Search

Two essential questions for those leading the field of public administration are: What do we teach our students, and how do we train them? As scholars, we pay significant attention to our research, often to the detriment of recognizing the potential for merging our research with teaching through the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL). However, given our students' leadership positions, SoTL-related work is vital to their success. In this article, we have come together to reflect on the state of SoTL's work in public administration. Through this reflection, we explore the windows of opportunity for research that we see emerging. Included among these opportunities is the need for research on how we can best serve students in and out of the classroom, as well as research the most effective way of managing our programs. We also see the need for research into faculty development, instructional design, and the return on investment for a public administration degree. Lastly, we argue for improved recognition of the value and contribution of SoTL-related work in tenure and promotion standards.

Background Access to sample-level metadata is important when selecting public metagenomic sequencing datasets for reuse in new biological analyses. The Standards, Precautions, and Advances in Ancient Metagenomics community (SPAAM, https://spaam-community.org) has previously published AncientMetagenomeDir, a collection of curated and standardised sample metadata tables for metagenomic and microbial genome datasets generated from ancient samples. However, while sample-level information is useful for identifying relevant samples for inclusion in new projects, Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) library construction and sequencing metadata are also essential for appropriately reprocessing ancient metagenomic data. Currently, recovering information for downloading and preparing such data is difficult when laboratory and bioinformatic metadata is heterogeneously recorded in prose-based publications. Methods Through a series of community-based hackathon events, AncientMetagenomeDir was updated to provide standardised library-level metadata of existing and new ancient metagenomic samples. In tandem, the companion tool 'AMDirT' was developed to facilitate rapid data filtering and downloading of ancient metagenomic data, as well as improving automated metadata curation and validation for AncientMetagenomeDir. Results AncientMetagenomeDir was extended to include standardised metadata of over 6000 ancient metagenomic libraries. The companion tool 'AMDirT' provides both graphical- and command-line interface based access to such metadata for users from a wide range of computational backgrounds. We also report on errors with metadata reporting that appear to commonly occur during data upload and provide suggestions on how to improve the quality of data sharing by the community. Conclusions Together, both standardised metadata reporting and tooling will help towards easier incorporation and reuse of public ancient metagenomic datasets into future analyses.

Forensic DNA kinship investigation involves analyzing genetic relationships between individuals to offer new leads for solving (cold) cases. Familial DNA matching has become a valuable asset in criminal case investigations, especially when traditional DNA methods hit dead ends. However, concerns surrounding ethical and privacy implications raised questions about its implementation and acceptance among the general public. The present study investigated the public perspectives regarding forensic DNA kinship investigations among 1710 Dutch-speaking Belgians using an online cross-sectional survey. The questionnaire consisted of three categories, including personal information, DNA knowledge, and their opinion on several familial DNA searching and investigative genetic genealogy related questions. The participants' average DNA knowledge score was 71 %, indicating a relatively high level of understanding of DNA-related concepts. Remarkably, the study revealed that 92 % of the participants expressed willingness to cooperate as a volunteer in a forensic DNA kinship investigation, irrespective of their scientific background or educational level. Key factors influencing participation included assurance of painless sampling and robust privacy safeguards. Participants lacking familiarity with DNA hesitated more towards participating in forensic DNA analysis, referring to ''the fear of the unknown''. Despite ethical and privacy concerns, the highly positive attitude towards forensic DNA analysis reflects a level of empathy and willingness to contribute to the pursuit of justice. Nearly all participants (95 %) agreed to use online DNA databases for resolving violent crimes with forensic genetic genealogy, but half emphasized the need for prior informed consent, referring to the current “opt-in” system. The results underscore the need for stringent regulations and ethical oversight to ensure the responsible use of genetic data while striking a balance between public safety and the protection of individuals' privacy rights. These findings add to the growing body of evidence regarding the potential benefits of forensic DNA kinship matching as a tool in criminal investigations, suggesting its potential future utilization and legalization.

