Combining development, capacity building and responsible innovation in GCRF-funded medical technology research.

Development-oriented funding schemes such as the UK Global Challenges Research Fund (GCRF) have opened up opportunities for collaborations between low-middle income countries (LMICs) and high-income country (HIC) researchers. In particular, funding for medical technology research has seen a rise in previously under-represented disciplines such as physics and engineering. These collaborations have considerable potential to advance healthcare in LMICs, yet can pose challenges experienced to researchers undertaking these collaborations. Key challenges include a lack of tradition of HIC/LMIC collaborations within participating departments, lack of experience with development agendas, designing contextually-appropriate technologies and ensuring long-term viability of research outputs. This paper reflects on these key challenges, using the experiences of the authors on the Open Laboratory Instrumentation (OLI) project as a focalizing lens. This project was a GCRF-funded collaboration between physicists in the UK and engineers in Tanzania to develop an open-source, 3D-printed, fully-automated laboratory microscope. The paper highlights key ethics lessons learnt.

"Ethics When You Least Expect It": A Modular Approach to Short Course Data Ethics Instruction.

Data science skills are rapidly becoming a necessity in modern science. In response to this need, institutions and organizations around the world are developing research data science curricula to teach the programming and computational skills that are needed to build and maintain data infrastructures and maximize the use of available data. To date, however, few of these courses have included an explicit ethics component, and developing such components can be challenging. This paper describes a novel approach to teaching data ethics on short courses developed for the CODATA-RDA Schools for Research Data Science. The ethics content of these schools is centred on the concept of open and responsible (data) science citizenship that draws on virtue ethics to promote ethics of practice. Despite having little formal teaching time, this concept of citizenship is made central to the course by distributing ethics content across technical modules. Ethics instruction consists of a wide range of techniques, including stand-alone lectures, group discussions and mini-exercises linked to technical modules. This multi-level approach enables students to develop an understanding both of "responsible and open (data) science citizenship", and of how such responsibilities are implemented in daily research practices within their home environment. This approach successfully locates ethics within daily data science practice, and allows students to see how small actions build into larger ethical concerns. This emphasises that ethics are not something "removed from daily research" or the remit of data generators/end users, but rather are a vital concern for all data scientists.

Including all voices in international data-sharing governance.

BACKGROUND: Governments, funding bodies, institutions, and publishers have developed a number of strategies to encourage researchers to facilitate access to datasets. The rationale behind this approach is that this will bring a number of benefits and enable advances in healthcare and medicine by allowing the maximum returns from the investment in research, as well as reducing waste and promoting transparency. As this approach gains momentum, these data-sharing practices have implications for many kinds of research as they become standard practice across the world. MAIN TEXT: The governance frameworks that have been developed to support biomedical research are not well equipped to deal with the complexities of international data sharing. This system is nationally based and is dependent upon expert committees for oversight and compliance, which has often led to piece-meal decision-making. This system tends to perpetuate inequalities by obscuring the contributions and the important role of different data providers along the data stream, whether they be low- or middle-income country researchers, patients, research participants, groups, or communities. As research and data-sharing activities are largely publicly funded, there is a strong moral argument for including the people who provide the data in decision-making and to develop governance systems for their continued participation. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend that governance of science becomes more transparent, representative, and responsive to the voices of many constituencies by conducting public consultations about data-sharing addressing issues of access and use; including all data providers in decision-making about the use and sharing of data along the whole of the data stream; and using digital technologies to encourage accessibility, transparency, and accountability. We anticipate that this approach could enhance the legitimacy of the research process, generate insights that may otherwise be overlooked or ignored, and help to bring valuable perspectives into the decision-making around international data sharing.

To share or not to share: Incentivizing data sharing in life science communities.

Most scientists recognize the importance of sharing data online in an open fashion. Nonetheless, many studies have documented the concerns that accompany data sharing activities, including loss of credit or IP, misuse and the time needed to curate interoperable data. To this end, discussions around data sharing often identify incentives that could potentially ameliorate these disincentivising concerns. Nonetheless, current Open Data discussions often rely on evidence-based studies to identify the disincentives to overcome. This results in highly specific and directed interventions. In contrast, this paper offers a different interpretation of these concerns. To do so, it makes use of the Thomas Theorem which suggests that: "If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences". Using empirical evidence from sub-Saharan African (bio)chemistry laboratories, this paper illustrates how individual perceptions of research environments - whether associated with evidence or not - are highly influential in shaping data sharing practices. It concludes with the suggestion that discussion on incentivising data sharing amongst scientific communities need to take a broader set of concerns into account and offer a more creative approach to ameliorating environmental disincentives.

