe-ordered.html* N/A. 10 Dead with 51 Severe Side-Effects Among Germany's Elderly after Experimental Pfizer COVID Injections [Internet]. Health Impact News. 2021 [cited 2021 Jan 19]. Available from: https://healthimpactnews.com/2021/10-dead-with-51-severe-side-effects-among-germanys-elderly-after-experimental-pfizer-covid-injections/* N/A. 13 Israelis suffer FACIAL PARALYSIS after taking Pfizer Covid jab, amid influx of reports detailing adverse effects [Internet]. RT International. 2021 [cited 2021 Jan 17]. Available from: https://www.rt.com/news/512736-israel-facial-paralysis-13-covid-vaccine/* 18 U.S. Code § 241 - Conspiracy against rights [Internet]. LII / Legal Information Institute. [cited 2021 Feb 15]. Available from: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/241* Senior MK. 21 people experienced anaphylaxis after receiving Pfizer's vaccine [Internet]. Mail Online. 2021 [cited 2021 Feb 16]. Available from: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-9119029/At-21-Americans-life-threatening-anaphylaxis-receiving-Pfizers-vaccine-CDC-reveals.html* 28-Year-old Wisconsin Healthcare Worker has Aneurysm – Brain Dead Five Days After Second Experimental Pfizer mRNA COVID Injection [Internet]. Vaccine Impact. 2021 [cited 2021 Feb 16]. Available from: https://vaccineimpact.com/2021/28-year-old-wisconsin-healthcare-worker-has-aneurysm-brain-dead-five-days-after-second-experimental-pfizer-mrna-covid-injection/* Brian Shilhavy. 39-Year-Old Medical Doctor and Son of Former Chief Justice of Trinidad Found Dead After COVID Injection in Ireland [Internet]. Medical Kidnap. 2021 [cited 2021 Feb 16]. Available from: https://medicalkidnap.com/2021/02/08/39-year-old-medical-doctor-and-son-of-former-chief-justice-of-trinidad-found-dead-after-covid-injection-in-ireland/* Patrick Delaney. 39-year-old nurse aide dies ‘within 48 hours' of receiving mandated COVID-19 shot [Internet]. LifeSiteNews. 2021 [cited 2021 Jan 28]. Available from: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/39-year-old-nurse-aide-dies-within-48-hours-of-receiving-mandated-covid-19-shot* 45-Year-Old Italian Doctor “In the Prime of Life and in Perfect Health” Drops Dead After the Pfizer mRNA COVID Shot: 39-Year-Old Nurse, 42-Year-Old Surgical Technician Also Dead [Internet]. Health Impact News. 2021 [cited 2021 Feb 5]. Available from: https://healthimpactnews.com/2021/45-year-old-italian-doctor-in-the-prime-of-life-and-in-perfect-health-drops-dead-after-the-pfizer-mrna-covid-shot-39-year-old-nurse-42-year-old-surgical-technician-also-dead/* 46-year old healthcare worker dies day after receiving COVID-19 vaccine; govt says death not related to jab [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2021 Feb 16]. Available from: https://www.businesstoday.in/current/economy-politics/46-year-old-healthcare-worker-dies-day-after-receiving-covid-19-vaccine-govt-says-death-not-related-to-jab/story/428280.html* 58-Year-Old Mother and Grandmother of Six in Virginia Dies Within Hours of Receiving Experimental Pfizer mRNA Injection [Internet]. Health Impact News. 2021 [cited 2021 Feb 5]. Available from: https://healthimpactnews.com/2021/58-year-old-mother-and-grandmother-of-six-in-virginia-dies-within-hours-of-receiving-experimental-pfizer-mrna-injection/* 75-year-old Israeli woman found lifeless hours after second dose of Covid-19 vaccine [Internet]. Israel National News. 2021 [cited 2021 Feb 16]. Available from: https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/294861* Capar R-I. 82-year-old resident at Sola nursing home dies one day after being vaccinated against COVID-19 [Internet]. Norway Today. 2021 [cited 2021 Feb 16]. Available from: https://norwaytoday.info/news/82-year-old-resident-at-sola-nursing-home-dies-one-day-after-being-vaccinated-against-covid-19/* Brian Shilhavy. 181 Dead in the U.S. During 2 Week Period From Experimental COVID Injections – How Long Will We Continue to Allow Mass Murder by Lethal Injection? [Internet]. Health Impact News. 2021 [cited 2021 Jan 25]. Available from: https://healthimpactnews.com/2021/181-dead-in-the-u-s-during-2-week-period-from-experimental-covid-injections-how-long-will-we-continue-to-allow-mass-murder-by-lethal-injection/* Adam Dick. A Nursing Home had Zero Coronavirus Deaths. Then, It Vaccinates Residents for Coronavirus and the Deaths Begin. [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2021 Jan 11]. Available from: http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/peace-and-prosperity/2021/january/10/a-nursing-home-had-zero-coronavirus-deaths-then-it-vaccinates-residents-for-coronavirus-and-the-deaths-begin/* Dineshwori L. AIIMS' security guard admitted to ICU post Covid-19 vaccination [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2021 Feb 16]. Available from: https://www.thehealthsite.com/news/adverse-events-post-covid-19-vaccination-aiims-security-guard-admitted-to-icu-791480/* Kovacs J. American dies hours after COVID vaccine [Internet]. WND. 2021 [cited 2021 Jan 26]. Available from: https://www.wnd.com/2021/01/californian-dies-hours-covid-vaccine/* AstraZeneca, Bharat Biotech Vaccines Nab Emergency Approval in India [Internet]. GeneOnline News. 2021 [cited 2021 Feb 21]. Available from: https://geneonline.news/en/astrazeneca-bharat-biotech-vaccines-nab-emergency-approval-in-india/* Basingstoke care home records 22 deaths in three weeks in one of UK's worst Covid-19 outbreaks [Internet]. Daily Echo. 2021 [cited 2021 Feb 1]. Available from: https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/19043944.coronavirus-outbreak-22-deaths-pemberley-house-care-home/* BUSTED: CDC Inflated COVID Numbers, Accused of Violating Federal Law [Internet]. National File. 2021 [cited 2021 Feb 16]. Available from: https://nationalfile.com/busted-cdc-inflated-covid-numbers-accused-of-violating-federal-law/* Corrupt Science and Elite Power: Your Techno-Slavery is Now Imminent [Internet]. The Columbus Freepress. 2020 [cited 2021 Feb 20]. Available from: https://freepress.org/article/corrupt-science-and-elite-power-your-techno-slavery-now-imminent* Caceres M. Courts in Spain Order Forced COVID-19 Vaccination of Incapacitated Nursing Home Residents [Internet]. The Vaccine Reaction. 2021 [cited 2021 Feb 22]. Available from: https://thevaccinereaction.org/2021/02/courts-in-spain-order-forced-covid-19-vaccination-of-incapacitated-nursing-home-residents/* Jane Roberts. COVID immune response suspected in young doctor's death [Internet]. Memphis Local, Sports, Business & Food News | Daily Memphian. 