The Fragility of Scientific Rigour and Integrity in "Sped up Science": Research Misconduct, Bias, and Hype and in the COVID-19 Pandemic

During the early years of the COVID-19 pandemic, preclinical and clinical research were sped up and scaled up in both the public and private sectors and in partnerships between them. This resulted in some extraordinary advances, but it also raised a range of issues regarding the ethics, rigour, and integrity of scientific research, academic publication, and public communication. Many of the failures of scientific rigour and integrity that occurred during the pandemic were exacerbated by the rush to generate, disseminate, and implement research findings, which not only created opportunities for unscrupulous actors but also compromised the methodological, peer review, and advisory processes that would usually identify sub-standard research and prevent compromised clinical or policy-level decisions. While it would be tempting to attribute these failures of science and its translation solely to the "unprecedented" circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic, the reality is that they preceded the pandemic and will continue to arise once it is over. Existing strategies for promoting scientific rigour and integrity need to be made more rigorous, better integrated into research training and institutional cultures, and made more sophisticated. They might also need to be modified or supplemented with other strategies that are fit for purpose not only in public health emergencies but in any research that is sped-up and scaled up to address urgent unmet medical needs.

Dilemmas in the compassionate supply of investigational cancer drugs

In Australia, patients who want to access medicines that are not yet approved have only two options: to enroll in a clinical trial if they are eligible, or obtain their medicine through 'compassionate supply', which is provided at the discretion of the manufacturer. In this article, we explore ethical issues associated with the provision of oncology medicines that are still in development, either prior to regulatory approval or government reimbursement.

The strengths and limitations of empirical bioethics

The past two decades have been witness to an "empirical turn" in bioethics. Whereas once this field of study concerned itself purely with theoretical analysis of ethical issues emerging in the design and delivery of health care, increasingly bioethics has embraced a range of empirical research methods from the social sciences and humanities. The emergence of "empirical bioethics" has, however, been the subject of enormous debate, both in regard to its methods and its purpose. For the most part these criticisms fail to appreciate the assumptions that underpin empirical bioethics or misrepresent the claims that are made about its moral utility. This article provides a brief account of the assumptions, strengths and limitations of empirical bioethics.

Managing scientific uncertainty in health legislation

Legislation and regulation of biomedical research is seldom a one-off process since biomedical science evolves rapidly, dynamically and often unpredictably. This paper discusses the challenges faced by regulators who need to produce legislation and policy in rapidly changing fields and outlines some practical suggestions for managing law reform and policy-making under these circumstances.

Consent in crisis: the need to reconceptualize consent to tissue banking research

The issues surrounding consent to tissue banking research in Australia are complex and have created a forum of intense debate, thus providing a window of opportunity to critically appraise and challenge standard models of consent for research in general and for tissue banking research in particular. The usual practical difficulties associated with meeting the criteria for valid consent to research (including adequate information provision and voluntariness) are amplified in the case of tissue banking research. A number of models, based on widely accepted ethical principles, have been proposed to improve the process of obtaining consent to tissue banking research, all of which assume that the consent of individual tissue donors is needed to meet the criteria for valid consent. Feminist and communitarian theories use many of the same criteria for valid consent but interpret these criteria differently and de-emphasize the importance of individual autonomy as the central criterion for valid consent. An enriched model of consent incorporating feminist and communitarian ideas could satisfy the currently accepted criteria for valid consent while also furthering a broader range of community values.