Changes in the clinical trials landscape have been driven by advancements in digital technology. The use of electronic informed consent to inform research participants and to obtain their consent electronically has the potential to improve participant–researcher interactions over time, facilitate clinical trial participation, and increase efficiency in clinical trial conduct. A personalized electronic informed consent platform that enables long-term interactions with the research team could function as a tool to empower participant engagement in clinical trials. However, significant challenges persist impeding successful and widespread implementation. This Perspective provides insights into the opportunities and challenges for the implementation of electronic informed consent in clinical trials. It sets out key recommendations to promote the implementation of this innovative approach to the informed consent process, including the creation of uniform electronic informed consent platforms at regional and national level.

BackgroundOver the years, there has been increasing interest in electronic informed consent (eIC) in clinical research. The user-friendliness of an eIC application and its acceptance by stakeholders plays a central role in achieving successful implementation. ObjectiveThis study aims to identify insights for the design and implementation of a user-friendly, personalized, and long-term eIC application based on a usability study with (potential) research participants and semistructured interviews with stakeholders on the practical integration of such an application into their daily practice. MethodsAn eIC prototype was evaluated and refined through usability testing among Belgian citizens and iterative redesign. On the basis of a digital literacy questionnaire, a heterogeneous sample of participants was established. Participants needed to complete a series of usability tasks related to personalization and long-term interaction with the research team while using the “think aloud” technique. In addition, usability tests involved completing the System Usability Scale questionnaire and taking part in a semistructured feedback interview. Furthermore, semistructured interviews were conducted with ethics committee members, health care professionals, and pharmaceutical industry representatives active in Belgium and involved in clinical research. Thematic analysis was undertaken using the NVivo software (Lumivero). ResultsIn total, 3 iterations of usability tests were conducted with 10 participants each. Each cycle involved some participants who reported having low digital skills. The System Usability Scale scores related to the tasks on personalization and long-term interaction increased after each iteration and reached 69.5 (SD 8.35) and 71.3 (SD 16.1) out of 100, respectively, which represents above-average usability. Semistructured interviews conducted with health care professionals (n=4), ethics committee members (n=8), and pharmaceutical industry representatives (n=5) identified the need for an eIC system that can be easily set up. For example, a library could be established enabling stakeholders to easily provide background information about a clinical study, presented in the second layer of the interface. In contrast, some functionalities, such as informing participants about new studies through an eIC system, were not considered useful by stakeholders. ConclusionsThis study provides insights for the implementation of a user-friendly personalized and long-term eIC application. The study findings showed that usability testing is key to assessing and increasing the user-friendliness of an eIC application. Although this eIC system has the potential to be usable by a wide audience, participants with low digital literacy may not be able to use it successfully, highlighting the need for additional support for participants or other alternatives to an eIC system. In addition, key lessons emerging from the interviews included ensuring that the application is easy to implement in practice and is interoperable with other established systems.

In this Commentary, we argue that in line with the dramatic increase in the collection, storage, and curation of human genomic data for biomedical research, genomic data repositories and consortia have adopted governance frameworks to address the dual objectives of enabling wide access while protecting against possible harms. However, there are ongoing debates in the scientific community about the merits and limitations of different governance frameworks in achieving these twin aims; and indeed, best practices and points for consideration are notably absent when it comes to devising a governance framework for genomic databases. Based on our collective experience of devising and assessing governance frameworks, our Commentary identifies five key functions of “good governance” (or what makes “better governance”) and three areas where trade-offs should be considered when specifying policies within those functions. We apply these functions as a benchmark to describe, as an example, the governance frameworks of six large-scale international genomic projects.