2021 [cited 2021 Feb 16]. Available from: https://dailymemphian.com/article/19893/surgeon-died-of-suspected-delayed-immune-response* AG C. CureVac CEO Daniel Menichella Discusses Coronavirus Vaccine Development with U.S. President Donald Trump and Members of Coronavirus Task Force [Internet]. GlobeNewswire News Room. 2020 [cited 2021 Feb 19]. Available from: http://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2020/03/02/1993888/0/en/CureVac-CEO-Daniel-Menichella-Discusses-Coronavirus-Vaccine-Development-with-U-S-President-Donald-Trump-and-Members-of-Coronavirus-Task-Force.html* Dozens of people develop rare blood disorder after taking coronavirus vaccines – reports [Internet]. RT International. 2021 [cited 2021 Feb 16]. Available from: https://www.rt.com/usa/515157-covid-vaccine-side-effects-blood/* Dr. David Mukanga visits the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut [Internet]. Global Health Protection Programme. 2018 [cited 2021 Feb 19]. Available from: https://ghpp.de/en/projects/regtrain-vacctrain/dr-david-mukanga-visits-the-paul-ehrlich-institut/* Europe still wary of AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccine as Dutch scientific advisers recommend limiting jab to under-65s [Internet]. RT International. [cited 2021 Feb 5]. Available from: https://www.rt.com/news/514641-netherlands-astrazeneca-covid-vaccine-under65/* Floridians file hundreds of COVID-19 vaccine side effect reports [Internet]. WFTS. 2021 [cited 2021 Feb 16]. Available from: https://www.abcactionnews.com/news/state/floridians-file-hundreds-of-covid-19-vaccine-side-effect-reports* Former Detroit TV Anchor Karen Hudson-Samuels Dies One Day After Taking COVID Vaccine [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2021 Feb 17]. Available from: https://detroit.cbslocal.com/2021/02/16/former-detroit-tv-anchor-dies-one-day-after-taking-covid-vaccine/* From the 2/4/2021 release of VAERS data [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2021 Feb 18]. Available from: https://medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?TABLE=ON&GROUP1=CAT&EVENTS=ON&VAX=COVID19* Tyler Durden. German Nursing Home Whistleblower: “Elderly Dying After COVID Vaccine” [Internet]. ZeroHedge. 2021 [cited 2021 Feb 16]. Available from: https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/german-nursing-home-whistleblower-elderly-dying-after-covid-vaccine* Danielle Haynes. Germany recommends AstraZeneca vaccine for only those under 65 [Internet]. UPI. 2021 [cited 2021 Jan 29]. Available from: https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2021/01/28/Germany-recommends-AstraZeneca-vaccine-for-only-those-under-65/7911611858574/* Gloucester resident dies within hours of receiving Pfizer vaccine [Internet]. WTKR. 2021 [cited 2021 Feb 16]. Available from: https://www.wtkr.com/news/gloucester-resident-dies-within-hours-of-receiving-pfizer-vaccine* Health care worker dies after second dose of COVID vaccine, investigations underway [Internet]. Orange County Register. 2021 [cited 2021 Feb 16]. Available from: https://www.ocregister.com/2021/01/26/health-care-worker-dies-after-second-dose-of-covid-vaccine-investigations-underway* Caceres M. Health Care Worker in Orange County, California Dies Four Days After Getting COVID-19 Vaccine [Internet]. The Vaccine Reaction. 2021 [cited 2021 Feb 16]. Available from: https://thevaccinereaction.org/2021/02/health-care-worker-in-orange-county-california-dies-four-days-after-getting-covid-19-vaccine/* Dave Urbanski. Health care worker taken to ER just a few hours after getting second COVID-19 vaccine shot. Four days later he was dead. [Internet]. TheBlaze. 2021 [cited 2021 Jan 29]. Available from: https://www.theblaze.com/news/health-care-worker-taken-to-er-just-a-few-hours-after-getting-second-covid-vaccine-shot-four-days-later-he-was-dead* M.d MN. How can this be?  All residents and staff vaccinated for Covid, then all test positive and 7 die, after zero prior cases [Internet]. Anthrax Vaccine -- posts by Meryl Nass, M.D. 2021 [cited 2021 Feb 5]. Available from: https://anthraxvaccine.blogspot.com/2021/02/how-can-this-be-all-residents-and-staff.html* HAF. Indian Hospital Worker Dies Just 24 Hours After Receiving COVID-19 Vaccine Covishield [Internet]. https://humansarefree.com/. 2021 [cited 2021 Jan 19]. Available from: https://humansarefree.com/2021/01/indian-hospital-worker-dies-just-24-hours-after-receiving-covid-19-vaccine-covishield.html/* N/A. Investigation launched as 2 people die in Norway nursing home days after receiving Pfizer's Covid-19 vaccine [Internet]. RT International. [cited 2021 Jan 5]. Available from: https://www.rt.com/news/511623-norway-covid19-vaccine-deaths/* Brown L. Israeli man reportedly dies of heart attack hours after getting COVID vaccine [Internet]. New York Post. 2020 [cited 2021 Jan 4]. Available from: https://nypost.com/2020/12/29/israeli-man-dies-of-heart-attack-after-getting-covid-vaccine/* Israel T, Pfizer. Israeli Teenager Hospitalized in ICU for “Inflammation of the Heart” Days after Receiving Second Pfizer Vaccine [Internet]. Health Impact News. 2021 [cited 2021 Feb 5]. Available from: https://healthimpactnews.com/2021/israeli-teenager-hospitalized-in-icu-for-inflammation-of-the-heart-days-after-receiving-second-pfizer-vaccine/* Man dies after receiving vaccination at Javits Center; doctor says initial indications show no allergic reaction [Internet]. News 12 - The Bronx. 2021 [cited 2021 Feb 16]. Available from: https://bronx.news12.com/man-dies-after-receiving-vaccination-at-javits-center-doctor-says-initial-indications-show-no-allergic-reaction* MAAYAN JAFFE-HOFFMAN. Man's fatal heart attack likely unlinked to vaccine he took hours before [Internet]. The Jerusalem Post | JPost.com. 2020 [cited 2021 Jan 4]. Available from: https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/israel-nears-100000-coronavirus-vaccinations-per-day-goal-653461* Luke Webber. Marketing Authorisation: the goal of pharmaceutical regulatory affairs [Internet]. Proclinical. 2018 [cited 2021 Feb 19]. Available from: https://www.proclinical.com/blogs/2018-2/marketing-goal-of-pharmaceutical-regulatory-affairs* MHRA awarded over £980,000 for collaboration with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the World Health Organisation [Internet]. GOV.UK. 2017 [cited 2021 Feb 21]. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/mhra-awarded-over-980000-for-collaboration-with-the-bill-and-melinda-gates-foundation-and-the-world-health-organisation* MHRA Enters 3-Year Collaboration With Gates Foundation, WHO [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2021 Feb 21]. Available from: https://www.fdanews.com/articles/184777-mhra-enters-3-year-collaboration-with-gates-foundation-who* Mark Hodge. Nine care home residents killed in Covid outbreak six days after getting vaccine [Internet]. The Sun. 2021 [cited 2021 Feb 16]. Available from: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/13926276/covid-deaths-care-home-spain/* Sandhya Srinivasan AJ& VJ. Nine health workers have died in vaccine rollout. India must disclose status of probe into each case [Internet]. Scroll.in. https://scroll.in; 2021 [cited 2021 Feb 16]. Available from: https://scroll.in/article/985273/nine-health-workers-have-died-in-vaccine-rollout-india-must-disclose-status-of-probe-into-each-case* Lars Erik Taraldsen, Naomi Kresge. Norway Warns of Vaccination Risks for Sick Patients Over 80. Bloomberg.com [Internet]. 2021 Jan 15 [cited 2021 Jan 29]; Available from: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-15/norway-warns-of-vaccination-risks-for-sick-patients-over-80* Capar R-I. Norwegian Medicines Agency links 13 deaths to vaccine side effects. Those who died were frail and old [Internet]. Norway Today. 2021 [cited 2021 Jan 29]. Available from: https://norwaytoday.info/news/norwegian-medicines-agency-links-13-deaths-to-vaccine-side-effects-those-who-died-were-frail-and-old/* N/A. Nuremberg Code: Directives for Human Experimentation [Internet]. The Office of Research Integrity. [cited 2020 May 20]. Available from: https://ori.hhs.gov/chapter-3-The-Protection-of-Human-Subjects-nuremberg-code-directives-human-experimentation* Davis A, Walker DG. On the Path to UHC – Global Evidence Must Go Local to Be Useful; Comment on “Disease Control Priorities Third Edition Is Published: A Theory of Change Is Needed for Translating Evidence to Health Policy.” International Journal of Health Policy and Management [Internet]. 2019 Mar 1 [cited 2021 Feb 21];8(3):181–3. Available from: https://www.ijhpm.com/article_3575.html* Robert Koch Institute [Internet]. Gates Foundation. 2019 [cited 2021 Feb 19]. Available from: https://www.gatesfoundation.org/How-We-Work/Quick-Links/Grants-Database/Grants/2019/11/OPP1216026* N/A. Search Results from the VAERS Database [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2021 Feb 1]. Available from: https://medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?IDNUMBER=918034* Search Results from the VAERS Database [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2021 Feb 16]. Available from: https://medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?IDNUMBER=944595* Search Results from the VAERS Database [Internet]. [cited 2021 Feb 18]. Available from: https://medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?TABLE=ON&GROUP1=CAT&EVENTS=ON&VAX=COVID19&STATE=WI* Sirur S. Serum Institute ties up with Gates Foundation for 10 crore doses of Covid vaccine [Internet]. ThePrint. 2020 [cited 2021 Feb 21]. Available from: https://theprint.in/india/serum-institute-ties-up-with-gates-foundation-for-10-crore-doses-of-covid-vaccine/477133/* “Serum won't have to take full loss”: Bill Gates says his Foundation shares financial risk for vaccine [Internet]. MSN. 2020 [cited 2021 Feb 21]. Available from: https://www.msn.com/en-in/money/news/serum-won-t-have-to-take-full-loss-bill-gates-says-his-foundation-shares-financial-risk-for-vaccine/ar-BB1caHpL* SII has produced 40-50 mn dosages of Covishield [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2021 Feb 21]. Available from: http://news.rediff.com/commentary/2020/dec/28/sii-has-produced-4050-mn-dosages-of-covishield/90c66a232ef2d0be98aebceccca9e970* Staff K. South Dakota reports 2 deaths recorded after COVID-19 vaccinations [Internet]. https://www.blackhillsfox.com. 2021 [cited 2021 Feb 16]. Available from: https://www.blackhillsfox.com/2021/01/20/south-dakota-reports-2-deaths-recorded-after-covid-19-vaccinations/* HAF. Spain: Second Pfizer Shots Halted After 46 Nursing Home Residents Die After the First Shot [Internet]. https://humansarefree.com/. 2021 [cited 2021 Feb 19]. Available from: https://humansarefree.com/2021/02/spain-pfizer-shots-halted-after-46-nursing-home-residents-died.html/* Ido Efrati, Ronny Linder. Thousands of Israelis tested positive for coronavirus after first vaccine shot [Internet]. Haaretz.com. 2021 [cited 2021 Feb 1]. Available from: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/thousands-of-israelis-tested-positive-for-coronavirus-after-first-vaccine-shot-1.9462478* McFall-Johnsen M. UK watchdogs say people with learning disabilities have been given inappropriate “do not resuscitate” orders for COVID-19 [Internet]. Business Insider. 2020 [cited 2021 Feb 15]. Available from: https://www.businessinsider.com/uk-learning-disabilities-inappropriate-do-not-resuscitate-orders-2021-2* SPN. Un altro infermiere muore nel sonno. “Infarto”. Aveva fatto la seconda dose di vaccino [Internet]. Secondo Piano News. 2021 [cited 2021 Feb 22]. Available from: https://www.secondopianonews.it/news/cronaca/2021/01/27/un-altro-infermiere-muore-nel-sonno-infarto-aveva-fatto-la-seconda-dose-di-vaccino.html* VAERS_Table_of_Reportable_Events_Following_Vaccination.pdf [Internet]. [cited 2021 Feb 15]. Available from: https://vaers.hhs.gov/docs/VAERS_Table_of_Reportable_Events_Following_Vaccination.pdf* N/A. WHO Following Probe Into “23 Reported Deaths” in Norway After Pfizer Vaccine Injection [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2021 Jan 15]. Available from: https://sputniknews.com/amp/europe/202101151081777740-who-aware-of-23-reported-deaths-in-norway-after-pfizer-vaccination-seeks-to-follow-probe/* LifeSiteNews.com. World's biggest vaccine company sues COVID shot volunteer who spoke about negative side effects [Internet]. LifeSiteNews. 2020 [cited 2021 Feb 21]. Available from: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/gates-foundation-backed-covid-vaccine-maker-sues-trial-volunteer-alleging-brain-damage* Young man develops “rare life-threatening syndrome” after Covid-19 vaccine [Internet]. Israel National News. 2021 [cited 2021 Feb 16]. Available from: https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/294606 This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit walkinverse.substack.com/subscribe

