Ethics and society review: Ethics reflection as a precondition to research funding

Researchers in areas as diverse as computer science and political science must increasingly navigate the possible risks of their research to society. However, the history of medical experiments on vulnerable individuals influenced many research ethics reviews to focus exclusively on risks to human subjects rather than risks to human society. We describe an Ethics and Society Review board (ESR), which fills this moral gap by facilitating ethical and societal reflection as a requirement to access grant funding: Researchers cannot receive grant funding from participating programs until the researchers complete the ESR process for their proposal. Researchers author an initial statement describing their proposed research’s risks to society, subgroups within society, and globally and commit to mitigation strategies for these risks. An interdisciplinary faculty panel iterates with the researchers to refine these risks and mitigation strategies. We describe a mixed-method evaluation of the ESR over 1 y, in partnership with a large artificial intelligence grant program at our university. Surveys and interviews of researchers who interacted with the ESR found 100% (95% CI: 87 to 100%) were willing to continue submitting future projects to the ESR, and 58% (95% CI: 37 to 77%) felt that it had influenced the design of their research project. The ESR panel most commonly identified issues of harms to minority groups, inclusion of diverse stakeholders in the research plan, dual use, and representation in datasets. These principles, paired with possible mitigation strategies, offer scaffolding for future research designs.

Identifying Potential Barriers and Solutions to Patient Partner Compensation (Payment) in Research

Research that engages patients on the research team is often supported by grant funding from different organizations and, in some cases, principal investigators (who control the grant funding) provide patient partners with compensation (or payment) for their contributions. However, we have noted a gap in resources that identify and address barriers to compensating patient partners. In this paper, we present thoughts and experiences related to barriers to compensating patient partners with the goal of helping individuals identify and find solutions to these obstacles.Based on our experiences as individuals who live with chronic conditions and are patient partners, and those who are researchers who engage patient partners, we have identified eight barriers to compensating patient partners. We discuss each of these barriers: lack of awareness about patient partnership, institutional inflexibility, policy guidance from funders, compensation not prioritized in research budgets, leadership hesitancy to create a new system, culture of research teams, preconceived beliefs about the skills and abilities of patient partners, and expectations placed on patient partners. We demonstrate these barriers with real life examples and we offer some solutions. To further demonstrate these barriers, we ask readers to reflect on some scenarios that present realistic parallel situations to those that patient partners face. The intention is to illustrate, through empathy or putting yourself in someone else’s shoes, how we might all do better with respect to institutional barriers related to patient partner compensation. Last, we issue a call to action to share resources and identify actions to overcome these barriers so we can create a resource hub.

Canadian Academics’ use of predatory journals

Introduction Predatory journals have been acknowledged as an increasing concern in the scholarly literature over the last decade, but research on the subject has been sparse. Research that has focused on predatory journals in the Canadian context has been even rarer, and limited to work focused on a single university. This study explores publishing trends in predatory journals by authors affiliated with Canadian Universities. Methods Articles published by authors at 30 Canadian universities, including all universities in the U15, were pulled from select predatory journals. Key data including author affiliation, article type, discipline, and grant information were extracted from the articles. Results All universities in the study were found to have publications in predatory journals. The health sciences accounted for 72% of the publications, and the sciences for 20%. Research articles accounted for 50% of the articles. Opinion, editorial, or commentary pieces accounted for 24% and 19% were review articles. Grant funding was indicated in 34% of the articles, with NSERC and CIHR being top funders. The research-intensive U15 universities were found to publish more in predatory journals than their non-U15 compatriots, even when the universities were of similar size. Discussion Canadian scholars were found to publish in predatory journals, particularly those scholars from the health sciences and research-intensive U15 universities. Grant funding was common, and often came from high profile funders like NSERC and CIHR. This exploratory suggests that policy and education initiatives may be warranted in Canadian contexts, especially in the health sciences and at research-intensive universities.

Key Principles in Ethical Data Analysis and Handling Conflicts of Interest

This chapter covers ethical issues in data analysis, such as p-hacking (massaging data until significant results emerge) and HARKing (hypothesizing after the results are known). The chapter also discusses conflicts of interest, including financial conflicts as well as unreasonable ambition, egotism, “publish or perish” pressures that academics face, and pressures to secure grant funding. Recommendations are provided for avoiding and managing these challenges. Having multiple people conducting analyses is suggested as one way to maximize the likelihood of ethical data analysis. The chapter also provides recommendations for journal editors, department and university administrators, and funding agencies for ensuring that they do not inadvertently incentivize unethical data analytic practices.

Political Gold: The Australian Sports Grants Scandal

The partisan allocation of public funds has a long history in Australian politics. Using a unique dataset, which allows us to distinguish the merit-based component of the funding decision from the politically based component, we examine the 2018–2019 Australian sports grants scandal. We find that local funding allocations for sports infrastructure were directed disproportionately to win marginal electorates and to reward loyal supporters. However, contrary to our expectations, we find virtually no electoral impact of the grants: those electorates that received more sporting grant funding were no more likely to swing in favour of the government in the 2019 election than electorates that received no funding. A straw poll of members of the House of Representatives suggests one possible explanation as to why pork-barrelling persists: parliamentarians tend to overestimate its electoral impact.