Abstract Background Studying the contribution of individual countries to leading journals in a specific discipline can highlight which countries have the most impact on that discipline and whether a geographic bias exists. This article aims to examine the international distribution of publications in the field of bioethics. Methods Retrospective quantitative study of nine peer reviewed journals in the field of bioethics and medical ethics (Bioethics, Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, Hastings Center Report, Journal of Clinical Ethics, Journal of Medical Ethics, Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, Nursing Ethics, Christian Bioethics, and Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics). Results In total, 4,029 articles published between 1990 and 2003 were retrieved from the nine bioethical journals under study. The United States (59.3%, n = 2390), the United Kingdom (13.5%, n = 544), Canada (4%, n = 160) and Australia (3.8%, n = 154) had the highest number of publications in terms of absolute number of publications. When normalized to population size, smaller affluent countries, such as New Zealand, Finland and Sweden were more productive than the United States. The number of studies originating from the USA was decreasing in the period between 1990 and 2003. Conclusion While a lot of peer reviewed journals in the field of bioethics profile themselves as international journals, they certainly do not live up to what one would expect from an "international" journal. The fact that English speaking countries, and to a larger extent American authors, dominate the international journals in the field of bioethics is a clear geographic bias towards the bioethical discussions that are going on in these journals.

The use of smartphones has greatly increased in the last decade and has revolutionized the way that health data are being collected and shared. Mobile applications leverage the ubiquity and technological sophistication of modern smartphones to record and process a variety of metrics relevant to human health, including behavioral measures, clinical data, and disease symptoms. Information processed by mobile applications may have significant utility for increasing biomedical knowledge, both through conventional research and emerging discovery paradigms such as citizen science. However, the ways in which smartphone-collected data may be used in nontraditional modes of biomedical discovery are not well understood, such as using data to train artificially intelligent algorithms and for product development purposes. This paper argues that the use of mobile health data for algorithm training and product development is (a) likely to become a prominent fixture in medicine, (b) likely to raise significant ethical and legal challenges, and (c) warrants immediate scrutiny by policymakers and scholars. We introduce the concept of “smartphone-crowdsourced medical data,” or SCMD, and set out a broad research agenda for addressing concerns associated with this new and potentially momentous practice. We conclude that SCMD for algorithm training raises a number of ethical and legal issues which require further scholarly attention to ensure that individual interests are protected and that emerging health information sources can be used in ways that maximally, and safely, promote medical innovation.

Abstract Background Electronic informed consent (eIC) may offer various advantages compared to paper-based informed consent. However, the regulatory and legal landscape related to eIC provides a diffuse image. By drawing from the perspectives of key stakeholders in the field, this study aims to inform the creation of a European guidance framework on eIC in clinical research. Methods Focus group discussions and semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 participants from six stakeholder groups. The stakeholder groups included representatives of ethics committees, data infrastructure organizations, patient organizations, and the pharmaceutical industry as well as investigators and regulators. All were involved in or knowledgeable about clinical research and were active in one of the European Union Member States or at a pan-European or global level. The framework method was used for data analysis. Results Stakeholders underwrote the need for a multi-stakeholder guidance framework addressing practical elements related to eIC. According to the stakeholders, a European guidance framework should describe consistent requirements and procedures for implementing eIC on a pan-European level. Generally, stakeholders agreed with the definitions of eIC issued by the European Medicines Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration. Nevertheless, it was raised that, in a European guidance framework, it should be emphasized that eIC aims to support rather than replace the personal interaction between research participants and the research team. In addition, it was believed that a European guidance framework should include details on the legality of eIC across European Union Member States and the responsibilities of an ethics committee in the eIC assessment process. Although stakeholders supported the idea to include detailed information on the type of eIC-related materials to be submitted to an ethics committee, opinions varied on this regard. Conclusion The creation of a European guidance framework is a much needed factor to advance eIC implementation in clinical research. By collecting the views of multiple stakeholder groups, this study advances recommendations that may facilitate the development of such a framework. Particular consideration should go to harmonizing requirements and providing practical details related to eIC implementation on a European Union-wide level.