A sliding door moment. A test of character. A career on the line. What would you do?

A sliding door moment. A test of character. A career on the line. What would you do?

In this episode of the Offspring Podcast, Srinath and Niko talk to Dr.Noémie Aubert Bonn a Doctoral Researcher who Researches Research. We discuss about Meta research, Research Integrity and ways to change the current system of academia, publishing and many more. If you are interested to find out more, feel free to check out Noémie's work on Research Integrity below. Twitter: https://twitter.com/naubertbonn Preprint from Noémie: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.12.945733v2 Check out sfDORA: https://sfdora.org/ If you have any comments, suggestion or questions, please feel free to reach out to us at the following email: offspring.podcasts@phdnet.mpg.de Please feel free to check out the Offspring-Blog where we publish articles on a regular basis. https://www.phdnet.mpg.de/offspring-blog Intro - Outro music composed by Srinath Ramkumar: https://twitter.com/srinathramkumar Pre-Intro jingle composed by Gustavo Carrizo: https://www.instagram.com/carrizo.gus/?hl=es You can follow the hosts of this podcast on Twitter here: Srinath Ramkumar: https://twitter.com/srinathramkumar Nikolai Hoermann: https://twitter.com/HoermannNikolai Allison Lewis: https://twitter.com/OswaldsMom Until Next Week, Stay Safe and Stay Healthy.

