The work, which was based on Bianca’s Innovations Project unit results extends and improves existing methods for procedurally simulating decaying fruit for use in computer graphics and visual effects, focusing on artist directability and visual fidelity. As the resulting visuals are quite impressive, this project was also one of the ten submissions featured in the SIGGRAPH’18 posters preview video.
Of the 74 posters presented at this year’s SIGGRAPH conference, 16 submitted posters, including Bianca’s contribution (poster 74), were invited to the first round of the prestigious ACM Student Research Competition (SRC) sponsored by Microsoft. Bianca’s submission was one of only four European semi-finalists and of those the only one from a UK institution. After presenting the work to a panel of experts, the submission made it into the second round and after the ACM Student Research Competition Final Presentation it won first place in the undergraduate category.
Dr. Kevin Larson of Microsoft has agreed to give a talk on interdisciplinary research as part of his visit to the UK at Bournemouth University. For those who would be interested in attending, please contact Daniela Doncakova (email@example.com<mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>) to arrange a place at this lecture. The event will take place on 26/9/18 from 15:00.
The Department of Health and Human Services at the National Institutes of Health has announced a funding opportunity to provide a mechanism of support to research organizations interested in clinically translating already optimized quantitative imaging software tools capable of measuring or predicting the response of cancer to clinical therapies, or in translating imaging software tools for planning and validating radiation therapy treatment strategies in clinical trials. The proposed research effort should be an extension of the research that successfully completed the tasks of developing and optimizing the chosen software tools or data collection methods intended to facilitate clinical decision making during clinical trials.
Call opens : 5 January 2019
Call deadline : 5 February 2019
Award available : All direct costs not exceeding $500,000 each proposed year
The Innovator Awards support researchers who are transforming great ideas into digital healthcare innovations that could have a significant impact on human health. Individuals and teams from not-for-profit and commercial organisations can apply. Organisations can be of any size, based anywhere in the world.
Researchers working in any discipline and on any type of digital technology can apply. Examples of digital technologies include:
intelligent: artificial intelligence and machine learning
data driven: data analytics and informatics
immersive: virtual and augmented reality
connected: internet of things (IoT), networks and sensors.
Projects must be innovative, disruptive and address an unmet healthcare need or challenge.
Call opens : 1 October 2018
Call closes : 3 December 2018
Available funding : between £500,000 and £1million
Project duration : up to 2 years
Please see this link for more information about this call.
The Global Innovation Linkages program from the Australian Government provides Australian businesses and researchers with matched funding of up to $1 million per project to collaborate with global partners on strategically focused, leading-edge research and development.
Lead organisation eligibility
To be an eligible lead organisation you must:
have an Australian Business Number (ABN)
be registered for GST
Project partners must include at least:
one Australian industry entity and
one Australian research organisation and
one global partner.
Application deadline : 14 November 2018
Available funding : up to $1million per project
Grant period : Maximum four years
Please see this link for more information about this call.
This competition looks at 2 specific data-gathering techniques in local council services:
1.‘Boots on the ground’: enabling residents to collect and report accurate data about public assets, such as potholes and street lighting, to the local council.
2.‘Eyes on the street’: using local council vehicles to collect and report data as they travel around the borough.
Call opens : 24 September 2018
Call closes : 31 October 2018
Available funding : up to £50,000 (including VAT)
Project start date : by 7 Feb 2019
Please see this link for more information about this call.
2. Call for Carbon Capture and Utilisation Demonstration
As part of the government’s Clean Growth Strategy BEIS has allocated up to £20 million to design and construct carbon capture and utilisation (CCU) demonstration projects. This programme is designed to encourage industrial sites to capture carbon dioxide which could then be used in industrial applications, while enabling learning and development of capture technologies at an intermediate scale, so reducing costs and risks.
The overall aims of the CCU demonstration programme are:
to demonstrate carbon capture and utilisation at a number of key industrial sites in the UK
to demonstrate and accelerate cost reductions in carbon capture technology in the order of 20 to 45%, i.e. £10-20/MWh
to encourage a project pipeline of follow-on CCU projects that will help less mature, but more novel technology to be demonstrated at scale; and
to improve understanding of the cost and performance of carbon capture technology
to de-risk the capture technology.
