PLoS Medicine

Data access and the NHS - more research versus patient privacy?

Submitted by Emma Veitch on Wed, 2008-11-19 11:00.

The Guardian's front page story from a couple of days ago ("NHS medical research plan threatens patient privacy") looks like it has generated some healthy and opinionated responses from readers, but the government consultation that led up to it has now closed. The story here is that the proposed UK National Health Service constitution - enshrining the principles and values of the NHS - contained, buried amongst other important stuff on issues such as access to services, quality of care, and informed choice, a crucial nugget which could change the way that medical researchers get access to patients' data.

( categories: )

"There's no easy way to say this. . ."

Submitted by Andrew Hyde on Sun, 2008-11-09 02:42.

A Health in Action paper published in PLoS Medicine recently describes the success of an innovative project called inSPOT – an e-card notification system that enables people who have been diagnosed with a sexually transmitted disease to inform their sexual partners that they may also be at risk.

( categories: | )

New version of the Declaration of Helsinki

Submitted by Virginia Barbour on Wed, 2008-11-05 05:28.

Last week the World Association of Medical Editors announced the new Declaration of Helsinki. This document, which was first drawn up in 1964, is essential reading for everyone doing research on human participants.

( categories: )

Guest blog by Richard Smith: More evidence on why we need radical reform of science publishing

Submitted by Andrew Hyde on Tue, 2008-10-07 08:57.

PLoS Medicine invited Richard Smith, former editor of the BMJ and
current board member of PLoS, to discuss an essay published this week by Neal Young, John Ioannidis and Omar Al-Ubaydli that argues that the current system of publication in biomedical research provides a distorted view of the reality of scientific data.

( categories: | )

UK sets out guidance on research misconduct

Submitted by Emma Veitch on Tue, 2008-09-16 10:06.

The US has its Office of Research Integrity (ORI), and many Nordic countries (for example, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden) have national bodies that respond to cases of scientific misconduct; but the UK, and very many other countries, have nothing similar. Now the UK Research Integrity Office (UKRIO) has released guidance about what to do in cases of suspected research misconduct for "all organisations engaged in research using funds from funders such as the Research Councils and other government bodies, as well as from charities, overseas funding bodies and the commercial sector". A PDF copy of the guidance can be downloaded here (PDF file).

( categories: )
Syndicate content