Abstract Background The development of technological applications in clinical research, such as electronic informed consent (eIC), is on the rise. The involvement of end users throughout the design process of eIC is of utmost importance to improve the current informed consent process. Methods Using a provocative design, we conducted interviews with 30 clinical research participants. Provotypes were used as a starting base to discuss various aspects relevant to eIC. By providing a medium to encourage divergent thinking, participants’ views and concerns were solicited. Thematic analysis was undertaken using NVivo. Results The majority of participants placed trust in the principal investigator or the hospital to perform the role of eIC hosting party. Differing opinions were reported on the amount of information required related to stakeholders’ access to an eIC system, and thus, to participants’ personal data, to enable trust in an eIC system. Nevertheless, this study indicates a general willingness of participants to share personal data with physicians and pharmaceutical companies on an international level, and to receive requests for new research studies via an eIC system. Participants suggested to tailor an eIC system based upon their preferences, for example, regarding whom they want to share their personal data with. Moreover, they expressed a desire to choose how they can contact the research team, and to indicate which study-related information they would like to receive electronically. In addition, positive opinions were voiced on the integration of a test to assess participants’ understanding before providing their eIC. Conclusions Following a research through design approach, insights have been generated which inform the design of eIC. Provotypes were designed to help participants think beyond what is familiar to them. Study findings revealed that not all situations were perceived as provocative, because of participants’ motivation to advance scientific research and the trust they place in the research team. Nevertheless, the use of provocative design resulted in additional insights, generated by clinical research participants, which could be considered in the further design of eIC.

Abstract Background Anaplastic large cell lymphoma positive for ALK (ALK+ ALCL) is a rare type of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. This lymphoma is caused by chromosomal translocations involving the anaplastic lymphoma kinase gene (ALK). In this study, we aimed to identify mechanisms of transformation and therapeutic targets by generating a model of ALK+ ALCL lymphomagenesis ab initio with the specific NPM-ALK fusion. Methods We performed CRISPR/Cas9-mediated genome editing of the NPM-ALK chromosomal translocation in primary human activated T lymphocytes. Results Both CD4+ and CD8+ NPM-ALK-edited T lymphocytes showed rapid and reproducible competitive advantage in culture and led to in vivo disease development with nodal and extra-nodal features. Murine tumors displayed the phenotypic diversity observed in ALK+ ALCL patients, including CD4+ and CD8+ lymphomas. Assessment of transcriptome data from models and patients revealed global activation of the WNT signaling pathway, including both canonical and non-canonical pathways, during ALK+ ALCL lymphomagenesis. Specifically, we found that the WNT signaling cell surface receptor ROR2 represented a robust and genuine marker of all ALK+ ALCL patient tumor samples. Conclusions In this study, ab initio modeling of the ALK+ ALCL chromosomal translocation in mature T lymphocytes enabled the identification of new therapeutic targets. As ROR2 targeting approaches for other cancers are under development (including lung and ovarian tumors), our findings suggest that ALK+ ALCL cases with resistance to current therapies may also benefit from ROR2 targeting strategies.

Data infrastructures are being constructed to facilitate cohort data sharing. These infrastructures are anticipated to increase the rate of data sharing. However, the lack of data sharing has also been framed as being the consequence of the lack of reputational or financial incentives for sharing. Some initiatives try to confer value onto data sharing by making researchers' individual contributions to research visible (i.e., contributorship) or by quantifying the degree to which research data has been shared (e.g., data indicators). So far, the role of downstream evaluation and funding distribution systems for reputational incentives remains underexplored. This interview study documents the perspectives of members of funding agencies on, amongst other elements, incentives for data sharing. Funding agencies are adopting narrative CVs to encourage evaluation of diverse research outputs and display diversity in researchers' profiles. This was argued to diminish the focus on quantitative indicators of scientific productivity. Indicators related to open science dimensions may be reintroduced if they are fully developed. Shifts towards contributorship models for research outputs are seen as complementary to narrative review.