Final Results of a Phase 1/2 Study of SYK Inhibitor Entospletinib in Combination with Obinutuzumab in Patients with Relapsed/Refractory (R/R) Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL)

Therapeutic resistance and intolerance of Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors is an emerging need in CLL. SYK is integral to the activation of BTK and the B-cell receptor (BCR) signaling cascade and is overexpressed in CLL. We have shown that BAFF-mediated SYK activation triggered BCR signaling and rendered protection of CLL cells from spontaneous apoptosis in vitro. Single agent small molecule SYK inhibitor entospletinib was efficacious in treatment of patients with R/R CLL. Here we report final results of a single arm, open label, investigator-initiated phase 1/2 clinical trial which evaluated safety and efficacy of entospletinib in combination with obinutuzumab, a glycoengineered monoclonal anti-CD20 antibody, in patients with R/R CLL (NCT03010358). Patients enrolled in the Phase 1 dose-escalation portion of the trial included adults with CLL or non-Hodgkin lymphoma (Phase 1 part only) after ≥1 prior therapy. Patients were enrolled at 2 dose levels to receive entospletinib 200 or 400 mg twice-daily orally according to 3+3 design. The primary endpoint for the phase 1 portion of the study was to determine the RP2D of the combination. All patients received single agent entospletinib as part of a 7-day run-in. Thereafter, patients received entospletinib on days 1-28 of each 28-day cycle continuously, and obinutuzumab intravenously in standard doses for 6 cycles. Once the RP2D was determined, a phase 2 study enrolled patients with R/R CLL only, where complete response (CR) was the primary endpoint. A total of 24 patients (22 CLL, 2 follicular lymphoma) were enrolled. Twelve patients were enrolled in the phase 1 part of the study. The phase 2 part of the study included 17 patients with CLL. Of 6 patients who received entospletinib 200 mg on the Phase 1 part of the study, one patient experienced a DLT (grade 3 asymptomatic AST/ALT abnormalities) attributed to entospletinib. No DLTs were observed among the six patients who received entospletinib 400 mg. Thus, entospletinib 400 mg twice-daily was determined to be the RP2D in combination with obinutuzumab. Efficacy of entospletinib+obinutuzumab was analyzed in the 21 patients with CLL, of which 17 received entospletinib at RP2D (400 mg twice daily). Patients with CLL had a median age of 66 years. Thirteen patients (62%) had TP53 aberration (n=9), complex karyotype (n=6), or NOTCH1 or SF3B1 mutation. The median number of prior therapies was two (range, 1-6). Seven patients had received prior ibrutinib (4 patients discontinued due to intolerance and 2 due to progression). Median follow-up was 31 months. Among the 21 efficacy-evaluable participants with CLL, the ORR was 67% (95%CI, 43-85%). Three patients (14%, 95%CI 3-36%) achieved a CR, and 11 patients (53%) had a partial response (PR). patients with confirmed CR had undetectable MRD in the bone marrow. Median event-free survival was 27.5 months (95%CI: 16 months-NR), treatment duration - 31 months (95%CI: 27-40; Figure). Thirteen patients with high-risk CLL had an ORR of 54% (5 PRs and 2 CRs). Among the eight patients who had previously received kinase inhibitors, ORR was 62.5% (all PRs). Treatment-related adverse events were reported in 96% of patients (Table). Grade 3 or higher AEs occurred in 65%. Neutropenia (43.5%; including 4 patients [17%] who had transient grade 4 neutropenia attributed to obinutuzumab) was the most common grade ≥3 hematologic toxicity. The median onset of neutropenia was 7 days after the first obinutuzumab infusion, median duration was 28 days. Growth factor support was not required and grade ≥3 infection occurred in only 1 patient. Only one patient on study discontinued therapy due to adverse events (recurrent AST/ALT abnormalities which resolved upon cessation of entospletinib). Pharmacodynamic analysis demonstrated that treatment with entospletinib led to rapid downmodulation of pSTAT3 and the anti-apoptotic protein MCL1 in CLL cells. Furthermore, six months of combination therapy was accompanied by a reduction in IFNγ secretion in CD4 + T-cells and a reversal of exhausted phenotype, as evidenced by downregulation of PD-1. Thus, the combination of entospletinib and obinutuzumab shows an acceptable safety profile. Efficacy of this combination (EFS 27.5 months in predominantly high-risk population ) compares favorably with chlorambucil/obinutuzumab in R/R CLL (13 months), thus warranting continued exploration of the regimen. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Danilov: Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; SecuraBio: Research Funding; Bayer Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda Oncology: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers-Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Rigel Pharm: Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Spurgeon: Bristol Myers Squibb: Other: Institution: Research Grant/Funding; BeiGene: Other: Institution: Research Grant/Funding; AstraZeneca: Other: Institution: Research Grant/Funding; Acerta Pharma: Other: Institution: Research Grant/Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Institution: Research Grant/Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Other: Institution: Research Grant/Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Velos Bio: Consultancy, Other: Institution: Research Grant/Funding; Gilead Sciences: Other: Institution: Research Grant/Funding; Ionis: Other: Institution: Research Grant/Funding; Merck & Co., Inc.: Other: Institution: Research Grant/Funding; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board. Kittai: Abbvie: Consultancy; Bristol-Meyers Squibb: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy.