Well, I'd say first and foremost, let's pull up cable here because this is some quite dramatic moves that we're seeing in the British Pound. The news over the weekend that Bojo Boris Johnson is going to lie himself with a vote leave campaign for Britain leaving Europe has really sent the British Pound tumbling. So now we're running right into, as you can see, this is down here at 14080. This is the January lows and if we pull right back out to the monthly chart, you can see it's pushing us down through these lows from 2010 down to the lowest since 2009. We're in February at the moment but these lows were posted in March of 2009 so quite a number of years here since we've been down at these levels. Probably debatable whether a move down of this magnitude is justified by Boris Johnson joining the leave campaign but nonetheless you can't fight the ferocity of this down move here by most markers if we have the daily chart up. We can see we're posting lower lows on the weekly chart, lower highs and we've rolled over from this previous support from these lows back in April. So the very real prospect of a double bottom at this 141 area but obviously should we take out the lows which would maybe be a bit of a stretch today but it's possible. There's a lot of momentum here. Push through these lows, maybe even push into the oversold territory on the daily RSI could signal a bit more further down side to go. I guess one thing to sort of bear in mind here is that this is not a widespread fear of Britain leaving this Eurozone. I'd say it's probably fair enough to say that Boris Johnson joining the out campaign has definitely shifted the likelihood of Britain leaving Eurozone a few percentage points, potentially a game chain. He's one of the few politicians that is actually known and liked from the British public. Can't say many British politicians are known on a first name basis so it's pretty significant but nonetheless still I think you've probably got to say that the most likely result still is that Britain probably does vote to remain in the Eurozone. People will just use a safer option unless there's some really obvious reason to vote against the status quo, we're probably going to stay in and then the fact that it's still four months away so Cameron's obviously announced that the referendum is going to be on June 23rd. That's four months away so it's quite a long period of time between now and then which to start pricing a British exit so you've got a way up when we pull over to this monthly chart again, when we're down at these levels, look this is the range that Cable has been in since the financial crisis. It's pretty much been 140 on the downside to 170 on the top side so if we are pushing much lower we're really pushing into the bottom half of this trading range and at some point in time probability suggests that we're going to find a base. So we're hitting oversold levels for a second time here on this monthly chart. Obviously in 2008 you know there's evidence enough of how oversold you can get and stay but that's an extreme situation. Probabilities again so we're probably in for a bounce at some point but certainly a bit early to call it at the moment but as I said it's not only a widespread fear at the moment. I'd say it's more, my take on this is more being more concentrated in the currency market because of its implications for any likely moves from the Bank of England. I mean I think it's probably pretty safe to say now that the Bank of England is unlikely to raise rates before June 23rd so pretty much not going to be raising rates in the first half of this year. Obviously the Fed have already hiked rates. Data dependent on whether they actually do so again next month. We did have some slightly higher inflation and wage data from the U.S. so perhaps a bit more chance of the markets giving the dollar credit for. We're seeing a bit of a push higher across the board in the dollar today. So that divergence starting to spread out again potentially with the between the U.K. and the U.S. in terms of timing on the rates. But if you look at the FTSE 100, well the size of the up today along with the rest of Europe and along with U.S. futures and then if you look at Guilts pretty much flat so no real evidence of concern across other markets. More I think that sort of Bank of England rates divergence take on the influence of Brexit that's hitting the British pound. And as we mentioned potentially a bit overdone the move in the pound. So all on that topic let's switch gears to equities now. One of the things that's been holding the U.K. 100 in our proxy for the FTSE 100 obviously back for the last few years is its dependence on mining companies and oil and gas. Obviously that's been particularly prolific in the last few months with a massive sell-off across most commodities. But we have closed higher for the last five weeks in the FTSE 350 mining index and that's been quite supportive of the FTSE 100. So it's actually been the best performing European index this year and it's largely as a result of that outperformance in the miners. And so you can see looking at this chart here we basically, and I mentioned this in last week's webinar, that we basically tried to push through this January 20th low. This is basically a fail breakout. Yes, we've made a lower low but only for one day and then we broke massive back to the top side. And so, you know, you'll see an equivalent here in the, a bit more of an obvious equivalent in the S&P 500 in the U.S. This is tantamount to a double bottom. We haven't personally bounced off the previous low like a double bottom but this is a fake out to the downside. And so we had this declining trend line. It's obviously not really valid because it's only two touches but nonetheless it'll be widely watched. You could say it's three off here with slightly dubious connections. And so here we only ticked down slightly in the FTSE 100 even though oil prices dropped a fair bit. I saw