Should We All be Scientists? Re-thinking Laboratory Research as a Calling.

In recent years there have been major shifts in how the role of science-and scientists-are understood. The critical examination of scientific expertise within the field of Science and Technology Studies (STS) are increasingly eroding notions of the "otherness" of scientists. It would seem to suggest that anyone can be a scientist-when provided with the appropriate training and access to data. In contrast, however, ethnographic evidence from the scientific community tells a different story. Scientists are quick to recognize that not everyone can-or should-be a scientist. Appealing to notions such as "good hands" or "gut feelings", scientists narrate a distinction between good and bad scientists that cannot be reduced to education, access, or opportunity. The key to good science requires scientists to express an intuitive feeling for their discipline, but also that individuals derive considerable personal satisfaction from their work. Discussing this personal joy in-and "fittingness" of-scientific occupations using the fields of STS, ethics and science policy is highly problematic. In this paper we turn to theology discourse to analyze the notion of "callings" as a means of understanding this issue. Callings highlight the identification and examination of individual talents to determine fit occupations for specific persons. Framing science as a calling represents a novel view of research that places the talents and dispositions of individuals and their relationship to the community at the center of flourishing practices.

Between Scylla and Charybdis: reconciling competing data management demands in the life sciences.

BACKGROUND: The widespread sharing of biologicaConcluding Comments: Teaching Responsible Datal and biomedical data is recognised as a key element in facilitating translation of scientific discoveries into novel clinical applications and services. At the same time, twenty-first century states are increasingly concerned that this data could also be used for purposes of bioterrorism. There is thus a tension between the desire to promote the sharing of data, as encapsulated by the Open Data movement, and the desire to prevent this data from 'falling into the wrong hands' as represented by 'dual use' policies. Both frameworks posit a moral duty for life sciences researchers with respect to how they should make their data available. However, Open data and dual use concerns are rarely discussed in concert and their implementation can present scientists with potentially conflicting ethical requirements. DISCUSSION: Both dual use and Open data policies frame scientific data and data dissemination in particular, though different, ways. As such they contain implicit models for how data is translated. Both approaches are limited by a focus on abstract conceptions of data and data sharing. This works to impede consensus-building between the two ethical frameworks. As an alternative, this paper proposes that an ethics of responsible management of scientific data should be based on a more nuanced understanding of the everyday data practices of life scientists. Responsibility for these 'micromovements' of data must consider the needs and duties of scientists as individuals and as collectively-organised groups. Researchers in the life sciences are faced with conflicting ethical responsibilities to share data as widely as possible, but prevent it being used for bioterrorist purposes. In order to reconcile the responsibilities posed by the Open Data and dual use frameworks, approaches should focus more on the everyday practices of laboratory scientists and less on abstract conceptions of data.

Variations in Scientific Data Production: What Can We Learn from #Overlyhonestmethods?

In recent months months the hashtag #overlyhonestmethods has steadily been gaining popularity. Posts under this hashtag--presumably by scientists--detail aspects of daily scientific research that differ considerably from the idealized interpretation of scientific experimentation as standardized, objective and reproducible. Over and above its entertainment value, the popularity of this hashtag raises two important points for those who study both science and scientists. Firstly, the posts highlight that the generation of data through experimentation is often far less standardized than is commonly assumed. Secondly, the popularity of the hashtag together with its relatively blasé reception by the scientific community reveal that the actions reported in the tweets are far from shocking and indeed may be considered just "part of scientific research". Such observations give considerable pause for thought, and suggest that current conceptions of data might be limited by failing to recognize this "inherent variability" within the actions of generation--and thus within data themselves. Is it possible, we must ask, that epistemic virtues such as standardization, consistency, reportability and reproducibility need to be reevaluated? Such considerations are, of course, of particular importance to data sharing discussions and the Open Data movement. This paper suggests that the notion of a "moral professionalism" for data generation and sharing needs to be considered in more detail if the inherent variability of data are to be addressed in any meaningful manner.

Ethics in the minutiae: examining the role of the physical laboratory environment in ethical discourse.