The programme is in 3 phases:
Phase 1 focuses on initial scoping study for an engineering supplier to work on BEIS’ behalf with potential host sites, carbon dioxide users and technology suppliers to produce site-specific cost estimates for deploying CCU at UK industrial sites. Wood.Plc successfully bid for Phase 1
Phase 2 will fund projects to conduct design studies for constructing CCUequipment at UK host sites
Phase 3 will fund projects to construct and demonstrate CCU
The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) Defense Sciences Office (DSO) has issued a Disruption Opportunity (DO) Special Notice (SN) inviting submissions of innovative basic or applied research concepts in the technical domain of artificial intelligence and game theory. In particular, DARPA is interested in understanding the feasibility of applying recent developments in these areas to complex military decision making in changing multi-agent environments with imperfect information.
Please see below a summary of this funding opportunity:
Available funding: Phase 1 (Feasibility Study) – $500,000; Phase 2 (Proof of Concept) – $500,000
There are currently two calls available under the Policy Research Programme offered by the NIHR.
Call 1 : Infectious Disease Dynamic Modelling in Health Protection Call
The National Institute for Health Research Policy Research Programme (NIHR PRP) invites applications for the call: Infectious Disease Dynamic Modelling in Health Protection to address two key areas:
A stream of dynamical disease and health economic modelling relating to the national vaccination programme. This will provide an alternative or ‘second’ opinion to and run parallel with, that provided by Public Health England (PHE).
Modelling of other infectious diseases that lie outside the immunisation programme
This programme will provide a responsive dynamic resource to augment the analytical support currently provided within the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) and PHE, which contributes towards the development of infectious disease and immunisation.
Submission Deadline : 2 October 2018 (Stage 1); 22 January 2019 (Stage 2)
Submission outcome : December 2018 (Stage 1); May 2019 (Stage 2)
Call 2: Health Inequalities Research Initiative
The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Policy Research Programme (PRP) invites applications to undertake health inequalities research for the call: Health Inequalities Research Initiative to support policy makers in the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) in the following areas:
Assessing how to improve existing population wide policies aimed at improving health outcomes so that they so they also reduce health inequalities and/or do not exacerbate inequalities
Identifying which existing health system interventions that are specifically designed to reduce socio-economic health inequalities are effective and cost-effective
Assessing the effectiveness in reducing health inequalities of whole system approaches to improving the health of deprived communities;
Identifying opportunities and risks presented by advancements in digital technology, and practical measures to ensure such technology does not exacerbate socio-economic health inequalities
Submission Deadline : 2 October 2018 (Stage 1); 22 January 2019 (Stage 2)
Submission outcome : December 2018 (Stage 1); May 2019 (Stage 2)
Please see this link for more information about this call.
The new European Union Copyright Directive, passed recently by the European parliament after a vociferous campaign both for and against, has been described by its advocates as Europe striking a blow against US tech giants in the battle for control of copyrighted content online. This is painted as a battle about who pays for creative works, culture, and the role and workings of a free press in a world where these “commodities” are exchanged freely on social media and other platforms controlled by giants such as Google and Facebook.
The sense of this battle is found in two articles from the text of the new directive. Article 11 introduces the “press publishers’ right”, also called the “link tax”. This permits publishing groups such as newspapers and other media to charge online content sharing service providers and platforms – most obviously, Google, Facebook and Twitter – a fee for a licence to link to their content. Article 13 makes online content sharing service providers responsible for the copyright content uploaded by users. Large platforms must implement filters to monitor copyright infringements and obtain licences from music, film and television rights-holders for the use of copyright content where it appears on their services – YouTube and Instagram, for example. This has led to claims that the directive would effectively ban memes, because automated checking of uploads would identify them only as copyright material, rather than allowable “fair use” or “parody”.
Unsurprisingly, publishers and copyright industries across Europe have saluted the new law as a great victory of European culture and free press against the greedy American titans. But it is not this simple.
When companies like Google and Facebook started their ascent as global players in the mid-2000s, they benefited from a generally favourable legislative framework, made of legislative vacuum and liberal legislation. Thanks to the flexible contours of the “safe harbour” provisions for internet hosting services – which essentially immunises them from any liability for content uploaded by their users – YouTube rapidly became the main channel of distribution of music. Similarly, Facebook and Google News became major distributors of news (whether good, bad or “fake”).
