Integrity In The Global Research Arena

Nicholas Steneck, Melissa Anderson, Sabine Kleinert, Tony Mayer

• Publisher: WSPC
• Year: 2015
• eBook ISBN: 9789814632409
• Topic: Biological Sciences
• Subtopic: Science General
• Index: Biological Sciences

With a seeming increase in the number of high-profile cases of research misconduct, there is a need for promoting and upholding the principles for the responsible conduct of research. At the 3rd World Conference on Research Integrity, convened in Montréal in 2013, vital issues relating to ethics and behavior in research environments were discussed at length. This book captures the major content and discussions arising from the conference. The Montréal Conference, like the previous conferences, attracted a diverse group of delegates and speakers, including government and institutional leaders, policy makers, journal editors, officials of research funding agencies, scientists and other researchers, students and postdoctoral fellows, representatives of academic societies and academies, and those responsible for compliance and regulation, as well as many who are engaged in doing empirical research on topics related to research integrity.

The aim of this book is to share the ideas emerging from the rich discussion at the conference with scholars and policymakers around the world. It covers the main topics that are today seen as vital to decision making about responsible research. The book also sets the stage for the 4th World Conference on Research Integrity, which will be held in Brazil in mid-2015.

This book and the prior World Conference publication, Promoting Research Integrity in a Global Environment, represent the largest ongoing global discussion of issues relating to integrity in research. It provides its readers with the opportunity to learn more about and eventually engage these issues locally or globally with colleagues.

Contents:

• About the Editors
• Preface
• Montreal Statement
• Keynote Address
• Current and Future Challenges for those Promoting Research Integrity (Michael J G Farthing)
• The Diversity of National Approaches to Research Integrity:
  • Introduction (Tony Mayer)
  • Responsible Conduct of Research: A Canadian Approach (Susan V Zimmerman)
  • With Joined Forces for Research Integrity in Europe: European Network of Research Integrity Offices (Nicole Foeger)
  • Research Ethics and Research Integrity at the European Research Council (Alessandra Ferrari)
  • Building a National Research Integrity Framework: Ireland's Experience (Maura Hiney)
  • Impact in Denmark of the Singapore Statement on Research Integrity and the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (Nils Axelsen)
  • Professional Networks Contributing to Research Integrity and Ethics: From Cooperation to Innovation (Snežana Krstić)
  • Update on Developments in Australia (Timothy M Dyke)
• Principles and Responsibilities:
  • Introduction (Sabine Kleinert)
  • Essentials of Determining Authorship (Ashima Anand)
  • Research Conflict of Interest: Flaws in Professional Codes of Ethics (Charles Marsan and Maude Laliberté)
  • Error and Fraud: A Sometimes Fuzzy Frontier (Jean-Pierre Alix)
  • Bearing Crosses: A Case Study in Cross-Cultural, Cross-Disciplinary, Cross-Border Higher Degree by Research Supervision (Karolyn White and Kristina Everett)
  • Technology and Commitment (Helene Ingierd)
  • Sharing of Data from Clinical Trials and Research Integrity (Karmela Krleza-Jeric)
• Responding to Research Misconduct:
  • Introduction (Sabine Kleinert)
  • Managing Research Misconduct Investigations: The Top 10 Pitfalls and How to Avoid Them (Kerry Rehn)
  • Research Misconduct: Suggested Remedies from a Psychiatrist's Perspective (Donald S Kornfeld)
  • Working against Plagiarism (Hallvard J Fossheim)
  • Plagiarism as Violation of Law in Norway: On Inappropriate Juridification of Research Ethics (Ragnvald Kalleberg)
  • Research Integrity and Solid Data Management: The Dutch Experience (Kees Schuyt)
  • What Lessons Can We Learn from the Stapel Case? (Pieter J D Drenth)
• Fostering Integrity in Research:
  • Introduction (Melissa S Anderson)
  • Fostering Scientific Integrity and Assessing the Hidden Curriculum (Péter Kakuk)
  • Software for Academic Integrity: The Role of Research Codes, Statements and Declarations in Research Ethics and Integrity (Laetus O K Lategan)
  • Cooperation between Journals, Research Institutions and Funders over Research and Publication Integrity Cases: Defining the Challenges (Elizabeth Wager and Sabine Kleinert)
  • Blowing the Oboe, Not the Whistle: Creative Accounts about Saving Science from the Unethical (Joan E Sieber)
  • How Physicians Understand Research Ethics Problems in Russia (Leyla Akhmadeeva, Gulnara Rayanova and Boris Veytsman)
  • Developing Institutional Monitoring Protocols for Humanities and Social Science Research in Taiwan (Shu-min Huang)
• Responsible Conduct of Research Training:
  • Introduction (Nicholas H Steneck)
  • RCR Training in Peking University Health Science Center (Yali Cong)
  • Reflections on Teaching RCR at an US Engineering Institution (Jason Borenstein)
  • Research Integrity Management Framework for Joint PhD and Cotutelle Candidates at Macquarie University (Ren Yi)
  • Learning Theory Applied to Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) Instructional Design: A Case Study Assessing Research Integrity Training for Cross-Sector Science Trainees (Camille Nebeker)
  • Teaching Good Scientific Practice and Curricular Development in Germany (Helga Nolte, Michael Gommel and Gerlinde Sponholz)
  • The University as a Learning Environment for Research Ethics (Erika Löfström and Minka Rissanen)
• Integrity and Society:
  • Introduction (Nicholas H Steneck)
  • Intersection of Research Integrity with Social Responsibility (Mark S Frankel)
  • Societal Consideration as Willingness to Dialogue — A Commentary to Singapore Statement Point N 14 (Daniele Fanelli, Leiv K Sydnes, Howard Ducharme, Merry Bullock, Gary Comstock, Carthage Smith, Inmaculada de Melo-Martin, Susan V Zimmerman and Mark S Frankel)
  • Where Research Integrity and Scientific Reporting Converge, Animal Welfare Stands to Benefit (Nicola J Osborne)
  • Geoethics: A Challenge for Research Integrity in Geosciences (Silvia Peppoloni, Peter Bobrowsky and Giuseppe Di Capua)
  • Principles for Building Public/Private Partnerships to Benefit Public Health (Sylvia Rowe)
  • Research Integrity and Governance in Contentious Policy Arenas: An Exploration of Coal Seam Gas Debates in Australia (Naomi Smith Devetak)

