 So, although I serve on a few committees with nominees from the ARC and Intermarcy and Universities of Australia, I'm not speaking on behalf of those August bodies, so any opinions I express are definitely my own. So, what I do to start off with is really talking about sort of the brass tacks when we're thinking about data. So, generally we're thinking about the way in which is access collected or generated. And that data can be in a variety of forms, so it might be documents or survey responses, it might be test results or some sort of audio-visual files, it could be a range of information. When we're talking about personal information, that might be individually identifiable, and these are the terms that the national statement uses. So it can be individually identifiable or re-identifiable, so we're talking about something that may be as coded where the researchers have got access to the code key. And then non-identifiable, so that might be coded by an agency that's supplying it to the researchers, but the researchers don't actually have the code key. Or all of the identifying information has been stripped out, so it's anonymous. And I think it's worthwhile pausing in terms of sensitive personal information because information is not sensitive personally if it's just because it's humiliating or embarrassing or might expose people to risk. Because the Privacy Act actually defines very clearly what's considered sensitive information. The Privacy Act actually closely defines what's considered to be personal information. And so when we're asking participants to give their consent, that consent might be specified for a particular project or a particular use, a particular group of researchers, or it might be extended in terms of future research by that team that's in a related area, or it might be unspecified, it might be a general consent for the research use that they were information. And we need to think about information both in terms of when it was access collective or generated. We need to think about then during the course of the research where it's being stored or how it's being communicated between collaborating with the searches and then after selling. And then finally in terms of how it's going to be disclosed or shared, whether or not it's going to be added to a repository or bank in some way, if it isn't actually going to be a feature of the output for the research. So a single project actually might involve sort of multiples of all of those settings in terms of things like the form of the data, whether or not their personal information, the degree of which are identified and then things like the type of consent that's obtained. So we might actually have multiple settings for different data across a project. But I think it's important to reiterate to everybody that just because research involves ethical sensitivities or risks, it doesn't mean that research is compromised or it's a problem. Quite often the fact that there's ethical challenges for research is actually being indicated that it's perhaps very important that it's going to make some sort of social or broader contribution. And so we should be embracing when that research involves those challenges, not trying to avoid them. So the fact that there are ethical concerns, that it's not a reason to say that the research isn't valid or to say that we shouldn't be accessing or sharing of data, it just maybe means that we require a bit more precautions or arrangements in place. And for individual researchers, you need to be prepared for the fact that the group with the revealing of research might not actually be that familiar with your research design or the topic area. So it may well be that you need to sort of engage with the reviewers to explain the reasons for the research, explain what the benefits are, explain about the data sharing and be ready to justify your approach and take an educative role in terms of those reviewers. And I'm not talking about it being confrontational, though it's been known to happen, but there should be that sort of engaged discussion between researchers and reviewers. But with some careful preparation, it's possible to avoid delays or problems with the research ethics review of a piece of work in the sharing of data. So when you're thinking about sort of research ethics and research integrity of your data, there's a few things to think very quickly. So the guidance in terms of human research ethics can be found in the national statement. And in terms of research integrity, it can be found in the Australian code. And both of those documents have got content on a particular point when we're talking about this issue. So matters like privacy, consent and risk, you'll find across those two documents. And currently, there's reviews underway in terms of both the national statement and the Australian code. And I should face up that I'm involved in the review of the national statement. So there are updates going on and there's public consultations coming. So as a group, it's important that you keep out. You eye out for that and you have inputs or reviews are going on. For those of you that may be a base outside of Australia or during a search outside of Australia, there's comparable documents in other jurisdictions. And in fact, over the course of the last decade, there's increasingly research ethics and research integrity of frameworks in sort of continental Europe in Africa, Southeast Asia and beyond. So you may need to actually refer to those documents in the other jurisdictions. So in terms of the frameworks, a couple of implications. One is the collection of the data and then the use of maybe sharing the data is, it will likely to be considered human research, particularly if it's identified information. And so require some research ethics review. And it may well imply to sort of existing data sources of material from the web or social media. And hopefully your institutional frameworks give you some advice in terms of whether or not it's considered human research. And so then because of that, you need to be thinking about the consent that you obtain and whether or not it's specified, extended or unspecified and what that consent allows for. You need to think about the degree to which that information is identifiable. So is it directly identified in terms of individuals? Is it possible that individuals could be identified by inference, including what within social media there's sorry, social science research increasingly there's reflection on what we call internal identification. So if for instance you were talking about a group of research ethics bureaucrats and you said that you spoke to a bureaucrat that gets around in the world chair and is in his 40s and is losing his hair, you may not have said my name, but people that work in the sphere will know that you're talking about me. And sometimes the internal identification can