The ascent of these companies was not without hurdles and challenges, including a chequered history of lawsuits from music, film and television companies against content-sharing platforms, and by press publishers against news aggregators, which eventually changed the legal contours of the hosting providers’ safe harbour in the European Union. As a result of these legal disputes, the tech firms have progressively adapted their business models from head-on challenge of copyright norms to adopting a more accommodating attitude towards copyright holders and press publishers.
So in this respect, what the new EU Copyright Directive now obliges the tech giants to do is largely what they do already. To be sure, it is an open question whether they pay enough for the privilege of making use of (and profiting from) all that content created by others. Admittedly, by obliging tech giants to pay press publishers and to obtain licences with copyright holders, the new directive may reduce their bargaining power with respect to the arrangements they must make with content creators, and therefore lead the copyright holders to increase their revenue share. This small (and largely uncertain) effect has some important consequences.
Take the directive’s article 13, which redefines the safe harbour for content-sharing providers. In effect, platforms like YouTube will be directly responsible for copyright content uploaded by their users (although they will continue to be shielded from direct liability for other wrongs committed by their users, such as defamation or hate speech). If this norm was in place ten or 15 years ago it would have prevented YouTube from becoming what it is today.
But now it is only good news for YouTube. The new directive will have little effect on its current business model (perhaps paying only a little more for contracts with copyright owners), but it will prevent others from challenging established firms’ dominant positions. Costs that for platforms like YouTube or Instagram today represent a small and ultimately insignificant portion of their profits are huge and potentially insurmountable barriers for new companies attempting to enter the market.
Only micro or small enterprises and non-commercial platforms – which are excluded from the effects of article 13 – will benefit from the same favourable legislative conditions that Facebook and Google experienced at the beginning of their career. But even these, as soon as they become more than start-ups, will have to operate in the same playing field as established giants – leaving them with no serious prospect of winning a substantial market share, challenging their dominance, or providing an outlet for innovation.
Quite the opposite from what was the intention, the Copyright Directive may ensure the current crop of tech giants retain their dominant position for a long time, possibly forever. Which one could say is not exactly bad news for them, and not exactly a victory for European creativity either.
BU has an agreement with Springer which enables its authors to publish articles open access in one of the Springer Open Choice journals at no additional cost.
There are hundreds of titles included in this agreement, some of which are – Hydrobiologia, European Journal of Nutrition, Annals of Biomedical Engineering, Climatic Change, Marine Biology and the Journal of Business Ethics. A full list of the journals included can be found here
To make sure that your article is covered by this new agreement, when your article has been accepted for publication, Springer will ask you to confirm the following:
My article has been accepted by an Open Choice eligible journal
I am the corresponding author (please use your institutional email address not your personal one)
I am affiliated with an eligible UK institution (select your institutions name)
My article matches one of these types: OriginalPaper, ReviewPaper, BriefCommunication or ContinuingEducation
Springer will then verify these details with us and then your article will be made available in open access with a CC BY licence.
Please note that 30 Open Choice journals are not included in this agreement as they do not offer CC BY licensing.
When I was in San Francisco, I was fortunate to not only be interviewed by the Bay Area Reporter, but also Alastair Gee interviewed me (who often writes in in the Guardian and The New Yorker). Alastair and I were in conversation for over two hours – outside the ‘Real World’ house – the place where Pedro Zamora had lived whilst filming the TV series, shortly before he died. Alastair mostly pressed me to explain my interest and connection with that particular location – ‘The Real World House’ – on Lombard Street, the most ‘crooked’ (winding) street in the world. The interview seemed more like a therapy session, where we also discussed the tragic event of the Orlando shooting incident that had occurred at Pulse Nightclub – just a few days before, where 49 people attracted to and/or part of the LGBT community were slain. Whilst Alastair didn’t eventually transform this interview into a published piece, this memory of the interview and the possible meaning of a particular place- relevant to research – still kind of ‘haunts me’.
Spin forward two years, and somehow, I am revisiting the notion of ‘place’, as I decided to launch my new book at the BGSQD bookshop, just a few yards from the now demolished St. Vincent’s hospital in Greenwich Village, New York. The reason for this was simple, in the book I hypothesize that the fictional hospital of ‘All Saints’ in Nurse Jackie was potentially inspired by ‘St Vincent’s’. This is not difficult to work out, as St Vincent’s was sold off after going bankrupt just a few years back, and then converted into luxury condominiums. Nurse Jackie references this, by ending the series with the closing of the fictional ‘All Saints’ hospital, where our (anti) heroine Jackie Peyton passes away just after the last patient leaves the building. Added to this Edie Falco the phenomenal actress who plays Nurse Jackie is a resident of New York, I believe living not that far from Greenwich Village.