a U.S. oil drop below $30 again last week but, you know, UK actually has held up pretty well. And if this looks like it could be the making of a break above this trend line and I would say that would probably be the first move towards an eventual break of this trend line and then a push back up potentially to the December 30th and the 200 DMA. And then we've obviously got that fairly clear cut resistance above at the $6,450 mark which was pretty much the highs through October, December before we had this latest sell-off. So obviously, you know, we've got to watch the headlines for the Brexit details but for the moment I think the risks surrounding a Brexit run pretty counter to the narrative that actually commodities potentially basing a little bit at the moment and helping mining and oil and gas companies push higher. We had that big sell-off in the bank stocks. They seem to have recovered a little bit since then. Obviously, we're at HSBC's results today. They were disappointing but year-of-a-year profits flatten. You know, maybe not as much room for concern as there was just a couple of weeks ago. Now I mentioned the F&P. Let's have a look at that chart here. I mentioned for multiple webinars in a row this importance of the 1800 level. And here you can see even more, I mean, there's pretty much here the double bottom here but obviously we've slightly taken up the low and then a massive short-covering rally on the same day and then the following day as well pushing up, closing above all these closes for the previous three days on this 12th effect. So this was quite a game-changer on February 11th and 12th. And now we've pushed right, and you can see this slightly lower low here because that's quite well with these lower highs here. And it's quite a well-defined double bottom here with a slightly down-slipping neckline and that's right what we're pushing into at the moment. So of course you can get the fake out higher and that could well happen for the time being. But if we get a close for the day above this declining line, I think that's significantly increased at the odds that we get a pushback through 2000 and then back to the 200 DMA in the SP500. And given how negative the sentiment is towards the market at the moment, that may happen quicker than you might expect. If you are of the opinion that we're sort of rolling over here in markets and it's a bit of a, not a fair market but certainly a downtrend, the up moves within a downtrend are always some of the most rapid. So two markets kind of supporting the same idea there. We have a quick look at the NASDAQ. You can see here that, again, we have this up sloping trend line here. A false move down through the low and then a nice reversal for that week and then we pushed higher for the following two weeks. And so here, quite again an extreme example of here was the low. If we look on the daily chart, similar deal. Here was the low, tried to push lower, barely did a long candle-sick wicks several days in a row and eventually just pushed back higher. And so I think here is sort of the equivalent. You can see there's probably a bit of a down sloping line there. But more concretely, if we push through 4300, then again short distance of 200 DMA and then potentially even the top of the range again. So important in this juncture, this is a possible scenario. Obviously sentiment's fairly bearish. The trend is still pretty much to the downside. But some evidence of abasing here across these global equities. And so try not to get too caught up in the negative headlines because actually there's a few reasons I think maybe we're abasing a bit here. This is obviously just a sort of short-term tactical idea not saying that we're off to new record highs and the bull market's back on. But just for the next month, perhaps, he actually thinks could be a bit more positive, potentially, if we get these breakouts from these bases. Now for a jump in ship here to the currency markets, a few things going on here event-wise. As far as the US a bit more concentrated into the tail end of the week. We've got durable goods on Thursday and the second edition of US GDP on Friday. We've also got quite a few Fed speakers, Lockhart, Williams and Powell all speaking on Friday, Bullard talking as well. Earlier in the week, sort of more mid-week, we have Fisher talking tomorrow and US Communism of Confidence tomorrow. But just looking at this euro chart here, if I zoom it out a bit, this I think is significant the move we're taking place today. So obviously we're getting a big drop off in the pound. But again, I think it probably supports this idea of hey, there's just extra weakness in the pound, but actually there's quite a lot of dollar strength feeding into that sell-off as well. We are getting a pop higher in euro pounds. There's certainly a Boris factor here. But when you're looking at sterling and it's biggest drop since 2010, part of it is the dollar side of the equation. Now what's interesting here is this is actually a decent reversal pattern here. A tweezer bottom, as I mentioned in the chart for him. The fact that we've completely failed to push higher from that tweezer bottom and we're breaking below it on the very next candle is a bearish sign. So the failure of a bullish sign becomes a bearish sign. And so the fact that we've pushed through here would suggest to me that actually there's quite well-defined support here. If you discount this push-up into the 200 DMA on these levels, there was a triangle pattern here. Then I'm sure a lot of you have in your chart. But actually if you're looking for a decent horizontal level, it's actually this 1.0980 level in cable just below the 110 handle, obviously, could find a bit of a bid. Now I've actually checked fib levels. If we go off this low here, do a bit on the fly here. We've got the 61.8 just ahead of 110. And then maybe if we go right up the lows, we've got the 61.8 just below 110, more like 109.8, so more like 109.70 