O'Connor, Sean, JD, MA

Many of the biomedical researchers who gravitate towards academic and nonprofit labs do so because profit and commercialization of their research are not high priorities for them. At the same time, patents and other forms of intellectual property (IP) are often seen as a sine qua non of commercial aspirations, and thus better left to those with such aspirations. However, from Bayh-Dole invention disclosure requirements of federal funding to legal restrictions on the use of certain materials or research tools, IP is a central part of the modern research lab. Thus, researchers need to understand the basics of both “offensive” and “defensive” IP issues, as well as closely related doctrines such as assignments of rights, confidentiality agreements (NDAs or CDAs), material transfer agreements (MTAs). Professor O’Connor will present the basics of IP and related issues as they apply in the academic biomedical research lab.

Questions to Think About in Preparation for Mr. O’Connor’s Lecture:
• How do notions of data "ownership" differ for academic and commercial research settings? In what ways might such differences matter to the work of an academic research lab?
• Does patent protection promote or impede the conduct of scientific research? Does patent protection increase the likelihood of public benefit deriving from research?
• If you don't like the idea of patenting scientific discoveries, does this mean that you can safely ignore it in the conduct of your research? Why or why not?

Required Reading (prior to lecture):
Kesselheim AS & Avorn J (2005). University-Based Science and Biotechnology Products: Defining the Boundaries of Intellectual Property. JAMA, 293(7): 850-854.


REFRESHMENTS 11:30am - 11:55am

**Lecture will also be repeated May 21st, 2-3pm in Pelton Auditorium at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center**

CATALYST EVALUATION: https://catalysttools.washington.edu/webq/survey/mmitchel/77853

Panel Members:
Ferric C. Fang, M.D., is Professor of Laboratory Medicine and Microbiology at
the UW School of Medicine, and Director of Clinical Microbiology at Harborview
Medical Center.
Carey Farquhar, M.D., M.P.H., is Associate Professor in the Departments of
Medicine and Epidemiology,and the Director of the International AIDS Research
and Training Program (IARTP) at the University of Washington (UW).
Beverly Torok-Storb, Ph.D, Med., is a member of the Clinical Research
Division of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and co- Head of the
Program in Stem/Progenitor Cell Biology for the FHCRC/UW Consortium.
Presented by the Department of Bioethics & Humanities, School of Medicine, UW:
Navigating the Peer Review Process:
Advice for Trainees and Early-Stage Investigators


Peer review of grant applications and scientific publications is the primary means by which the biomedical research community ensures the support and
dissemination of high quality research. However the traditional approach to peerreview, where anonymous reviewers critique the manuscripts or applications of authors whose names and primary academic affiliations are known, has been
criticized as subject to reviewer bias, conflict of interest, and inter-rater
inconsistency. What do novice investigators need to know about navigating this essential, but imperfect, form of research governance? Join us for an interactive panel discussion of this core research practice.

REFRESHMENTS 11:30am - 11:55am

**Lecture will also be repeated June 18th, 2-3pm in Pelton Auditorium at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center**

Magnus, David, PhD

This talk will challenge the weight placed on two of the primary pillars of research ethics. The first pillar is that the ethical conduct of research requires integrity, defined by the importance of
avoiding scientific misconduct. Misconduct is then defined as engaging in fabrication, falsification or plagiarism. The second is the central importance of informed consent for guaranteeing the ethics of clinical research. Both of these central protections are
open to empirical challenge. Contrary to the received view, there is strong evidence that scientists perceive scientific misbehavior in much broader terms than the narrow framework focusing on fabrication, falsification and plagiarism. And while informed consent is an
important ideal, it is has been given far too much weight, given the evidence that has accumulated about the real world limitations of informed consent.

Questions to Think About in Preparation for the Lecture:

• If research integrity and informed consent are not as integral to the ethical conduct of research as normally assumed, what might be better ways to promote professionalism in biomedical research?

• Why do you think that so few formal institutional reports of research misconduct are received by the federal Office of Research Integrity (ORI)?

• Which of the six strategies proposed by Titus and colleagues to champion the responsible conduct of research promise to be most effective in fostering a culture of research integrity among US scientists?


Required Reading (prior to lecture):
Titus SL, Wells JA, & Rhoades LJ (2008) ”Repairing research integrity”. Nature 453: 980-982.

REFRESHMENTS 11:30am - 11:55am

**Lecture will also be repeated July 23rd, 2-3pm in Pelton Auditorium at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center**

Garner, Jr, Harold "Skip", PhD

Lecture on Responsible Authorship -- details soon...

REFRESHMENTS 11:30am - 11:55am

**Lecture will also be repeated August 6th, 2-3pm in Pelton Auditorium at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center**

Thompson, Engelberta 'Beti', PhD, MA

Conflict of interest comes in many forms. In this presentation, Dr. Thompson will discuss the conflict of interest when researchers want to study one thing and community partners want to study another. How is such conflict resolved? What are the key principles to be followed? In addition, she will discuss research with minority populations. Who participates and why? When is coercion a factor to be considered? Discussion of case scenarios will be included.

Questions to Think About in Preparation for the Lecture:

• Do financial conflicts of interest lead to more significant scientific biases than non-financial conflicts of interest? What makes you answer as you do?

• Is conflict of interest and/or commitment inevitable in community-based participatory research or can it be avoided?

• What competing interests affect the conduct of your research? What could you do to minimize the impact of those interests on your observations and/or experiments?

Required Reading (prior to lecture):
Editors (2008). Making sense of non-financial competing interests. PLoS Medicine, 5(9): e199.

REFRESHMENTS 11:30am - 11:55am

**Lecture will also be repeated September 21st, 2-3pm in Pelton Auditorium at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center**