Responsibility within life science research is a highly scrutinised field. Increasingly, scientists are presented with a range of duties and expectations regarding their conduct within the research setting. In many cases, these duties are presented deontologically, forgoing extensive discussion on how these are practically implemented into the minutiae of daily research practices. This de-contextualized duty has proven problematic when it comes to practical issues of compliance, however it is not often considered as a fundamental aspect of building ethics discourse. This paper examines this issue in detail, particularly focusing on how differences in the contrasts between the ideal and real physical research environments cause conceptual problems for scientists and retard ethical engagement. Such issues are particularly pertinent in low- and middle-income countries. This paper combines theoretical and empirical analyses using the concept of "dual-use" as a focalizing topic. The data show that the research environment acts as an intimate component in the interpretation and implementation of ethical actions.

Moving life science ethics debates beyond national borders: some empirical observations.

The life sciences are increasingly being called on to produce "socially robust" knowledge that honors the social contract between science and society. This has resulted in the emergence of a number of "broad social issues" that reflect the ethical tensions in these social contracts. These issues are framed in a variety of ways around the world, evidenced by differences in regulations addressing them. It is important to question whether these variations are simply regulatory variations or in fact reflect a contextual approach to ethics that brings into question the existence of a system of "global scientific ethics". Nonetheless, within ethics education for scientists these broad social issues are often presented using this scheme of global ethics due to legacies of science ethics pedagogy. This paper suggests this may present barriers to fostering international discourse between communities of scientists, and may cause difficulties in harmonizing (and transporting) national regulations for the governance of these issues. Reinterpreting these variations according to how the content of ethical principles is attributed by communities is proposed as crucial for developing a robust international discourse. To illustrate this, the paper offers some empirical fieldwork data that considers how the concept of dual-use (as a broad social issue) was discussed within African and UK laboratories. Demonstrating that African scientists reshaped the concept of dual-use according to their own research environmental pressures and ascribed alternative content to the principles that underpin it, suggests that the limitations of a "global scientific ethics" system for these issues cannot be ignored.

From cases to capacity? A critical reflection on the role of 'ethical dilemmas' in the development of dual-use governance.

The dual-use issue is often framed as a series of paralyzing 'dilemmas' facing the scientific community as well as institutions which support innovation. While this conceptualization of the dual-use issue can be useful in certain contexts (such as in awareness-raising and as part of educational activities directed at the scientific community) its usefulness is more limited when reflecting on the governance and politics of the dual-use issue. Within this paper, key shortcomings of the dilemma framing are outlined. It is argued that many of the issues raised in the most recent debates about 'dual-use' bird flu research remain unresolved. This includes questions about the trajectories of certain lines of research, as well as broader trends in the practice and governance of science. This leads to difficult questions about current approaches to the dual-use issue within the US, as well as internationally.

Data sharing and dual-use issues.

The concept of dual-use encapsulates the potential for well-intentioned, beneficial scientific research to also be misused by a third party for malicious ends. The concept of dual-use challenges scientists to look beyond the immediate outcomes of their research and to develop an awareness of possible future (mis)uses of scientific research. Since 2001 much attention has been paid to the possible need to regulate the dual-use potential of the life sciences. Regulation initiatives fall under two broad categories-those that develop the ethical education of scientists and foster an awareness and responsibility of dual-use issues, and those which assess the regulation of information being generated by current research. Both types of initiatives are premised on a cautious, risk-adverse philosophy which advocates careful examination of all future endpoints of research endeavors. This caution advocated within initiatives such as pre-publication review of journal articles contrasts to the obligation to share underpinning data sharing discussions. As the dual-use debate has yet to make a significant impact on data sharing discussions (and vice versa) it is possible that these two areas of knowledge control may present areas of ethical conflict for scientists, and thus need to be more closely examined. This paper examines the tension between the obligation to share exemplified by data sharing principles and the concerns raised by the risk-cautious culture of the dual-use debates. The paper concludes by reflecting on the issues of responsibility as raised by dual-use as relating to data sharing, such as the chain of custody for shared data.

Research infrastructures, policies and the 'web of prevention': the ethical implications of inadequate research environments.