looks like. So in that vicinity, if you take that whole move higher, then a little bit of a confluence of potential support in that area to look out for. Probably also, I don't necessarily like the trend lines when the move is obviously already carried away in much higher momentum. It means this trend line has a bit less relevance, but still if we do push through there, then that could be the next step down, and we'll just 109 in the rising trend line and a bit of confluence there. As far as EU data, tomorrow we've got the German IFO, and we've had PMI data today, but otherwise not so much in the European front. We obviously had a lot from Draghi, et cetera, in the last couple of weeks that hasn't really worked too well to hold up the euro. We obviously got that initial break up, but we have been pushing higher since, pushing lower since in the euro. Euro is kind of acting a bit more in line with equities at the moment. You'll notice that the euro and gold both broke out at a similar time. When there's disquiet in markets, a lot of European investors bring money back home, so obviously convert from overseas money into the euro, and so actually we see a bit of a sort of, almost like a haven effect for the euro. Just quickly back to Cable again, because I'm worth mentioning that tomorrow we have the Bank of England governor, Mark Carney testifying at the inflation report hearings, and so that'll add an extra story to the dynamics of the British bound. We are eyeing up this potential double bottom here. Well, we're just testing the low basically. So whether this low holds really sustainable length of time, I would say probably largely rests on what Mr. Carney has to say tomorrow, at least in the short term. And then if we do get a bit of a bounce off the lows, then there will be some other news along the way which will support that move. We do, of course, have UK GDP on Thursday as well. And worth noting that the PMI data from Europe is a bit useless. So just as far as Q1 GDP for the eurozone, that's clipped estimates a little bit, so possibly down to 0.2% for eurozone growth, in the UK we're looking at 0.5%. So highlights a little bit there, the difference in the two economies, and if anything, that's a positive for those voting for the Brexit campaign. Another interesting one in the currency market, just as far as looking at the majors here, Dolly Yen, that was obviously the major mover. Just the week before last, we saw a massive sell-off in Dolly Yen, massive strengthening in the Yen as a flight to safety when equity markets are selling off. But now, as we have posted this sharp new low down to 1.11%, we've seen a bit of British RSI divergence here, suggesting that maybe, for now, the price has held off these two closes down here, about 1.12.40%. A close above yesterday, above Friday's peak, to me would suggest that we actually could be up for a little rally up to the 1.16, form a major support here, which you would expect to be some sort of resistance on the way back up. Now over to commodity markets, large reason why we're up in equities today is rallying the price of oil. Still very choppy in oil markets. Obviously we had that, the main news as far as oil last week was that we've had a joint agreement to freeze production by Saudi Arabia and Russia. Now, obviously freezing production at record levels is not exactly great news for the oversupply of oil, but it's the first time that OPEC, not the first time, but the first time in recent memory that OPEC has sort of joined up with a non-OPEC producing country and formed some sort of agreement. Saudi Arabia is obviously the big one. Venezuela are just desperate and they were the main mediators here. Iran, obviously they're just stepping up production again after years of sanctions, so you can understand that they don't particularly want to freeze production at what's way below their historical standard, but I think you can take away from their support that once they're nearer their historical standard of exports of oil, then they would join the freeze team. Does this really address the supply-demand imbalance? Looking at USVT inventories, not really. We're close to record levels of inventories. We've learned that we actually run out of storage in the US oil, which is a pretty insane situation. And obviously at that point, do you have no way to store it? What do you do it? You have to sell mega-cheap. And so that could be downward pressure at that point in time. But for a moment, 35, 36 is the ceiling that we've got our eyes on. We've taken out this sort of little shining trend line here through these peaks. We're pushing up into the resistance again, so trend line break, potentially higher-low here. We've had one week and then we had another week, which is kind of looking for a second week above to say that we've put a low in here. And that could all happen together with a push through 36. Now, still pretty bearish sentiment on all, but I think if we do get out of this 35, 36, it shouldn't be too much trouble to get back up to 40 where we could struggle again. But given how, you know, if you look at this sell-off here and you have the bounce back, really no particularly sustainable bounce back since the sell-off really kicked in again in May last year. So if we do get back to 40, I think there will be usually a lot of people covering and we could get another push back up into the, this four here and this sort of just about 45, it's 46.  