Readership: Researchers, research administrators from funding agencies and similar bodies, research organisations performing research, scientists, universities, policy makers and general public.
Key Features:

• Globally representative volume, including presentations from major research countries and institutions around the world
• Cutting edge research from researchers and policymakers who are shaping the study and discussions of research integrity
• Contemporary and relevant as it reflects and supports the growing understanding of the importance of promoting integrity in research

Part I

The Diversity of National Approaches to Research Integrity

This part sets out a series of chapters which describe national policies and procedures, mainly in Europe and shows the diversity of approaches which exist. This has to be set against the national legislative framework and culture in each country. So, for instance, the Scandinavian nations have tended to establish national structures founded in legislation whereas in other countries such as Ireland and the UK, this is very much a matter of subsidiarity devolving action to the institutions (universities and research institutes) responsible for performing research.

Unlike the USA, which has established national requirements for research integrity policy and procedures and the requirement for training in the responsible conduct of research through legislative (parliamentary) action, the situation in Canada is more akin to the UK approach. Zimmerman, in her contribution, describes how the three main agencies responsible for supporting research in Canada have come together to evolve a policy originally dealing only with research integrity in relation to misconduct into one that emphasises responsible conduct. As she says, this policy also responds to the public’s appetite for greater accountability and transparency, a trend that is common in many nations, especially when the great bulk of research is funded by the taxpayer.