So where does this leave us? I think as researchers we are haunted by notions of place, not only where we fit in the research, but where the research narrative is played out. Being near a place where there might be some emotional meaning in the research, connects us to our human condition. For me getting the chance to be near St. Vincent’s (or should I say where it used to be), was very moving indeed. Not only was this potentially the inspiration for the setting of Nurse Jackie (a wonderful story of morality, humanity and fallibility, by the way) but coincidentally St Vincent’s was the hospital that cared for Pedro Zamora not long before he passed way.
The original buildings may be gone, in the case of ‘the Real World house’ transformed into flats, and in the case of St. Vincent’s demolished and the space transformed into something quite different, no longer a life blood to support deprived community, everyday people and outsiders. As Tom Eubanks reports in his book ‘The Ghosts of St. Vincent’s’: ‘Before the entitled lived here exclusively, the marginalized died in droves’. St. Vincent’s was not only the place where those who were dying of HIV/AIDS (in the early years of the syndrome) were cared for, when many didn’t care or were too scared, but also when the Twin Towers were attached on 9/11, this was the place of first response in caring for the wounded, it was central in caring for community.
After the book launch I wandered around the streets of St Vincent’s, occasionally catching a glimpse of the cathedral-like ‘Freedom Tower’ (the new World Trade Center), a powerful sense of absence pervades in our knowledge of the original towers and the media coverage of their collapse.
Place seems significant, not only in thinking about what it all meant, but also where to go next. Research in some ways is distanced from ‘actual place’ as we try to create a perspective that seems unbiased; this is often something we tell students. However, in many ways meaningful research is situated deeply within us, it’s part of our emotional universe, occasionally illuminating the possible places that we might go, or be drawn to.
We are all too familiar with images of flooding in low lying areas after heavy rainfall or houses destroyed by coastal erosion after a storm. For an increasing number of people, coastal flooding and erosion is a real threat to property, the local economy and, in some cases, life. Hurricane Florence, for example, is forcing more than a million people on the US East Coast to flee from their homes.
Coasts support important industries (such as ports and tourism) and their populations are growing faster than inland areas. But coastal areas are also particularly sensitive to impacts of climate change, which are likely to increase the extent, intensity and frequency of coastal flooding and erosion.
Traditional hard engineering approaches of coastal protection (such as groynes, revetments and seawalls) are known to cause detrimental effects, which in the longer term can aggravate the problem they were supposed to solve. The impact of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans was a stark reminder that engineering structures are not effective against all events at all times. They are built based on trade-offs between the level of protection needed and the costs of construction and maintenance.
Soft engineering, such as beach nourishment (where sediment, usually sand, is added to the shore), can offer a level of protection and beach amenity – but these reduce through time, as erosion continues. Meanwhile, “protection” gives a false sense of safety and enables occupation of risk areas, increasing the number of people and assets in risk areas.
A serious conundrum
Climate change has forced a paradigm shift in the way coastal flooding and erosion risks are managed. In areas of lower risk, adaptation plans are being devised, often with provisions to make properties and infrastructure more resilient. Adaptation may involve requiring raised foundations in flood-prone areas or the installation of mitigating measures, such as sustainable drainage systems. Building codes may also be established to make structures more disaster-proof and to control the types of constructions within risk zones.
But such adaptation options are often of limited use or unsuitable for high-risk areas. In such areas relocation is the only safe climate-proof response.
Planning for relocation is problematic. There are large uncertainties concerning the predictions of climate change impacts – and this makes planning a difficult task. Uncertainty is not an easy concept to incorporate in planning and coastal management. In some places, effects of sea level rise are already evident, but it’s still difficult to be sure how fast and how much it will rise.
Similarly, there is still great uncertainty about when and where the next “super storm” will happen and how intense it will be. Inevitably, areas that have already been affected by flooding or erosion will be affected again – the question is when and how badly.
Despite these issues, relocation is increasingly being adopted as a strategy. There have been some successes at the local level. One such example is the Twin Streams project in Auckland (New Zealand), where relocation (through the purchase of 81 properties) has provided space to create community gardens and cycleways where 800,000 native vegetation plants were planted. This was made possible by engaging over 60,000 volunteer hours.