The dual-use potential of scientific research refers to the possibility that any beneficial scientific research may be misused for nefarious purposes by a third party. This potential within the life sciences has led to much discussion regarding ways to raise awareness and limit possible harm. The concept of a 'web of prevention' as a multifaceted system for addressing this potential for harm provides a comprehensive method of conceptualizing a system of controls in the life sciences. The web of prevention involves multiple stakeholders, from diverse backgrounds such as science, public health, security studies and governance. Research within the life sciences relies on a number of different structures, such as waste disposal and border controls, which provide a comprehensive environment for scientists to work in. The web of prevention relies on the assumption of these systems working to support any further initiatives that are proposed. Unfortunately, in many countries around the world, these systems are insufficiently addressed, which may raise ethical problems. Structural problems may undermine the web of prevention and alter the responsibilities attributed to the individual scientist within this system. Examples from sub-Saharan Africa illustrate two pertinent structural difficulties, and these are discussed in relation to ethical responsibilities.

Rethinking the A in FAIR Data: Issues of Data Access and Accessibility in Research.

The FAIR data principles are rapidly becoming a standard through which to assess responsible and reproducible research. In contrast to the requirements associated with the Interoperability principle, the requirements associated with the Accessibility principle are often assumed to be relatively straightforward to implement. Indeed, a variety of different tools assessing FAIR rely on the data being deposited in a trustworthy digital repository. In this paper we note that there is an implicit assumption that access to a repository is independent of where the user is geographically located. Using a virtual personal network (VPN) service we find that access to a set of web sites that underpin Open Science is variable from a set of 14 countries; either through connectivity issues (i.e., connections to download HTML being dropped) or through direct blocking (i.e., web servers sending 403 error codes). Many of the countries included in this study are already marginalized from Open Science discussions due to political issues or infrastructural challenges. This study clearly indicates that access to FAIR data resources is influenced by a range of geo-political factors. Given the volatile nature of politics and the slow pace of infrastructural investment, this is likely to continue to be an issue and indeed may grow. We propose that it is essential for discussions and implementations of FAIR to include awareness of these issues of accessibility. Without this awareness, the expansion of FAIR data may unintentionally reinforce current access inequities and research inequalities around the globe.

Radical collaboration during a global health emergency: development of the RDA COVID-19 data sharing recommendations and guidelines.

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) global pandemic required a rapid and effective response. This included ethical and legally appropriate sharing of data. The European Commission (EC) called upon the Research Data Alliance (RDA) to recruit experts worldwide to quickly develop recommendations and guidelines for COVID-related data sharing. Purpose: The purpose of the present work was to explore how the RDA succeeded in engaging the participation of its community of scientists in a rapid response to the EC request. Methods: A survey questionnaire was developed and distributed among RDA COVID-19 work group members. A mixed-methods approach was used for analysis of the survey data. Results: The three constructs of radical collaboration (inclusiveness, distributed digital practices, productive and sustainable collaboration) were found to be well supported in both the quantitative and qualitative analyses of the survey data. Other social factors, such as motivation and group identity were also found to be important to the success of this extreme collaborative effort. Conclusions: Recommendations and suggestions for future work were formulated for consideration by the RDA to strengthen effective expert collaboration and interdisciplinary efforts.

Fostering global data sharing: highlighting the recommendations of the Research Data Alliance COVID-19 working group.

The systemic challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic require cross-disciplinary collaboration in a global and timely fashion. Such collaboration needs open research practices and the sharing of research outputs, such as data and code, thereby facilitating research and research reproducibility and timely collaboration beyond borders. The Research Data Alliance COVID-19 Working Group recently published a set of recommendations and guidelines on data sharing and related best practices for COVID-19 research. These guidelines include recommendations for clinicians, researchers, policy- and decision-makers, funders, publishers, public health experts, disaster preparedness and response experts, infrastructure providers from the perspective of different domains (Clinical Medicine, Omics, Epidemiology, Social Sciences, Community Participation, Indigenous Peoples, Research Software, Legal and Ethical Considerations), and other potential users. These guidelines include recommendations for researchers, policymakers, funders, publishers and infrastructure providers from the perspective of different domains (Clinical Medicine, Omics, Epidemiology, Social Sciences, Community Participation, Indigenous Peoples, Research Software, Legal and Ethical Considerations). Several overarching themes have emerged from this document such as the need to balance the creation of data adherent to FAIR principles (findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable), with the need for quick data release; the use of trustworthy research data repositories; the use of well-annotated data with meaningful metadata; and practices of documenting methods and software. The resulting document marks an unprecedented cross-disciplinary, cross-sectoral, and cross-jurisdictional effort authored by over 160 experts from around the globe. This letter summarises key points of the Recommendations and Guidelines, highlights the relevant findings, shines a spotlight on the process, and suggests how these developments can be leveraged by the wider scientific community.