In Canada, the approach has been one of creating a framework for action which places responsibility clearly on the research institutions themselves and, of course, through them on the individual researcher as emphasised in the first and most important responsibility identified in the Singapore Statement. What is different in Canada from say, the UK Concordat on Research Integrity, is that a national secretariat has been established by the agencies concerned to promote and provide educational resources as well as being responsible for undertaking misconduct investigations as necessary.

The second paper, by Foeger, is an overview of the complex and diverse situation in Europe as seen by the European Network of Research Integrity Offices (ENRIO). What this shows is that, in different nations, there are more and less mature systems, that some are based, as referred to earlier, on a legislative approach while others operate at a level of funding agencies and the research institutions themselves, with more or less national coordination. Establishing a common approach across Europe is difficult as the principle of subsidiarity is very much to the forefront, leaving action at the national level and below.

With an increasing trend towards cross-border collaboration in research — the theme of the Montréal Statement — the way in which Europe has addressed the issue of research integrity may provide valuable lessons for others. Until now, the Framework Programme of the European Union (now Horizon 2020) has not laid down any requirements regarding research integrity, despite it being the World’s largest single funding instrument. However, an important element in the Programme has been the establishment of the European Research Council (ERC) with its emphasis not on collaborative research, but on the competitive excellence of individual researchers and their institutions. Hence, it has been necessary for the ERC to commit itself to “maintain the highest standards in ethics and integrity as fundamental principles of research.” This is set out in the paper by Ferrari in her contribution on “Research Ethics and Research Integrity at the European Research Council.” Interestingly, apart from the usual issues of fabrication, falsification and plagiarism (FFP), this includes conflicts of interest as a significant issue to be addressed. Normally, concerned in addressing allegations of malpractice, the ERC works with the research institution but it does have final recourse, if necessary, to the European Commission’s European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), a formal investigative structure which usually deals with financial malpractice. Initially, the ERC did not see how it could make an integrity policy “stick” in the absence of any clear statement within the Framework Programme from which it draws its funds. However, the ERC has now led by example and the Commission and national agencies should follow this lead. At least in the Horizon 2020 programme, there is now a component for funding research into research integrity.

Moving to the national level, Hiney describes how Ireland has built its national framework, especially in response to the very substantial increase in research funding that has been seen in the country since 2000. Ireland drew heavily on the European Code of Conduct (2010), developed by the European Science Foundation (ESF) and the European Federation of Academies of Sciences and Humanities (ALLEA) as the output of an ESF Member Organisations Forum established in response to the first World Conference on Research Integrity (2007). After a lengthy consultation process the Irish national policy follows a similar model to that of the UK Concordat but with the addition of a panel of international experts, nominated by the Royal Irish Academy, who could conduct investigations at the national level and hear appeals. This is an interesting example of the symbiosis between the funding agencies and an academy of science.

The next contribution by Axelsen outlines the developments that have taken place in Denmark since the Second World Conference on Research Integrity in 2010. Denmark, in 1992, had been the first country, outside the USA, to establish a central research integrity body — the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD). Unfortunately, in choosing to investigate Bjørn Lomborg over a case of so-called climate change denial, the DCSD became embroiled in a difficult and controversial case. The outcome was that the DCSD was restricted in what it could investigate with the primary responsibility being devolved to the universities. It was also fully incorporated into the Danish law. A more recent case — the Penkowa case — has achieved a high public profile and caught the institution concerned unaware and unprepared. The outcome of this case has been that the major universities in Denmark have had to seriously address not only their research integrity policy and procedures, but the promotion of responsible conduct of research. The cartoon at the end of this contribution neatly summarises what are likely to be common attitudes in universities to research integrity across the World and graphically demonstrates the need to have robust policies in place, at research institutions and, most importantly, to provide the requisite training and mentorship which is the best safeguard against misconduct and malpractice.

Krstić addresses the value of networking to exchange experiences in terms of research integrity. This is particularly important for young researchers who may, if their institution is laggard in developing good research practice and research integrity policy and procedures, find that their main source of information and advice is through networks of young researchers such as that of Eurodoc — a network for doctoral students across Europe. Peer to peer learning and exchange is a very strong instrument for knowledge exchange and we neglect such networks, both formal and informal, at our peril.