Although not on the coast, the town of Kiruna in Sweden shows that, when risks are high, forward thinking and long-term planning can make large-scale relocation possible. Kiruna is at risk of ground collapse due to mining. Over a 20-year period, more than 18,000 residents will be relocated to a new city centre 3km away. The layout of the new city centre has been designed to be more sustainable, energy efficient and have better options for cultural activities and socialising. Local residents were engaged and helped identifying 21 heritage buildings they want relocated to the new area.
The French, meanwhile, have instigated the first ever national strategy focused on relocation from high-risk areas. French policy places a duty on local authorities to develop plans by 2020, identifying the areas at serious risk of coastal flooding or erosion, what needs to be relocated and how (including sources of funding). Five pilot areas have been selected to test how the strategy might be implemented at the local level. Two of these areas have contrasting approaches and outcomes.
In Lacanau (a top surfing stop in the Bay of Biscay) coastal erosion threatens the tourism-based economy. Although public opposition was initially high, the development of a local plan has generally been positive, mainly due to the inclusive community involvement in the project. A local committee was created to act as a consultation body and decisions were informed by open discussions based on clear communication of technical, legal, financial and sociological issues.
In Ault (northern France) the experience was less positive. the risk reduction plan identified a high-risk zone within 70 metres of the cliff edge. It was decided that no new construction would be allowed here and restrictions to improvements on the existing 240 houses were imposed. This would force relocation if the properties were damaged by flooding or erosion. In May 2018 a residents group won a court case which considered the plan illegal, lifting the restrictions imposed on renovation of existing properties until a new plan is drafted.
These examples demonstrate that engaging with local communities from the inception of any such project is essential. Unfortunately, people instinctively resist change – and relocation is a complete shift from the centuries-old approach of fixing coastlines and fighting against coastal dynamics. Our current legal and management frameworks are too geared up for maintaining the status quo. Funding and legal aid to support purchase of properties and removal of infrastructure that are not imminently deemed inhabitable are limited.
But open and inclusive debate about the need for relocation and the consequences and benefits of it can change people’s perceptions. The “Nimby” (not in my backyard) attitude is strong in coastal communities, but can subside after personal experiences of severe flooding or erosion. The environment around us is changing and we cannot continue living the way we did in the past.
Prevention is always less costly and more effective than remediation, particularly when involving people’s safety. The earlier we accept the need to change, the less damaged is the legacy we leave to the next generations.
PalaeoGo! is a project funded by Bournemouth University (BU) via its Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF) that aims to show how augmented reality (AR) can be used as an educational tool at natural history museums, national parks and in any open space or landscape. We have developed a test app to explore different ways of delivering AR content focused on extinct megafauna, everything from Jurassic dinosaurs to Ice Age mammoths. Augmented reality uses the camera feed in a smartphone and overlays it with information, in our case to bring extinct megafauna to life! Take your selfie with a T-Rex, swim with a Mosasaur and Megalodon, or if you prefer walk with an Ice Age mammoth.
The PalaeoGo! Team is running a major user trial in the autumn of 2018. Over eight weeks this autumn we are seeking your help to both test and develop our ideas. Our aim is to give you access to our test app and with it the resources for you to use with your friends and family. The beasts are coming, and you can join in the fun!
To join the trial, you need to visit our website and leave details of your phone and a live email address. You will also find a Participant Information Sheet and Participant Agreement Form which gives you more details on the study. We seek your consent to use your feedback anonymously in our work, and to keep on file your email for the duration of the trial. We will contact you directly with everything you need for your smartphone. This will be either via our own PalaeoGo! Test App or via the commercial App Zappar depending on the make and model of your phone. We may ask some ‘super-users’ to explore both.
Register by the 21 September 2018 and you will receive the app during the week of the 24 September 2018. We will be on hand during Fresher fair and Induction to sign you up and show you how.
The first update will roll on the 1 November 2018 and the trial will end on the 30 November 2018 when we will ask you for feedback.
We ask you to link your selfies and images and tweets using @Palaeo_Go – no need to wait till the end of the test to tell us what you think and to help shape our ideas.
This project is an interdisciplinary collaboration between computer animators, computer scientists and natural scientists. The project is led by Peter Truckel, Marcin Budka and Matthew Bennett.
Are you currently undertaking research within the NHS and your Good Clinical Practice (GCP) training is due to expire? Or has it expired recently?