In WTI, it's a bit more obvious. More of a kind of double-bottom scenario. We're here again, one of these fake outs to the downside. Nice little pin bar at the bottom. So we pushed up and the same thing where we've kind of, we broke through a little fake out of the trend line here, but we've held on to this low for the moment. This sort of 29-ish is acting as support and we're pushing back through the trend line now. So I think if we close above this declining trend line, you could adjust it to be a bit more conservative, connect it through the new peak, but push through there probably easily carries us up to 34 and then 34 is more like the game changer for whether we've actually got a, that's basically the neckline for this double-bottom here. Yeah, important not to get too carried away in terms of how far this can go, because if you just scale out to a weekly chart, you know, look at this little squealy bit at the bottom here, doesn't mean too much in the context of this huge sell-off. So these are bigger swings. You know, this was potentially a bottom with these big swings here, but we never quite have to, we took out the low and rolled over again, but it's that sort of size move up from 40 to 60 and the thing. You know, in this context, it would be more like a move up to 40 and then down again before we saw something like a bottom. The likely hit is that we're close to a bottom and it's just going to be range trading conditions under $50. That's my base case scenario, but the good news is from a trading perspective, probably some pretty big moves in the interim. Gold, yep, I will have a look at copper to top things off and I'll just have a look at gold first. Now, this is the short term we've got. This is the huge rally. We capped out at two, this sort of one, 250, with the sort of round number involved. Also, it fit in with this declining channel, especially on the weekly chart here. So now, we're retesting this broken declining trend line here, but I think probably odds on that since we're not following through on this push higher from this old peak, which you can see better on the daily chart here, we've pushed off that old peak nicely. That works perfectly as resistance, broke, support, but we've rolled over it inside the channel and today's move of down 2% is not a great sign. There's still a chance that 1-190 can act as support again, but I would say probably odds are that given the size of the move higher, potential recovery and equity markets, if that plays out, then probably you're going to get a bit of a pullback in gold. I would say the move higher in equities is probably going to be bigger proportionately to the pullback in gold. I think maybe people might just start looking to the 1-150 round number. There's a more random area of potential support. If that gives way at the moment, the 200 DMA is down on 1-130, but by the time we get down there, it could be more like there was 1-140. So look at that 1-140 to 1-150 potentially if we get through this very clear cut support of 1-190. So I'll finish things off with copper. I'd say this is not great, but it's potentially an inverted head and shoulders here in copper. And this is part of what's helping, not just copper, but iron ore, some of these other commodities, it's helping the miners do a bit better in the likes of Anglo-American, top of the 50 today. They're starting to sell off assets. They're talking about selling it to be as headquarters. They're adjusting to slower demand for quantities, and at the same time, the quantities themselves are adjusting to the fact these mining companies are kind of reducing their output a little bit. So I'll say 2-13 to 2-14 is really the line in the sand here. You can see how many touches we've had on that resistance. Really due a break at this point is basically the neckline of the inverted head and shoulders. And I think that would probably take us up to the 200 DMA should we get through that. But taking the height of the pattern, you could do it like that. You do like a 2-3-4, or conservatively the 200 DMA around 230 at the time, maybe as a target if we break through here. Trend is obviously down, got to be a bit cautious, but looks like a bit of a base. That's it for this week's charting analysis. Thanks a lot for your attendance. There's been some interesting moves in cable so far. Looks like it could be an interesting week. Let's see if we get those breakouts in equity markets. Could be a lot of opportunity to the sides should that happen. So good luck with the trading. Thanks a lot again for attending. Sir Jasper Lawler signing out.


Hello and welcome to today's webinar about data management in the revised national statement on ethical conduct in human research. Apologies for starting a few minutes late. We've just had a few technical issues. So I'm Caitlin May and I'm a senior research data specialist from the Australian Research Data Commons, which is an increased facility that has been built from the Australian National Data Service and NECTA and RDS. For more information on what the Australian Research Data Commons is doing now and into the future, please sign up for our newsletter. So I'm going to pass over to Jeremy Kenner, who's the expert advisor for ethics to the NHMRC's Research Quality and Priorities Branch. Jeremy, please take it away. Thank you Kate and welcome everybody. What I'm going to do here is to run you through a very very brief bit of background to how we got to the current revision of the national statement and what's in it and then drill down to the issues that are most pertinent for you all. As some of you may be aware, the national statement is Australia's singular principle guidance for conduct of ethical research and it is a particular type of document that is a bit different from some of the other documents of a similar type in other countries. One of the things that makes the difference different is that it's not as detailed as some of those documents and it applies to all human research but only to human research. It's based on a principles based approach to two research ethics and it's been around since about in one form or another since about 1992. The current version was based on a full review some years ago and published in 2007 and since then we have reviewed bits and pieces of it from a single word to a paragraph to a full chapter but we've never taken on a full section before one of the five sections which is what we did this time. So this national statement you