be more problematic than sort of a general population identification. So we need to be reflecting in terms of are there risks associated with the degree to which people could be identified? Are there risks associated with the release of that information? I think it's important to recognize that there will be groups of people that won't be concerned if they're identified. It may well be that there's a situation that is talking about people that are relatively senior that will be very able to look after their interests when they're concerned. But that's likely to be a project specific reflection. And tied to that, there will be some participants who will demand to be identified if you're talking about sort of activists on a particular issue. It may be a condition of them providing their information is that they will be identified. So that's something that you need to accommodate. So when you're seeking consent for the research use of information, there's a few things that you need to really cover. So there are things you need to include. So thinking ahead in terms of the sharing, banking, and research use, reuse of that information. So is it going to be added to a repository? And talking about the degree to which it's going to be identifiable and really anticipating in terms of and whether or not in terms of consent, the degree of specificity about how that information might be used for other research or shared for other purposes. Being careful not to embed research consent into other consent. So if you're doing research in an area like language support for international students, you don't want to embed the research consent into the process for a person volunteering to receive some support. Making sure that you provide details of a withdrawal mechanism. So participants know what they need to do to withdraw the consent later so that the data could be removed from the banking repository. And then thinking about the mechanism by which other researchers will access that data. So will it be that they're accessing it and identified form or what's the custodian's role in terms of that access? And really in terms of whether or not the other researchers will see an identified form, we're identifiable or not identifiable. Obviously it's really important to make sure that you're keeping good records. So the systems that we're talking about and the workshops in our area are examples of the ways in which you can record the information. So if you will forgive some showing the self promotion but you don't really have any choice because I'm the one with the mic. But along with a couple of colleagues of mine, so Colin Thompson, Mark Israel and Martin Tollett from New Zealand, we maintain a couple of free resources for researchers. So one of them is a resource library that includes a variety of documents and then also there's a research ethics monthly blog. So both of those talk about research ethics and research integrity. I definitely encourage you to drop by and have a look at those resources. Thank you, Gary. Yeah, there's one question. So thank you very much, Gary. And we've got 78 connections on the line at the moment. Just to let you, speakers, presenters know, a question of what is the timeframe for the review of the national statement and which body is overseeing the review? Okay, I mean, that's a really good question because first of all, it's important to stress that the review bodies are including people from the ARC, University of Australia and the NHMRC and various nominees. So there's a real attempt underway to make sure that it's an inclusive approach to speak to the wide gamut of research designs. The actual review of the national statement, it's an ongoing rolling review. There's material that's been released progressively, so that's why last year we saw the opt-out approach to recruitment and consent was released as part of that rolling review. The next block of material, which I've been involved in, hopefully will appear before the end of this year and public consultation will all happen well before that. In terms of the Australian Code, I'm not sure because I'm not privy to that conversation, but I think it's close to being ready for public consultation. And I guess just to reiterate to the group, you know, get involved in that public consultation. Even if you look at it and think you like what's being done, make sure you speak up to express the fact that you're happy with it because otherwise the only voices we hear are the people that aren't happy. So make sure you're involved and you speak up for sort of useful and constructive change. No, that was excellent. Thank you. The other question is, do you think researchers are better informed about ethical issues related to data management now than they were several years ago? Or do the same challenges remain? I mean, once again, that's a really good question. I mean, one of the things, if you're sort of watching the media or if you've got your Google set up, you will have seen in the last... I've just asked a couple of months, there was the emotional contagion, social media, I might say fiasco, but problem. And there was also, recently, there's the OKCupid one, which has sort of highlighted the fact that it's very easy for people to run into trouble. I think that there is a growing awareness, but I think that it's really important that institutions provide resource material to support researchers. I think that we all need to work a lot harder in terms of making sure those resources are available. And I think, you know, I'm not talking about rule books, I'm not talking about a rule book about how to fill out an application form well. I'm talking about things that support the reflective practice of researchers. And hopefully, that's something that we'll be seeing more of. But, you know, hey, there's a reciprocal obligation on researchers as well to abound themselves of those resources. Excellent. Thanks very much, Gary. That's all the question... Oh, sorry, there's a comment here. Can you comment on data governance? And whether you think data governance needs a national approach, what is your vision for this? And before I answer, I just want to reiterate again, I'm not speaking on behalf of the ASCAA and the ASL University of Australia. But, I mean, I think that there is an argument to have a national reference point. I'm not saying that we need a, you know, a national standard that we all have to comply with, but I think that there is value to having a resource that's informing our practice. So, you know, I think that that's a space that something can usefully be done. One of the reasons why the four of us set up the RX Web Resources was to try and encourage some of that conversation between them. Fantastic. Thank you. I'll just clarify that that question came from Dr Weeming Boone at the NHMRC. So maybe a conversation continuing there. Disclamer, disclaimer, disclaimer.