Search

The Athlete Biological Passport (ABP) relies on the longitudinal monitoring of blood and urine variables impacted by doping use. Since the introduction of the Haematological Module of ABP, ...

Data sharing: interests, impediments and restrictions. The sharing of data is of increasing importance. Data sharing platforms are currently built, aiming to make data more findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable. These platforms are, however, unable to address non-technical factors that may influence data sharing. Various factors, such as the desire to avoid reputational damage, ensuring a correct interpretation of data, loss of control, short-term grant cycles, the opportunity costs of data sharing, faulty recognition systems that do not reward the production of high-quality data itself, ethical and legal restrictions, can constitute impediments for data sharing. The role that platforms fulfill, will depend on the common vision on the fundamental rules surrounding data sharing and scientific competition. If a system of collective ownership is pursued, including guaranteed access to data under specific circumstances, an appropriate science policy should undergird data sharing platforms.

BACKGROUND The 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. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study is to describe in depth the concerns about acquiring credit for data sharing within epidemiological research. METHODS A 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. RESULTS Interviewees 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. CONCLUSIONS The 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.

The fight against doping in sport is internationally coordinated by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). Through its World Anti-Doping Code, WADA aims to harmonize anti-doping policies, rules and regulations. One key reference document bound to the Code is the International Standard for Laboratories (ISL), which mainly specifies the criteria that must be met for laboratory accreditation, as well as standards to adopt for the production of valid test results and evidentiary data. Within the ISL, the Code of Ethics refers to the Helsinki Declaration as a guiding framework for anti-doping research. However, inasmuch as anti-doping research structurally differs from human subject research as considered by the Helsinki Declaration, the applicability of the latter to anti-doping research can be called into question. In this work, we discuss how key principles of the Helsinki Declaration apply to anti-doping research and highlight frictions, incompatibilities and misalignments. Furthermore, we indicate possible solutions for operationalizing the Helsinki principles within the context of anti-doping research. ispartof: ACCOUNTABILITY IN RESEARCH-POLICIES AND QUALITY ASSURANCE vol:27 issue:4 pages:179-194 ispartof: location:United States status: published

Background. The World Anti-Doping Agency is the international body coordinating anti-doping efforts, with the mandate of harmonizing anti-doping policy worldwide. With novel performance-enhancing compounds continuously entering the market, research is necessary to develop appropriate methods for their detection. WADA-accredited laboratories are required to spend 7% of their annual budget on this research and need to obtain ethics approval for studies involving human participants. Nevertheless, these labs may face difficulties in obtaining ethics approval for anti-doping research due to its distinct differences from traditional biomedical research. Therefore, our aim was to investigate potential difficulties in obtaining ethics approval for anti-doping research.Methods. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with stakeholders in anti-doping research to investigate their experiences toward the ethics review process of their research proposals. Interviews were transcribed, de-identified, coded and analyzed.Results. The interviews indicated that large discrepancies in the evaluation of anti-doping research proposals exist. A majority of the laboratories could not acquire ethics approval for the administration of substances not approved for medical use. Some laboratories faced obstacles to obtain ethics approval for substances approved for clinical use. Respondents communicated that ethics committees often lack background knowledge about the anti-doping context.Conclusions. Disapproval of research proposals may originate from concerns over the safety of the study, the fact that there is seldom a direct benefit to the participant, the consideration that volunteers may be incentivized to use prohibited substances, a lack of background knowledge about anti-doping, or the focus of research ethics committees on health research. ispartof: AJOB Empir Bioeth vol:11 issue:2 pages:125-133 ispartof: location:United States status: published

Doping control samples may be used for research purposes by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA)-accredited laboratories after their compulsory storage period has expired. This study investigates opinions of stakeholders toward the governance of antidoping research on these samples and to evaluate the current framework. Semistructured interviews were conducted with stakeholders in antidoping research. The distinction between research and quality assurance in the International Standard for Laboratories (ISL) is neither well-understood nor interpreted uniformly by WADA-accredited labs. Most laboratories would not seek ethics approval for research on doping control samples. Interviewees considered that athletes should be better informed on what antidoping research can entail. A consistent and uniform approach toward the consent should be employed worldwide. Standards and safeguards should be implemented to reduce the risk of reidentification. Centralization of the Informed Consent Form in the ADAMS (Anti-Doping Administration & Management System) database would facilitate providing more information and allow the implementation of the right to withdraw. ispartof: JOURNAL OF EMPIRICAL RESEARCH ON HUMAN RESEARCH ETHICS vol:14 issue:3 pages:254-261 ispartof: location:United States status: published

The Athlete Biological Passport (ABP) refers to the collection of data related to an individual athlete. The ABP contains the Haematological Module and the Steroidal Module, which are used for the longitudinal monitoring of variables in blood and urine, respectively. Based on changes in these variables, a statistical model detects outliers which indicate doping use and guide further targeted testing of the athlete. Presently, athletes can access their data of the Haematological Module in the Anti-Doping Administration and Management System (ADAMS). However, granting athletes access to this data has been a matter of debate within the anti-doping community. This article investigates whether an athlete has a right to access the contents of their ABP profile. We approached this discussion by comparing the nature of ABP data with that of forensic and medical data and touched on important concerns with ABP data disclosure to athletes such as potentially allowing for the development of alternative doping techniques to circumvent detection; and making athletes vulnerable to pressure by the media to publicly release their data. Furthermore, given that ABP data may contain medically relevant information that can be used to diagnose disease, athletes may over-interpret its medical significance and wrongly see it as a free health check. We argue that safeguarding the integrity of the ABP system must be seen as the most essential element and thus a departure from immediate data disclosure is necessary. Two different strategies for delayed data disclosure are proposed which diminish the chances of ABP data being misused to refine doping techniques.