should have now a slide that says national statement updated 2018. This was done over the last couple of years and published just last month with a fully revised section three with a new title and it was as I say released just last month. It made major changes to the structure and content as indicated based on an elements of research approach rather than a categories of research approach and the guidance in it applies to all research and then becomes more specific as it goes along and I'll explain that in the next series of slides. Chapter 3.1 which is the one that's relevant for this webinar is it relates to research in general and provides guidance related to specific types of research as necessary incorporates some chapters that were previously separate and one of the things that it adds is significantly greater guidance on ethical considerations related to collection use and management of data and information in research. There are a couple other specific chapters one addressing genomic research, one addressing human biospecimens and one addressing animal to human xenotransplantation. Now if you it also there were changes made to one of the other sections that were a consequence of the changes made to section three and those changes included the three items as noted. So this is just a for your later use just mapping out what the changes were to the document. Now in terms of implementation because of the the significant there's a substantial nature of the changes the current national statement which was last updated in 2015 remains in effect during the transition period from now through December. As I've said here users of the national statement are expected to gradually integrate the new and revised guidance into their proposal submissions and review during the transition period which will then end on the first of January at which point the 2018 version will become formally the national statement. So there's a period of I guess some ambiguity where people might be asking which one should we apply but we're hoping the common sense prevails on this point. So in section three which I'm going to run through not I'm not going to run through all section three. Section three relates to the ethical considerations then design development review and conduct of research. Right so there's an introduction to that section which you will read in due course I hope and then there is an introduction to chapter 3.1 which is the elements of research. It then goes through each of those seven elements. If we move ahead then you'll see guidelines and element one and then what we're concerned with is element four. Now the logic here is that when you use the national statement you should be using it as a whole. So section three is read in the context of sections one and two having been previously understood and refers back to concepts in those sections as well as specific paragraphs. When you're using section three everything is in the context of the section three sort of concept or philosophy and then in chapter 3.1 you're referring when you're using any of the elements such as element four it is understood that you should have absorbed what is in the other elements as well. So you're not seeing anything in a vacuum it's all contextualized and that's important to understand with respect to how to use this particularly when it comes to for our purposes issues related to the management of data and information that would be in other chapters which will then refer back to this chapter's discussion of collection use and management of data information. Having said that let's drill down now into some of the things that are maybe somewhat new or maybe differently worded versions of something that was already there. One of the main things to notice here is there is no specific chapter in the national statement now related to data banks which there was it was chapter 3.2 and a lot of the issues related to data were in that chapter but of course data banks is just a component of all of the issues and so it was felt that the issues related to collection use and management of data information related to a much greater set of expressions and and all research not just the ones that use data banks specifically. Now what I've done here is I've highlighted a few provisions in red I don't know if that's visible from the screen that you're using I hope it is but I'm just going to instead of going through the whole thing which is several quite a number of pages we're going to highlight some some some things that have been emphasized that that could be emphasized. The first is of course that that all of this information is contextualized by the ethical principles discussed in section one of the national statement and a second is that the purpose of the national statements ethical guidelines is served by a positive attitude towards the use of population-wide data sets and that and the idea that this promotes the core principle ethical principle of justice which has to do with the sharing fair sharing of benefits and inclusion in in research participation in research. Some other some other things that need to be understood in order to understand what we've done here. Anyone working in this field knows that the term data itself is a bit ambiguous it means different things to different people how it relates to the term information there is no consensus view on that however we've attempted to and and I would credit ARDC here formally A&DS with having a lot of input into this discussion. We have decided to define these terms in a particular way for the purposes of this document which may not be defensible more broadly applied and so we we've we've operating from the premise that data information are often used interchangeably and then we define those terms for the purposes of this document again this is in red for the purposes of national statement data is intended to refer to and then there's a bit of a of a list there of things that that are