GCP certification lasts for two years, so if your training is due to expire, has expired, or you want to validate your learning, then take advantage of the upcoming refresher half day session, taking place at Royal Bournemouth Hospital on Tuesday 2nd October, 1pm – 4:30pm.
I had the pleasure of presenting two papers at last week’s international criminology conference at my alma mater, University College Dublin (UCD), representing BU for the first time since joining last September. As with all international conferences, there was an eclectic mix of personalities, researchers, academics and practitioners, representing both sides of the border, as well as the UK, Canada and further afield. The field of criminology remains a niche area in the Republic (but growing slowly) and it was a pleasant surprise to see over 100 delegates at the two day conference presenting papers on prisons, probation, policing, offending, criminal law, victims and prisoners’ rights.
The conference opened with a keynote address by Prof Eamonn Carrabine from the University of Essex who gave an inspiring paper on what he (and others) terms the new criminology of war. Drawing on Mann, Klein and Ruggiero‘s work, he emphasised how war is an “image event”. Using war photography to support this thesis, he demonstrated the way in which war is an intense cultural production, in particular drawing our attention to the impact it has on the towns and villages that are bombarded, and the consequential (de)structural barriers to cultural evolution.
Jane Healy presents research findings at UCD’s criminology conference
The conference topic was “New Frontiers in Criminology” and there was certainly plenty of food for thought as to where criminological study might develop in the future, with other presentations that considered indigenous criminology, online crime and labour trafficking, for example. These were complimented with more ‘traditional’ discussions around rape myths, desistance and youth justice. The majority of papers focussed on prisons, probations and police with only a limited number on victimology itself. My own paper highlighted the more unique forms of hate crime targeted against disabled people, including accusations of benefit fraud, the fluidity of both online and offline abuse, and the use or threat of sexual violence as a method of hate crime.
I jointly presented the only other hate crime paper at the conference with Dr James Palfreman-Kay from Equality & Diversity at BU. Our hate crime project, which provides students with forum theatre scenarios to enable them to discuss hate crime in an interactive – and safe – way, was recognised by the panel audience as an innovative method of engaging in such a sensitive topic.
As new frontiers go, hate crime is an area ripe for research development in contemporary Ireland. Despite almost a quarter of a century of hate studies here in the UK, there is limited research in the Republic on this topic, with the exception of course of sectarian violence. There is currently no hate legislation in the Republic, despite recent efforts and encouragement from the likes of Dr Jennifer Schweppe at the University of Limerick and a recent publication by Jennifer, Seamus Taylor, and others. Given the increasing hate crimes and incidents being reported in the UK, I really do hope to see the introduction of hate legislation in the Republic at the very least and would encourage potential PhD students to consider it as an avenue to contributory research.
Given the dearth of victimological papers (and hate studies) presented at the conference, we hope that we achieved our goal of introducting new avenues and ‘frontiers’ for future criminological research with colleagues overseas. We welcome further enquiries from home and abroad who might want to adapt or explore our methods or areas of enquiries. Their absence however did not detract from an interesting and enthusiastic gathering that highlighted so many other fruitful areas of research for me in the future. As an ECR, I left wanting to know more about everything from the demise of prisoners’ rights movements to the question of whether the State’s criminal justice system can ever be constrained through proportionality. I am grateful to have been given the opportunity to attend the conference and would encourage others to look out for the “NSICC” in future years. Highlights of the event can be found by following @UCDLaw or #NSICC on Twitter.
Dr Jane Healy is a Lecturer in Sociology and Crime & Deviance in the Faculty of Health and Social Sciences and recently completed her PhD in disablist hate crime
There is an increasing emphasis on the need for researchers and sponsors to publish, and disseminate, the results of the clinical studies that they conduct. Timely disclosure of results is important ethically, morally, in the interests of research integrity and from a waste reduction perspective.
Dissemination of results, whether favourable or not, also achieves transparency – increasingly important from the perspective of the recent introduction of the GDPR.
The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) have signed-up to the WHO’s joint statement on public disclosure of results from clinical trials. The policy sets out the expectations and support on offer in order for research communities to comply. The draft policy is available to read, with a quick survey open until 21st September, for you to have your say.
BU has access to the ClinicalTrials.gov system – get in touch for access and for the opportunity to register your study and results in the public domain.
BU staff can login below:
Don’t miss a post!
Subscribe for the BU Research Digest, delivered freshly every day.