Dr Daniel Barr | Principal Research Integrity Advisor at RMIT University In this video (part 2 of 2), Dr Daniel Barr continues his discussion on the progression of research integrity at universities, advocating for a universality of research integrity principles. He explores the idea of integrity ‘markers’ or indicators, toward a shared, global understanding of research best practice. Demonstrating the applicability of such research guidelines, Daniel outlines The Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) project he is involved in, which addresses perceived issues in research mobility and collaboration amongst these member states. He reinforces how a united set of guidelines to define what honest and trustworthy research is, would help facilitate the research integrity movement. Daniel identifies the growing consideration by institutions as to how they want to serve their communities through research that solves problems, and how this need feeds into the APEC project. He talks about developing a consensus on standards to inform future policy, enrich educational training and build stakeholder trust in the research process. Finally, in describing a somewhat fragmented approach to research integrity that undermines success, Daniel asserts the need to go beyond high-level, anecdotal commitments to research integrity. He speculates on what form this may take, in terms of an official ‘passport’ or credential that could bolster a culture and community around peer-approved research integrity. #turnitin #academicintegrity #integritymatters

Dr Daniel Barr | Principal Research Integrity Advisor at RMIT University In this video (part 1 of 2), Dr Daniel Barr discusses his role as Principal Research Integrity Advisor at RMIT in facilitating the responsible conduct of research. It serves as the foundation for a broader discussion on the guidelines and application of HDR and PHD research at universities both domestically and globally. Daniel defines the role of a Research Integrity Advisor (RIA), and explains the importance of universities’ provision of RIAs to support members of the research community and to safeguard public interests. He also references the recent iteration to the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research which underpins their work. Discussing developments in the research integrity space, Daniel comments on how efforts and success are hampered by narrow definitions that fixate on what it isn’t, and what it shouldn’t be. He raises the case for a more robust conceptualisation that improves awareness and understanding through improved clarity and relevance, and encourages higher uptake of those principles. Daniel also covers some of the key challenges in upholding research integrity and measures to stamp out ‘predatory journals’ and ‘predatory publishing’ that undermine the trustworthiness of research. Finally, he asserts the need for more ‘research into research’ - to determine what works best to yield responsible research practices and desired outcomes. #turnitin #academicintegrity #integritymatters

Episode #11Recorded April 17, 2020I want to thank Clint Hermes, JD, for speaking with me about his work with biomedical research regulatory matters. We talked about his legal training at Harvard Law and how he became interested in this field. He's worked at two academic medical centers, including St. Jude in Memphis, Tennessee. He is now an attorney with Bass, Berry, and Sims. Clint works with different entities that require legal assistance with regulatory matters when conducting clinical trials such as academic centers, pharmaceutical companies, and even private physician groups. He discussed the importance of IRBs to protect human subjects as well as new statutes that mandate a single central IRB rather than multiple IRBs for federally funded studies. Clint observed that human subject protection had improved dramatically in the US since the Tuskegee syphilis study. However, questionable research practices are still a significant problem especially in certain countries. Clint has done a lot of international travel and worked on behalf of clients in Africa, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia. He also discussed the problem of research fraud and the role of the US Office of Research Integrity in preventing scientific misconduct in federally funded studies. Clint also touched on the regulatory process necessary to get FDA approval of a new vaccine. Contact information:Email: Clint.Hermes@bassberry.com or website:www.bassberry.com 

David McCredie | Chief Executive Officer, Australian British Chamber of Commerce David McCredie shares what employers are looking for when hiring and why academic integrity provides the confidence managers need in their people to have the necessary skills and knowledge to deal with situations under pressure. David provides insights on why the rigour of quality education, academic research and research integrity play key roles in driving trade investment between Australia, the UK and the world, and how trust is fundamental.