included and this in understanding the rest of the statements it needs to be understood that those these are the definitions that we're using. Now identifiability of information is a huge issue maybe even 90 percent of the issue that or whatever that we are addressing here and we had a bit of a long debate about whether to use the terms that were in the national statement the terms were personally identified not reidentifiable and nonidentifiable versus the terms used in privacy legislation which were not the same generally they are essentially identified and de-identified. The national statement terms have been used in 2007 intentionally to not reflect the legislative terms which were felt to be inaccurate in the context of research or not as easily applied so the debate ensued about whether which which set of terms to use the ones previously in national statement are the ones that were that were in the privacy legislation and we eventually ended up with a decision which surprised all of us which was to use none of them and we wanted to discuss the issues related to identifiability without getting caught on specific labels and terms and so there's a footnote here that says what what we've decided to do and essentially why and I hope that that's visible to you or that you can read it at another time but we took the position that the identifiability of information was a characteristic that existed on a continuum which was affected by a large number of context of contextual factors and then we start discussing that more and importantly we we tried to point out that identifiability of information changes during the life cycle of a research project and therefore researchers and reviewers have to focus on the risk of harm that arises out of the the identifiability of information issues at various stages of the research project not just at the beginning for example and then we listed some factors that needed to be taken into consideration when determining a degree of identifiability of information and when evaluating the risks that are associated with them we then encourage people to go beyond the guidance included in the national statement to consult the office of information Australian Information Commissioner and its state and territory equivalents the Bureau of Statistics the ANDS now the ARDC in addition to the national statement as there are of course very valuable resources available from those sources that that can be used we of course consulted all of these entities in the development of this of this chapter now we we did talk about the methods that might be used to reduce the identifiability and consequent risks and they're listed here there are several of them in relation to data management we're pushing the idea of development of a data management plan for every research project now this is not a requirement you'll notice the use of the word should rather than must so it's not something that can be imposed as a requirement of the national statement but it's obviously strongly encouraged the word should and must are important in reading the national statement and I won't elaborate on that I think it's sort of obvious what the difference is now one of the things you might notice is that people tend to use different terms when they're talking about collection use management of information and we've tried to use all of them so we've got here saying data management plan should address intentions related to generation collection access use analysis disclosure storage retention disposal sharing and reuse of data and information all of these are in our view related to the management of data and the plan should be developed as importantly as early as possible in the process and then there are some a list of eight things that were considered to be necessary to include in any data management plan now all of these paragraphs I would say of course are important to read but I'm we couldn't go through all of them so I'm trying to highlight a few of them for you for your consideration we have one here it's number 3.1.50 although it's not listed that way on your on the slide and it's the last one related to data management and this one is important for for this discussion that in the absence of justifiable ethical reasons and it lists them and to promote access to the benefits of research researchers should collect and store data information generated by research projects in such a way that they can be used in future research projects where researchers believe they're valid reasons for not making this successful it must be justified so the default is that it should be available for future research and and if not needs to be justified now those justifications may be there may be many justifications that people can employ so we didn't take an absolute position but we obviously took a strong position on this with respect to secondary use of data information which is a section of this chapter I'm highlighting here the idea that it there are other ways of demonstrating respect for individuals other than obtaining their consent so if you can't obtain your consent that isn't the end of the story you need to then consider other ways of showing respect amongst them community consultation ensuring that the research results are translated into improvements and services and practices acknowledging the source of the data or information in publications and or publishing research results in a location and language suitable for the general community data information then we then we try and wrestle with the the whole problem of inter use of information obtained from the internet which as we all know is very challenging and we have quite a bit to say about this there's some highlighted language here that I won't read to you but I'll emphasize that the guiding principle for researchers is that although the data or information may be publicly available this does not automatically mean automatically mean the individuals with