Although Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) has increased our ability to test and diagnose, its results are often not clear-cut and require a complex interpretation and negotiation process by both healthcare professionals and patients involved. In this paper, we explore how diagnoses identified through NGS are socially shaped under influence of the broader social context. Using an analytical framework stemming from the sociology of health and illness and science and technology studies, with a focus on the construction of diagnosis and the role of uncertainty in medicine, we analyze the existing corpus of literature on NGS diagnostic practices. We show how in this early implementation phase of NGS, in which standardization efforts are not yet solidified, the boundary struggles around diagnoses obtained through NGS are particularly visible. We discuss the different steps in the diagnosis shaping process and what it subsequently entails to give and a receive a diagnosis using NGS.

Abstract Background Current preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) technologies enable embryo genotyping across the whole genome. This has led to the development of polygenic risk scoring of human embryos (PGT-P). Recent implementation of PGT-P, including screening for intelligence, has been extensively covered by media reports, raising major controversy. Considering the increasing demand for assisted reproduction, we evaluated how information about PGT-P is communicated in press media and explored the diversity of ethical themes present in the public debate. Methods LexisNexis Academic database and Google News were searched to identify articles about polygenic embryo screening. This led to 535 news articles. 59 original articles met the inclusion criteria. Inductive content analysis was used to analyse these articles. Results 8.8% of articles gave embryo polygenic scoring a positive portrayal, while 36.8% expressed a negative attitude. 54.4% were neutral, mostly highlighting limited practical value of the technology in in vitro fertilization settings. We identified five main ethical themes that are also present in academic literature and the broader debate on reproductive technologies: a slippery slope towards designer babies, well-being of the child and parents, impact on society, deliberate choice and societal readiness. Conclusions Implementation of embryo polygenic profiling engenders a need for specific recommendations. Current media analysis discloses important ethical themes to consider when creating future guidelines for PGT-P.

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic brought global disruption to health, society and economy, including to the conduct of clinical research. In the European Union (EU), the legal and ethical framework for research is complex and divergent. Many challenges exist in relation to the interplay of the various applicable rules, particularly with respect to compliance with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). This study aimed to gain insights into the experience of key clinical research stakeholders [investigators, ethics committees (ECs), and data protection officers (DPOs)/legal experts working with clinical research sponsors] across the EU and the UK on the main challenges related to data protection in clinical research before and during the pandemic.Materials and methodsThe study consisted of an online survey and follow-up semi-structured interviews. Data collection occurred between April and December 2021. Survey data was analyzed descriptively, and the interviews underwent a framework analysis.Results and conclusionIn total, 191 respondents filled in the survey, of whom fourteen participated in the follow-up interviews. Out of the targeted 28 countries (EU and UK), 25 were represented in the survey. The majority of stakeholders were based in Western Europe. This study empirically elucidated numerous key legal and ethical issues related to GDPR compliance in the context of (cross-border) clinical research. It showed that the lack of legal harmonization remains the biggest challenge in the field, and that it is present not only at the level of the interplay of key EU legislative acts and national implementation of the GDPR, but also when it comes to interpretation at local, regional and institutional levels. Moreover, the role of ECs in data protection was further explored and possible ways forward for its normative delineation were discussed. According to the participants, the pandemic did not bring additional legal challenges. Although practical challenges (for instance, mainly related to the provision of information to patients) were high due to the globally enacted crisis measures, the key problematic issues on (cross-border) health research, interpretations of the legal texts and compliance strategies remained largely the same.