Economic sanctions and academia: Overlooked impact and long-term consequences.

Financial sanctions are often thought of as the "soft alternative" to armed conflict and are widely used in the 21st century. Nonetheless, sanctions are often criticized for being non-specific in their action, and having impact beyond their intended remit. One often-overlooked area affected by sanctions are academic systems of research and education. Sanctions place "invisible barriers" for research in these countries by limiting access to necessary resources and curtailing their effective use. In this paper we present a national survey of Sudanese academics focused on the impact of 20 years of economic sanctions on their work. It identifies key areas of academic research and education that have been impacted by international sanctions. Moreover, these data highlight how the impact of sanctions on academia is likely to persist long after they are formally lifted. The paper concludes by problematising the current interpretation of jus post bellum, or moral behaviour after conflict. It suggests that the responsibility to make reparations in the form of support for academic systems applies to countries who impose economic sanctions.

Correction: Economic sanctions and academia: Overlooked impact and long-term consequences.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0222669.].

Ang-2 and PDGF-BB cooperatively stimulate human peripheral blood monocyte fibrinolysis.

Angiopoietin-2 (Ang-2) is a growth factor, which was identified originally as playing a critical role in vessel remodeling during angiogenesis. More recent evidence has indicated additional involvement in vascular homeostatic responses such as coagulation and inflammation, which are central to wound healing. We therefore determined whether a relationship existed between Ang-2 and monocytes, one of the initial cell types to be recruited to a wound, in the context of fibrin clot invasion. Ang-2 significantly increased monocyte invasion of fibrin in the presence of serum. In the absence of serum, it required a combination of Ang-2 and platelet-derived growth factor BB (PDGF-BB) to increase invasion by threefold. Furthermore, it was shown that the heightened invasion was dependent on serine proteases and matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) and that the combination of Ang-2 and PDGF-BB increased urokinase plasminogen-activator receptor expression, as well as MMP-9 and membrane type 1 MMP expression. These data give further credence to the concept of Ang-2 as a key regulator of several essential phases of wound healing.

Hidden concerns of sharing research data by low/middle-income country scientists.

There has considerable interest in bringing low/middle-income countries (LMIC) scientists into discussions on Open Data - both as contributors and users. The establishment of in situ data sharing practices within LMIC research institutions is vital for the development of an Open Data landscape in the Global South. Nonetheless, many LMICs have significant challenges - resource provision, research support and extra-laboratory infrastructures. These low-resourced environments shape data sharing activities, but are rarely examined within Open Data discourse. In particular, little attention is given to how these research environments shape scientists' perceptions of data sharing (dis)incentives. This paper expands on these issues of incentivizing data sharing, using data from a quantitative survey disseminated to life scientists in 13 countries in sub-Saharan Africa. This interrogated not only perceptions of data sharing amongst LMIC scientists, but also how these are connected to the research environments and daily challenges experienced by them. The paper offers a series of analysis around commonly cited (dis)incentives such as data sharing as a means of improving research visibility; sharing and funding; and online connectivity. It identifies key areas that the Open Data community need to consider if true openness in research is to be established in the Global South.

Attitudes of research participants and the general public towards genomic data sharing: a systematic literature review.

AIM: Introducing data sharing practices into the genomic research arena has challenged the current mechanisms established to protect rights of individuals and triggered policy considerations. To inform such policy deliberations, soliciting public and research participants' attitudes with respect to genomic data sharing is a necessity. METHOD: The main electronic databases were searched in order to retrieve empirical studies, investigating the attitudes of research participants and the public towards genomic data sharing through public databases. RESULTS: In the 15 included studies, participants' attitudes towards genomic data sharing revealed the influence of a constellation of interrelated factors, including the personal perceptions of controllability and sensitivity of data, potential risks and benefits of data sharing at individual and social level and also governance level considerations. CONCLUSION: This analysis indicates that future policy responses and recruitment practices should be attentive to a wide variety of concerns in order to promote both responsible and progressive research.