whom the data information associated have necessarily granted permission for its use and therefore you need to consider these these things here however we're still saying the consent is the gold standard but if it's not available then a waiver of requirement for consent may be obtainable when again about social media platforms researchers should take account of any terms and conditions applicable to these platforms when using data information from these sources or platforms now understanding of course that most people don't read the small print nevertheless if if there are requirements or conditions in terms in about the use of those particular social media platform those need to be understood and adhered to in conducting research using that that information in terms of sharing of data or information the some requirements here is emphasis on the importance of identifying a custodian and the variety of people that or entities that that could be that the data punishment management plan needs to be shared with that custodian so that they're aware of what is being promised to the participants or advise to them it's important to distinguish in proposals to share a closed research disclose research data or information the distinction between disclosure to specific third parties sharing with other researchers and disclosure to the public and to clarify which you're talking about in consent documents in thinking about all this there are expectations that people will have and this is independent even of the consent that's obtained but it needs to be be under be considered by researchers that there are expectations and policies regarding the sharing or reuse of information that should consider the value of the data and information for future research and that these expectations should be clear to participants the last statement I've highlighted here is that shared or banked data or information that's stored in a form that can identify individuals can sometimes be used in research that qualifies as negligible or low risk research however it cannot be used in research that is exempt from ethics review and that has to do with other clauses in the national statement at five point one point two two and and two three I believe so that's that's the the some of the issues that I wanted to highlight from the the new text the new content of chapter three point one of section three of the national statement there's some take home messages that I've written down for your consideration the first is that we we want it should be clear that the national statement is not obstructive it intends to support data linkage research secondary use of data and data sharing as long as it's in accordance with the basic principles of the national statement and the guidance provided in section three that if that there's no one size fits all approach for that researchers can rely on that would be artificial and that it's all about context and proportionality that is that care needs to be taken in to the extent possible but also in proportion to the the risks associated with what would happen if inappropriate care were taken and that's this is important for hrc's as well to consider not to make overly restrictive requirements for research that bear that that is accompanied by uh minimal risk that appropriate strategies to minimize the risk of unauthorized disclosure by identifying information need to be used that planning ahead makes a lot of this a lot easier if you develop and communicate data management plans after discussions amongst yourselves as researchers and then share those that information with with data custodians and hrc's then it's the importance of drafting contracts and other agreements with with any of the parties involved as as early as possible um to ensure that the use of data is consistent with the expectations of those who provided it the consent obtained if any and or any waiver granted and to consult experts like a rdc as well as relevant review bodies so i'll end it there um and if uh we have some questions which i hope we will i'm happy to address those thank you very much jeremy um so there's a couple of questions that have come through in the question pod the first one is previously the term reidentifiable was used um in the um old statement um where data was coded to researchers but they could still re-identify the patients um the person is asking what term should be used in future to reflect a similar status of the way that data will be handled well it's not so much that reidentifiable um is a is a term that's verboten it's that we we wanted to to to emphasize the idea that identifiability was a bit of a movable feast and that re-identification was more which should be best understood as a process that changes the character of the information rather than an absolute characteristic of the information itself um information can be re-identifiable at one stage of the project but then let's call it non-identifiable at another stage of the project by virtue of it having been de-identified which again is a process we would argue that information isn't de-identified a process of de-identification has been applied to it making it difficult or impossible to um to uh identify um and so we just didn't want to get trapped in the labels the word using the word re-identifiable um data is not a problem uh it's just not something that we wanted to use in the national statement guidance obviously if people understand what it means but we I would give you one example and that is that um there's a lot of argument in the genomics research community for example that there is no such thing as non-identifiable or fully de-identified or permanently de-identified information that if people work hard enough and triangulate enough databases they'll ultimately be able to re-identify information which everyone assumed was fully de-identified and so that becomes problematic do you call it non-identifiable for all practical purposes do you