BackgroundOwing to the infectious nature of COVID-19, alternative solutions, such as electronic informed consent (eIC), needed to be implemented to inform research participants about study-related information and to obtain their consent. This study aimed to investigate stakeholders’ experiences with alternative consenting methods as well as their views on any regulatory or legal guidelines for eIC implementation in clinical research. Results may serve as the cornerstone to rethink the informed consent process in clinical research.Materials and methodsThis study consisted of an online survey among three stakeholder groups across European Union (EU) Member States and the United Kingdom. The stakeholder groups included (i) investigators, (ii) data protection officers (DPOs) or legal experts working in the pharmaceutical industry, academia, and academic biobanks, and (iii) ethics committee (EC) members. Data collection occurred between April and December 2021. The data collected were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics.ResultsThe online survey was completed by 191 respondents, of whom 52% were investigators. Respondents were active in 24 out of the 27 EU Member States and the United Kingdom. The majority of each stakeholder group considered validated electronic methods moderately or extremely useful to re-consent previously enrolled research participants upon study amendments or to obtain consent from COVID-19 patients. Nevertheless, this exploratory survey identified that only 13% of DPOs/legal experts, 26% of investigators, and 41% of EC members had experience with eIC. In addition, results suggest that the legal acceptance of eIC across EU Member States and the United Kingdom is variable and that a definition of eIC, issued by national law or policy, is rarely available. The results also showed that the COVID-19 pandemic brought additional challenges to inform participants and to obtain their consent; for example, related to travel restrictions.ConclusionA number of alternative consenting methods were recommended, for example by the European Medicines Agency, to ensure clinical study continuation during the COVID-19 pandemic. Although stakeholders support the use of eIC in clinical research, it seems that the experience with eIC is low. To harmonize eIC practices as much as possible, further investments in multi-stakeholder, multi-national guidance are needed.

Abstract Background The landscape of clinical research has evolved over the past decade. With technological advances, the practice of using electronic informed consent (eIC) has emerged. However, a number of challenges hinder the successful and widespread deployment of eIC in clinical research. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the views of various stakeholders on the potential advantages and challenges of eIC. Methods Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 39 participants from 5 stakeholder groups from across 11 European countries. The stakeholder groups included physicians, patient organization representatives, regulator representatives, ethics committee members, and pharmaceutical industry representatives, and all were involved in clinical research. Interviews were analyzed using the framework method. Results Interviewees identified that a powerful feature of eIC is its personalized approach as it may increase participant empowerment. However, they identified several ethical and practical challenges, such as ensuring research participants are not overloaded with information and offering the same options to research participants who would prefer a paper-based informed consent rather than eIC. According to the interviewees, eIC has the potential to establish efficient long-term interactions between the research participants and the research team in order to keep the participants informed during and after the study. Interviewees emphasized that a personal interaction with the research team is of utmost importance and this cannot be replaced by an electronic platform. In addition, interviewees across the stakeholder groups supported the idea of having a harmonized eIC approach across the European Member States. Conclusions Interviewees reported a range of design and implementation challenges which needs to be overcome to foster innovation in informing research participants and obtaining their consent electronically. It was considered important that the implementation of eIC runs alongside the face-to-face contact between research participants and the research team. Moreover, interviewees expect that eIC could offer the opportunity to enable a personalized approach and to strengthen continuous communication over time. If successfully implemented, eIC may facilitate the engagement of research participants in clinical research.

Objective This study aimed to provide recommendations for a personalized electronic informed consent interface that is adapted to research participants’ needs and could enable a longitudinal interaction between the participants and the research team. Methods The co-creation process consisted of three co-creation workshops, one focus group discussion, and four semi-structured interviews. In total, 24 participants, who had taken part in four disparate clinical studies in Belgium, were involved. Descriptive statistics and qualitative content analysis were applied to analyze the survey data and audio recordings. Results Varying perceptions on the type and amount of information described in an informed consent form were reported. Other findings were related to the structure and presentation of information, setting preferences for data sharing, and electronically signing new informed consent versions. Regarding the long-term interaction, most of the participants wanted to receive progress updates, including the results, of the study in which they had taken part. They proposed to receive a notification, preferably via email, in case new information is made available on the electronic informed consent interface. Conclusions To optimally support the design of an electronic informed consent interface, it is key to understand the research participants’ needs. Study findings suggest that an electronic informed consent interface may be a promising technological application to interactively provide study-related information and to keep participants informed during and after the clinical study.

