We are asking each tutorial session to allow some time to discuss the following topics, choosing one or more each day, or other topics that arise during the sessions. Suggestions for questions for each day are:

Day 0

Guidelines for Positive, Inclusive, and Responsible Conduct

Our workshop has published its `Guidelines for Positive, Inclusive, and Responsible Conduct’ on our workshop information website: The statement addresses professional conduct at meetings such as this, and intolerance of harassment of any kind. Review the statement and discuss its implications.

Day 1: Does human genetics need an antiracism plan?

Day 2: Is it OK to write your hypothesis after you have analyzed the data?

“To compensate for this remoteness from our participants, let us at least become intimately familiar with the record of their behavior: the data. Examine them from every angle. Analyze the sexes separately. Make up new composite indexes. If a datum suggests a new hypothesis, try to find further evidence for it elsewhere in the data. If you see dim traces of interesting patterns, try to reorganize the data to bring them into bolder relief. If there are participants you don’t like, or trials, observers, or interviewers who gave you anomalous results, place them aside temporarily and see if any coherent patterns emerge. Go on a fishing expedition for something–anything–interesting.” (Bem, 2000, pp. 4-5)

Bem, Daryl J. (2000) Writing an empirical article. In Sternberg, R. (Ed.) (2000) Guide to publishing in psychology journals. Cambridge University Press. Cited in Why Psychologists Must Change the Way They Analyze Their Data: The Case of Psi. Eric Jan Wagenmakers, Ruud Wetzels, Denny Borsboom, & Han van der Maas Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 100(3), Mar 2011, p. 427.

Day 3: Is collecting biological sex necessary for genetic studies, and if so, how do we collect this information in a way that appreciates gender diversity?

As researchers, we use information about biological sex to, for example, ensure that our genetic data is appropriately matched to individuals in a study. How do we collect this information about biological sex as distinct from gender? How do we best communicate this information in a culturally sensitive manner? Particularly when the general population might not use terms in the same way as those in our field of research.

Day 4: Should data collected using public funds always be shared openly?

Should government funding agencies like NIH in the US require sharing of all primary data collected with their support? Should there be restrictions on who has access and for what use? How can we protect against a flood of bad science (BS)? Who pays the costs of data sharing, harmonization, annotation, quality control, archival maintenance?

Day 5: Authorship: How many authors are enough?

What roles merit authorship? Zombie authors? Who should get the most credit? How should this be indicated?

Day 6: Institutional Review Boards: Do IRBs facilitate or impede human research?

Day 7: What should PRSs be used for?

Clinical risk prediction? Lifestyle choices; preventative medical intervention; insurance assessment; how about educational attainment prediction and assignment to school programs? Or prenatal testing and embryo selection? Or partner choice?

Day 8: Are there areas of inquiry where genetic studies should not be done?

Day 9: Peer review: Does peer review work?

Open Access? Predatory publishing? Rigorous review vs timeliness in publishing. Grant review work --- who should do this, workload, costs and benefits? Should awardees be required to do reviews?

Day 10: Should journal editors consider the moral and ethical implications of research in determining suitability for publication?

Are ethics relevant to scientific publication?