Finally, this part closes with a short update on developments in Australia, where research behaviour is guided by three national standards. Over a five-year period, the National Health Medical Research Council received 52 allegations of research misconduct, half of which were determined to be unfounded.

Other parts of these book address other national systems. Together with this part, they provide a compendium of examples of the diversity of structures and approaches. Those who are still at an early stage of the development of institutional or national policies can use these contributions to understand both best practice and the pitfalls which can accompany such developments.

Tony Mayer

Chapter 1

Responsible Conduct of Research: A Canadian Approach

Susan V. Zimmerman

Secretariat on Responsible Conduct of Research, Canada

The 2013 Third World Conference on Research Integrity presented an excellent opportunity for Canada to demonstrate to the world its commitment to fostering and maintaining an environment that supports and promotes research integrity and the responsible conduct of research (RCR). The following text sets out the highlights of how Canada, through its three principal research Agencies, addresses RCR and draws on a more detailed description of the Framework on Responsible Conduct that appeared in the summer 2012 issue of Professional Ethics Report (XXV(3), p. 1).

A New Framework for Responsible Conduct of Research

Canada’s three research Agencies — the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada — adopted a fresh approach to promoting the RCR, in December 2011. The Tri-Agency Framework: Responsible Conduct of Research replaces a 1994 policy on research integrity. The Framework responds to the public’s appetite for greater accountability and transparency in publicly funded research with a broadened scope, increased transparency and harmonised approach to handling allegations of breach of Agency policy.

Highlights of the Framework

The Framework demonstrates that good research practices encompass more than simply avoiding fabrication, falsification and plagiarism (FFP). It sets out four objectives:

1.Ensure that the funding decisions made by the Agencies are based on accurate and reliable information;

2.Ensure public funds for research are used responsibly and in accordance with funding agreements;

3.Promote and protect the quality, accuracy, and reliability of research funded by the Agencies; and

4.Promote fairness in the conduct of research and in the process for addressing allegations of policy breaches.

The Framework takes a broad approach to the RCR. Failure to comply with any Agency policy constitutes a breach, and may result in recourse by the Agency.

What constitutes a “serious breach” may vary depending on the context. The definition provided in the glossary of the Framework states: “In determining whether a breach is serious, the Agency will consider the extent to which the breach jeopardises the safety of the public or brings the conduct of research into disrepute. This determination will be based on an assessment of the nature of the breach, the level of experience of the researcher, whether there is a pattern of breaches by the researcher, and other factors as appropriate. Examples of serious breaches may include:

•Recruiting human participants into a study with significant risks or harms without Research Ethics Board approval, or not following approved protocols;

•Using animals in a study with significant risks or harms without Animal Care Committee approval, or not following approved protocols;

•Deliberate misuse of research grant funds for personal benefit not related to research;

•Knowingly publishing research results based on fabricated data;

•Obtaining grant/award funds from the Agencies by misrepresenting one’s credentials, qualifications and/or research contributions in an application.”

The primary purpose of the approach adopted is not to identify and punish wrongdoing, but to ensure respect for all policy and legal requirements. This approach is more rigorous because the scope of good practice is broader than a focus on misconduct; the requirements for compliance are therefore, more expansive than in traditional research integrity policies. The Framework is also tougher on researchers because, for the first time, the Agency presidents have the authority to disclose the name of a researcher who commits a serious breach of Agency policy, as well as the nature of the breach, the institution where he or she was employed at the time of the breach, and the institution...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• About the Editors
• Preface
• Montreal Statement
• Keynote Address
• Part I. The Diversity of National Approaches to Research Integrity
• Part II. Principles and Responsibilities
• Part III. Responding to Research Misconduct
• Part IV. Fostering Integrity in Research
• Part V. Responsible Conduct of Research Training
• Part VI. Integrity and Society