Part two of our conversation about regulatory compliance focuses on the gray areas of compliance. We discuss the challenges of sharing data, navigating compliance pitfalls when doing business internationally, and how new regulations can have unexpected outcomes for small businesses. We wrap up with a discussion of the rapidly growing job market for compliance professionals.Andrew Kaufman joined the University of Maine School of Law faculty in 2016, after more than 40 years in private practice as a corporate and transactional attorney. At Maine Law, Andy teaches advanced courses in corporate law and business associations, commercial law, and transactional practice, as well as the law school's course in risk management and compliance. In addition, he is the Director of the Compliance Certificate Program that the law school offers to compliance professionals in the business community. Andy received his bachelor's degree from Yale in 1971 and his law degree from Vanderbilt University Law School in 1974.Ross Hickey is the Assistant Provost for Research Integrity at the University of Southern Maine and the Director of MeRTEC (“MER-tech”), the Maine Regulatory Training and Ethics Center at USM. Ross has built a nationally-recognized research compliance office that serves not only USM, but institutions throughout the state of Maine. Ross is contacted on a regular basis to provide technical assistance to other institutions on regulatory compliance matters. Ross is a graduate of the University of Maine School of Law.

Whether we realize it or not, the field of regulatory compliance impacts almost every aspect of our lives. From the food we eat to the shampoo we use to the clothing we wear, everything we touch is impacted by a variety of laws and regulations that make up the surprisingly dynamic field of compliance. Our discussion today focuses on how compliance is more than following rules. Done well, compliance uses creativity, critical thinking and foresight to empower employees, build good businesses and ethical cultures as well as strong brands that serve their customers. We also discuss how organizations like Wells Fargo and Theranos have suffered the long term impacts of NOT having strong regulatory compliance functions.Andrew Kaufman joined the University of Maine School of Law faculty in 2016, after more than 40 years in private practice as a corporate and transactional attorney. At Maine Law, Andy teaches advanced courses in corporate law and business associations, commercial law, and transactional practice, as well as the law school's course in risk management and compliance. In addition, he is the Director of the Compliance Certificate Program that the law school offers to compliance professionals in the business community. Andy received his bachelor's degree from Yale in 1971 and his law degree from Vanderbilt University Law School in 1974.Ross Hickey is the Assistant Provost for Research Integrity at the University of Southern Maine and the Director of MeRTEC (“MER-tech”), the Maine Regulatory Training and Ethics Center at USM. Ross has built a nationally-recognized research compliance office that serves not only USM, but institutions throughout the state of Maine. Ross is contacted on a regular basis to provide technical assistance to other institutions on regulatory compliance matters. Ross is a graduate of the University of Maine School of Law.

In this episode, we talk with Dr. Zen Faulkes about the graduate application process, what program directors are looking for and how hard it is (or indeed impossible) it is to have unbiased selection system. Zen gained a B.A., Psychology at the University of Lethbridge in 1989 and a Ph.D. at the University of Victoria about sand crab digging behaviour in 1996. He was a postdoctoral researcher at McGill University until 1999, and then he was a postdoc at the University of Melbourne until 2001. He is currently a Professor at the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley. Zen writes the “Better Posters” blog, which dispenses advice on how to improve the posters we present at meetings. In this episode, we discuss his publication, “Resolving authorship disputes by mediation and arbitration” in Research Integrity and Peer Review, and also his letter in Science titled “#GRExit's unintended consequences”. As graduate program coordinator, he talks about the pros and cons of GREs. Whilst universities are looking for “successful” people we have a chat about how we could define “success” to begin. Are assessments really consistent and reliable? Hm. We talk through the whole graduate application process step-by-step from both the applicant’s and recruiter’s point of views. We chat about how to structure personal statements and what to expect during interviews but also keeping in mind that everyone is different and perhaps more introverted students might feel at a disadvantage. Zen recommends students to ask program directors what competitive applications look like - they are very likely to give straight answers. While it is good to have a high GPA for a masters program, students really should get to know what the requirements and expectations are for different programs. Zen says, “If you inspire to go to graduate school, you have to be proactive thinking about what your opportunities are.” We leave students with a final piece of advice: every semester get to know one professor slightly better so at least you have a few people who know more about you. Asking for advice from professors and program directors can make graduate school application a whole lot smoother! A transcript for this episode generously provided by Joe Stormer can be found here: bit.ly/TaprootS4E2Transcript SHOW NOTES: Faulkes, Z., 2018. Resolving authorship disputes by mediation and arbitration. Research integrity and peer review, 3(1), p.12. https://researchintegrityjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41073-018-0057-z GRE exit - does not predict “success” - Letter in Science https://science.sciencemag.org/content/363/6425/356.2 Better posters site http://betterposters.blogspot.com/ Blog: https://neurodojo.blogspot.com Free pdf: https://faculty.utrgv.edu/zen.faulkes/Presentation_tips.pdf Twitter: @DoctorZen @ehaswell @baxtertwi @taprootpodcast #TaprootTuesday