call it re-identifiable because you're being purist in your understanding of what it is um so we run into more problems it sort of creates more problems than itself that's a long-winded answer to a simple question I apologize thanks Jeremy uh so another person has asked is this retrospective for existing studies or prospective from December 2018? Prospective. Fabulous um another person has asked will the HREA be revised by January 2019 to reflect the new 2018 national statement? It will we're working on it now it'll be ready by the time that by by January 1st possibly earlier. Fabulous um we'll keep an eye out for that um so another person has asked um about section 55 to 54 um in the section 3.1 is this guidance only relevant to internet data or information or all publicly available data? Okay let me find what the reference is here so this is um in the so this for some reason the way this printed out it's supposed to say 3.1 point but um the um he's saying is this which which what which paragraphs are we uh is he asking about or is she? 51 to 54 I believe it's the part that was about the social media and internet um data on the internet. Yeah I think the idea is that it should apply um just see what's directly before it um that's interesting I can't seem to go up so give me a second there we go um I don't think it's it's meant to be limited to um internet related data and we actually had a problem with we even had a section originally on internet data but we wanted to um consider it more broadly so I I I'd have to um to look at it again but my instinctive response is that it's intended to apply to all secondary use of data information not just that obtained from the internet if we don't say in the paragraph with respect to data obtained from the internet then we we mean it more broadly. Excellent. There are there are some questions we've been sorry there are some questions we've been asked about what constitutes publicly available data for example um if you've got if you've got information that's in a newspaper article that wasn't collected um in the same way as we consider data collected but if you want to use information from a newspaper article or a book published in 1856 do you consider that publicly available data or not and so we there are there is a little bit of ambiguity here and again um we're hoping that mostly people are using a common sense approach. Excellent. Jeremy I'll just ask you one more quick question there's a couple more that have come in but we'll address them afterwards in a question and answer document that will be made available to everyone um this last question here is the option for granting a waiver for consent currently exists and leads to different and inconsistent decisions by ethics committees will the revised guidelines help to reduce this inconsistency? Well inconsistency of application unfortunately isn't really within the scope of the NHMRC's authority to resolve the fact that things are that provisions of the national statement are applied inconsistently can have to do with um you know poorly written provisions or it can have to do with different um philosophies and attitudes that that that reviewing bodies have um we can't arbitrate that and say this one's right and this one's wrong we're not authorized to do that um all we can do is reiterate our interpretation of our own documents which we often do in the form of responses to queries that people give us. I'd have to know more about the nature of the inconsistency in order to comment more intelligently on that question. Okay thank you so much Jeremy for your time today. You're happy to write in and ask um and the uh the last slide here is uh some contact information so um again you're welcome we'll respond. Excellent so thank you very much Jeremy for your time today and I'd just like to remind all of the people who have joined our webinar that ARDC has a lot of resources around data management and some of the topics that Jeremy touched on such as de-identification and data management plans. Our resources will be updated to include the new requirements from the national statement on ethical conduct in human research. Currently they are all still sitting on the ANNs website so if you go to ANNs that's a and d s dot org dot au forward slash medical that's a great page to start on to um find all of the resources that are related to these topics that Jeremy has been touching on today so thank you Jeremy for speaking to us. Thank you everyone.


What's going on guys welcome back to the channel and I appreciate you being here today I bring you another episode of fortnite top 5 plays of the week and today we have solo team wipes and there's some amazing plays that seriously is remember guys if you got any amazing fortnite clips you send in send them into the email address linked within the top of that video description also guys if you want to win some gift cards simply drop a like on this video leave a comment down below and join my discord server linked within the video description but let's get straight into this fortnite top 5 and in at number five we have a clip sent in by mbix16 who sneaks off on his team's fortress and just annihilates all four members. All we have a clip sent in by gol is my dad who takes two out at range with his rifle and flanks behind them to destroy the entire team with his shotgun. Here we have a clip sent in by rejack one man and his assault rifle. Clip sent in by my lado landing two perfectly timed sniping shots and then the rest is all a big boom. In at number one we have a clip sent in by slays playing doubles we're taking down two teams with ease then sniping shots were absolutely insane great great clip but guys as the end of this top five solo team wipes of the week if you enjoyed the video leaving a like really does help me out if you are new around here and enjoy what you see be sure to subscribe but thanks as always for stopping by and hopefully I will see you on that next one