Measurement(s) genome • Metagenome • Metadata • Ancient DNA Technology Type(s) digital curation Factor Type(s) geographic location • sample age Machine-accessible metadata file describing the reported data: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.13241537

BackgroundRapid technological advancements are reshaping the conduct of clinical research. Electronic informed consent (eIC) is one of these novel advancements, allowing to interactively convey research-related information to participants and obtain their consent. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the importance of establishing a digital, long-distance relationship between research participants and researchers. However, the regulatory landscape in the European Union (EU) is diverse, posing a legal challenge to implement eIC in clinical research. Therefore, this study takes the necessary steps forward by providing an overview of the current regulatory framework in the EU, relevant to eIC.MethodsWe reviewed and analyzed the key EU regulations, such as the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Clinical Trials Regulation (CTR). We investigated the legality of eIC in several EU Member States, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. To this end, we contacted the medicines agencies of various countries to clarify the national requirements related to the implementation and use of eIC in clinical research. Our research was complemented by comparing the legal acceptance of eIC between the EU and the United States.ResultsIn the EU, a distinction must be made between eIC for participation in clinical research and eIC for processing the participants’ personal data, complying respectively with requirements laid down by the CTR and the GDPR. On a national level, countries were classified into three groups: (1) countries accepting and regulating the use of eIC, (2) countries accepting the use of eIC without explicitly regulating it, and (3) countries not accepting the use of eIC. As a result, the regulation of eIC through laws and guidelines shows a large variety among EU Member States, while in the United States, it is harmonized through the Code of Federal Regulations.ConclusionVarious requirements must be considered when implementing eIC in clinical research. Nevertheless, requirements across the EU Member States may differ significantly, whereas, in the United States, efforts have already been made to achieve a harmonized approach.

Clinic is a health service facility that organizes individual health services that provide basic and/or specialist medical services. Primary Clinic (Klinik Pratama) is a Clinic that organizes basic medical services both general and specific. To establish a Klinik Pratama so that it can operate through a series of licensing processes namely Nuisance/Hinder Ordonnantie Permit (HO), Establishment Permit Clinic (IMK) and Clinical Operating Permit (IOK). The results of this process are overlapping or repetitive requirements, making the process ineffective and inefficient. This research is intended to analyze the dispute on health facility licensing in Padang City, West Sumatra. This paper analyzes overlapping of clinical licensing. The main problems that analyzed in this paper concerning to analyze and review clinical licensing, analyze licensing regulations at the Padang City level as a basis for recommendations on simplification, deletion and merging of licenses by the Padang City Government.

BackgroundThe European Commission is funding projects that aim to establish data-sharing platforms. These platforms are envisioned to enhance and facilitate the international sharing of cohort data. Nevertheless, broad data sharing may be restricted by the lack of adequate recognition for those who share data. ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to describe in depth the concerns about acquiring credit for data sharing within epidemiological research. MethodsA total of 17 participants linked to European Union–funded data-sharing platforms were recruited for a semistructured interview. Transcripts were analyzed using inductive content analysis. ResultsInterviewees argued that data sharing within international projects could challenge authorship guidelines in multiple ways. Some respondents considered that the acquisition of credit for articles with extensive author lists could be problematic in some instances, such as for junior researchers. In addition, universities may be critical of researchers who share data more often than leading research. Some considered that the evaluation system undervalues data generators and specialists. Respondents generally looked favorably upon alternatives to the current evaluation system to potentially ameliorate these issues. ConclusionsThe evaluation system might impede data sharing because it mainly focuses on first and last authorship and undervalues the contributor’s work. Further movement of crediting models toward contributorship could potentially address this issue. Appropriate crediting mechanisms that are better aligned with the way science ought to be conducted in the future need to be developed.