JR Oakes is the Senior Director of Technical SEO Research at Adapt Partners and he shares a lot of great information on Twitter and GitHub about how to use Data Analysis for SEO. What is Data Analysis? According to the Office of Research Integrity, Data Analysis is the process of systematically applying statistical and/or logical techniques to describe and illustrate, condense and recap, and evaluate data. As we all know, there is so much data we have access to as SEOs, but what can you do with it and how do you use it to improve your organic traffic? Let's talk about it in the first part of a two-part series about Machine Learning and SEO. Also in this episode, we'll talk about what happened with rel=next/prev mixup, AMP is coming to your inbox, YouTube's dominance in mobile traffic, and the growth of e-commerce - all this and more, today on the EDGE!   Sponsor EDGE of the Web is brought to you by Site Strategics and they are offering to help you find out your digital marketing ROI. The Digital Marketing ROI Report will examine your existing SEO, content, social media, and PPC to help you discover your TRUE ROI. Visit https://edgeofthewebradio.com/roi/ to get 30% off your comprehensive review of your digital assets!   Edge of the Web Radio is brought to you by Site Strategics. Site Strategics is a web design and marketing services company that not only helps business owners look good on the internet but helps ensure you come to the top positions on major search engines. Are you looking for a professional SEO firm? Site Strategics curtails its business to Indianapolis, Indiana -- but also works nationwide and globally. To learn more, visit our website at http://www.sitestrategics.com/ or http://www.edgemedia.studio

Bonus Clip #1 [00:00-04:01]: Pathways to Working with Foundations To share feedback about this podcast episode, ask questions that could be featured in a future episode, or to share research-related resources, contact the “Research in Action” podcast: Twitter: @RIA_podcast or #RIA_podcast Email: riapodcast@oregonstate.edu Voicemail: 541-737-1111 If you listen to the podcast via iTunes, please consider leaving us a review. The views expressed by guests on the Research in Action podcast do not necessarily represent the views of Ecampus or Oregon State University.

On this episode, Katie is joined by Dr. Stuart Buck. As the Vice President of Research at the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, Stuart works to ensure that research funded by the Foundation is as rigorous as possible, and that the Foundation's major investments are evaluated by independent experts. An attorney and research expert with a background in education policy, Stuart has written and co-written numerous scholarly articles that have appeared in journals such as Science, Harvard Law Review, Education Economics, Education Next, Phi Delta Kappan, and Review of Public Personnel Administration. Stuart has testified before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, and has been a panelist at major academic conferences, including the Association for Education Finance and Policy, the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management, and the Harvard Program on Education Policy and Governance. He is the author of a Yale University Press book on education in the African-American community, Acting White. Stuart holds a Ph.D. in education policy from the University of Arkansas, where he studied econometrics, statistics, and program evaluation; a J.D. with honors from Harvard Law School, where he was an editor of the Harvard Law Review; and bachelor's and master's degrees in music performance from the University of Georgia.   Segment 1: Working at a Foundation [00:00-10:12] In this first segment, Stuart describes about his research work at the Arnold Foundation. Segment 2: Promoting Research Integrity [10:13-23:48] In segment two, Stuart shares about how he works to promote research integrity at the Arnold Foundation. Segment 3: Increasing the Use of Data in the Criminal Justice System [23:49-36:59] In segment three, Stuart describes some of the recent work of the Arnold Foundation to impact the criminal justice system. Bonus Clip #1 [00:00-04:01]: Pathways to Working with Foundations To share feedback about this podcast episode, ask questions that could be featured in a future episode, or to share research-related resources, contact the “Research in Action” podcast: Twitter: @RIA_podcast or #RIA_podcast Email: riapodcast@oregonstate.edu Voicemail: 541-737-1111 If you listen to the podcast via iTunes, please consider leaving us a review. The views expressed by guests on the Research in Action podcast do not necessarily represent the views of Ecampus or Oregon State University.

In part two of our conversation with Chris Graf, Wiley’s new Director of Research Integrity and Publishing Ethics, we talked about what authors, editors, and publishers can do to support the reproducibility of published works.

We sat down with Chris Graf, Wiley’s new Director of Research Integrity and Publishing Ethics, to learn just how much published research needs a second look.

How can the scientific community incentivize openness and reproducibility as part of the research process? Brian Nosek, Executive Director of the Center for Open Science, says it might be easier than you think.

Roberto Buccione, EMBO Molecular Medicine | EMBO Press, Heidelberg, GERMANY speaks on “The transparent editorial process, data reproducibility and research integrity at EMBO Press”. This seminar has been recorded by ICGEB Trieste

Lisa Wehr, Kaci McCleary, Dylan Todd, and Marc Toral discuss things of much import, such as why Dave's iPad lock screen is a pile of dangerously toxic potatoes, and why it's important to use the correct pronunciation of gyros but not other foods from foreign lands.  Also, uterus transplants are about to become a thing surgeons do in the US. What about that Ben Carson, amiright?  He's one smart cookie.  Docs like him are now able to use ultrasound to deliver chemo drugs through the blood-brain barrier without being all stabby about it.  And the Federal Office of Research Integrity hands down its verdict on former Duke researcher and HHMI investigator Anil Potti–hint: he's not a great researcher, but he can still be an oncologist, so long as he stays in North Dakota, we imagine. We need validation. Leave a review: iTunes | Stitcher It's official: Anil Potti faked cancer research data, say Feds Blood-Brain Barrier Opened Noninvasively with Focused Ultrasound for the First Time Cleveland Clinic to perform first-ever uterus transplants in U.S. Your Hosts This Week: [huge_it_gallery id=”57″] Listen to more great shows for medical students on The Vocalis Podcast Network. The opinions expressed in this feed and podcast are not those of the University of Iowa or the Roy J. and Lucille A. Carver College of Medicine; nor do they reflect the views of anyone other than the people who expressed them.  If you have feedback on anything you hear on the show, positive or not, let us know.…

Host Stewart Wills talks with Charlotte Haug, the vice-chair of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), about the recent World Conference on Research Integrity, new community guidelines on research transparency and reproducibility, the international dimension of research ethics, and the dangers of sensationalizing retractions.

Research integrity is a universal foundation of good research. It is supported in the U.S. by a rather elaborate system of oversight mechanisms and instructional approaches. Worldwide, however, it is subject to varying degrees of attention, and there are few standards that are accepted globally. This variation can complicate the work of international research collaborations. This talk draws on Melissa Anderson's empirical research on research integrity, in both domestic and international contexts. It also reflects her role as the co-chair, with Sabine Kleinert of The Lancet, of the latest and upcoming World Conferences on Research Integrity. For an audio podcast preview, listen to The Rock's Podcasts. Melissa S. Anderson is associate dean of graduate educationand professor of higher education at the University of Minnesota. Her work over the past 25 years has been in the areas of scientific integrity, research collaboration, and academy-industry relations, with particular attention to the research environment. She was principal investigator of a study funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health on international research collaborations and co-editor, with Nicholas Steneck, of International Research Collaborations: Much to be Gained, Many Ways to Get in Trouble (Routledge, 2010). Professor Anderson serves on the Committee on Scientific Freedom and Responsibility of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and on the editorial boards of Science and Engineering Ethics, the Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, and Accountability in Research. She serves as co-chair, with Sabine Kleinert of The Lancet, of World Conference on Research Integrity (Montreal, May 5-8, 2013 and Rio de Janeiro, 2015).

Research Integrity: Individual Decisions, Global Concerns Research integrity is a universal foundation of good research. It is supported in the U.S. by a rather elaborate system of oversight mechanisms and instructional approaches. Worldwide, however, it is subject to varying degrees of attention, and there are few standards that are accepted globally. This variation can complicate the work of international research collaborations. This talk draws on Melissa Anderson's empirical research on research integrity, in both domestic and international contexts. It also reflects her role as the co-chair, with Sabine Kleinert of The Lancet, of the latest and upcoming World Conferences on Research Integrity. Melissa S. Anderson Melissa S. Anderson Melissa S. Anderson is associate dean of graduate educationand professor of higher education at the University of Minnesota. Her work over the past 25 years has been in the areas of scientific integrity, research collaboration, and academy-industry relations, with particular attention to the research environment. She was principal investigator of a study funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health on international research collaborations and co-editor, with Nicholas Steneck, of International Research Collaborations: Much to be Gained, Many Ways to Get in Trouble (Routledge, 2010). Professor Anderson serves on the Committee on Scientific Freedom and Responsibility of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and on the editorial boards of Science and Engineering Ethics, the Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, and Accountability in Research. She serves as co-chair, with Sabine Kleinert of The Lancet, of World Conference on Research Integrity (Montreal, May 5-8, 2013 and Rio de Janeiro, 2015).

Ombudsman-Tagung der DFG 2012

Professor Nicholas Steneck, University of Michigan and Office of Research Integrity, gives a talk for the Research Integrity seminar series.

Professor Nicholas Steneck, University of Michigan and Office of Research Integrity, gives a talk for the Research Integrity seminar series.

Dr Sabine Kleinert Senior Executive Editor, The Lancet and Vice-Chair of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), gives the fourth 2010 Research Integrity Seminar.

Dr Jane Kaye, Director of HeLEX-Centre for Health, Law and Emerging Technologies, University of Oxford, gives the third 2010 Research Integrity Seminar.

Melissa Anderson, professor of higher Education and Affiliate Faculty, Centre of Bioethics, University of Minnesota, gives the second 2010 Research Integrity seminar.

Professor Douglas Altman of the centre for Statistics in Medicine (Oxford) gives the first in the 2010 Research Integrity seminar series, looking at the ways in which transparent and accurate rporting in medical research can be accomplished.

Seminar looking at the importance of integrity within medical research. Part of the Research Integrity Seminar Series organised by Research Services, in collaboration with the Oxford Biomedical Research Centre.

Part one of a series of lectures looking at different aspects of research integrity and their application in biomedical research.

Part one of a series of lectures looking at different aspects of research integrity and their application in biomedical research.