Integrity in the Global Research Arena

The following sections are included:

• Contents
• About the Editors
• Preface
• Montreal Statement on Research Integrity in Cross-Boundary Research Collaborations
• Keynote Address: Current and Future Challenges for those Promoting 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…

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).

The European Network of Research Integrity Offices (ENRIO) was established in 2007. Today representatives of 21 European countries have joined this network. ENRIO aims to share experiences and to discuss possible solutions related to the prevention of research misconduct, raising awareness for good scientific practice (training/education) and also with regard to investigations of scientific misbehaviour. Countries learn from each other; some improve their own structures and procedures, others successfully move towards the establishment of their own national structures on research integrity…

The following sections are included:

• Introduction: The European Research Council
• Research Ethics
• Research Integrity
• Conclusion

The following sections are included:

• Introduction
• Basis for an Irish Policy on Research Integrity (RI)
• The Irish National Policy on RI
• Next Steps for Ireland

This is a short chapter on the development in Denmark since the Second World Conference on Research Integrity (WCRI) in 2010.

Professional networks and platforms for researchers can have a very important role in activities related to the research integrity (RI) and ethics. Aside from the structures suitable for various promotional activities, training and sharing experience, they can also provide valuable insights on the state-of-the-art in the field, as well as identify challenges and indicate trends. Particularly valuable can be international and regional networks and platforms gathering young researchers from various fields and sectors…

There are three national standards that provide a framework for all research in Australia:

• Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research (2007)
• National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (2007)
• Australian Code for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes (2013)…

Agreed principles of, and responsibilities for, research integrity are at the heart of a global approach to strengthening responsible conduct of research. Yet authorship criteria, for example, as Ashima Anand explores, are still varying widely and the responsibility authorship confers, including dissemination of the findings, needs to be an integral part of agreed authorship principles. In fact, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, for example, has strengthened its guideline for authorship by adding to the criteria a fourth one: “agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work thereby ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved”…

The “Principle of Universality of Science”, which is Statute 5 of the International Council of Scientist (ICSU), is also referred to as Freedom and Responsibility in Science. Amongst other issues it states that the free and responsible practice of science is fundamental to scientific advancement and human and environmental wellbeing. According to this statute, in order to achieve this “requires responsibility at all levels to carry out and communicate scientific work with integrity, respect, fairness, trustworthiness and transparency, recognising its benefits and possible harms.” Of these responsibilities, I would like to discuss the issue of communication of scientific work i.e., writing of scientific papers with respect and fairness. Appropriate authorship, which involves granting due credit to those contributing substantially is an important aspect. It is a requirement of all agencies that fund research that the studies arising thereof should be published. On a wider aspect publication provides to the authors academic and professional standing, credibility in their chosen fields and eventually a means for enhancing their careers. Some of the benefits that a long list of published work can provide are to enable authors to apply for, or be nominated to, various academic awards and eventually lead to academic-empire building. Some examples of the latter are getting recognition for what they project is their exclusive contribution and have new research centres or even institutes set up.

The following sections are included:

• Introduction: Conflict of Interest in Research
• The Primary Allegiance of Healthcare: The Patient or the Research Participant?
• Methodology
• Results
• Discussion
• Conclusion
• References

Improving through small steps to test the value and limits of a paradigm (Kuhn, 1962), science sometimes happily generates new theories that may again subject to falsification (Popper, 1934). As the endeavour is ambitious and exploratory, research improves through numerous checks before and during experimentation and publication, such as peer review…

In 2010, as the Director of Research Ethics, Karolyn White received a complaint from some Indigenous land-holders about the conduct of a Macquarie University PhD candidate. Among other allegations, the Indigenous land-holders claimed that the candidate had conducted research without permission or ethics clearance on Aboriginal land. The candidate was a non-Indigenous researcher from North America studying Aboriginal archaeoastronomy in Australia. The candidate had a master's degree in astrophysics. He was studying at Macquarie University under the supervision of Kristina Everett, a non-Indigenous Australian anthropologist working at Macquarie's Indigenous Unit…

The following sections are included:

• Introduction
• The Technological Solution and the Problems Associated with It
• A Scientific Oath
• Conclusion
• References

Note from Publisher: This chapter contains an image only.

When allegations of misconduct are made, it is of utmost importance to have strong and fair processes in place at institutional level. Kerry Rehn outlines what some of the possible pitfalls in investigations are and what can be done to avoid them. She outlines the top ten pitfalls ranging from failure to follow institutional policies to failures of action after an investigation. In addition, a thorough understanding of the key legal risks will ensure that institutional investigations are not hampered inappropriately and that institutions are protected from loss of reputation. One particularly important area that is often overlooked is the timely notification of regulatory agencies, funding bodies, journals and others. One of the focus sessions at the Montreal conference started to investigate how journals, funders and institutions could best work together and the results of these sessions are described in Part IV of this book…

The following sections are included:

• Introduction
• The Top 10 Pitfalls
• Failure to Follow Institutional Policies
• Commissioning a Formal Investigation Without Preliminary Assessment
• Failing to Secure Evidence and Protect Interests of Affected Parties
• Notifying Regulatory Agencies, Funding Bodies, Journals and Others
• Lack of Clarity in Terms of Reference and Investigating Matters Out of Scope
• Failures in Selection of, and Support for, Investigation Panel Members
• Misunderstandings and Breaches of Confidentiality Obligations
• Procedural Fairness
• Deficient Investigation Process, Record Keeping, or Both
• Post-Investigation Action

The first three days of this conference included panels entitled: “Teaching the Responsible Conduct of Research”; “Education in the Responsible Conduct of Research”; and “Tools and Techniques for Teaching the Responsible Conduct of Research.” It is my contention that such didactic efforts are based on a false premise: that research misconduct is the product of ignorance, that is, a lack of knowledge of the rules of the game or a lack of the skills required to play it honestly (Kornfeld, 2012)…

The following sections are included:

• Defining Plagiarism
• Practical Consequences
• Building on What is There
• An Ideal Approach: The Ethos of Science
• A Non-Ideal Approach: The Civilizing Power of Hypocrisy
• Conclusion
• References

The following sections are included:

• A New Act on Research Ethics and a New Commission on Misconduct
• A Traditional Perspective and a New Legal Perspective on the Ethos of Science
• Objective and Subjective Misconduct, Institutional Failure in Research Ethics
• The Internal Norms of Science and the Indispensable Importance of Self-Regulation
• References

It is important to distinguish carefully between two presently debated phenomena: (a) the need to improve data management, the control of data and data-sharing, and (b) scientific misconduct (that is, fraud and fabrication). The last one is a hot issue in the media at present, especially in the Netherlands after the Diederik Stapel case, although nobody really knows the prevalence and frequency of the various forms of misconduct, the so-called “cardinal sins” of science. Routine trespasses, such as data-trimming and cooking, have much more influence on trust in scientific research and the pursuit of truth. But we do not know the frequency of questionable research practices either. Do we need to know more? Do we have to do more research on the ethics of science? If so, what are the best methods to accomplish such research…

The following sections are included:

• Introduction
• Nature and Extent of the Fraud
• All-Encompassing Inquiry
• Statistical Evidence
• Reactions in Universities and Research Institutes
• Sharpening Control
• Minor Misdemeanours
• Conclusion
• References

Through most of the history of science, integrity was largely taken for granted as a part of research activities, discoveries and publication processes. Rare lapses in integrity were dismissed as mistakes or aberrations. Only in the past three decades has integrity come to be seen as needing attention and support from the institutions that produce research, as requiring constant vigilance and oversight, as worthy of elaborate instructional initiatives. In short, integrity must be fostered. But how…

Fostering scientific integrity became an explicit ethical issue during the 1980's as some highly publicised cases in the US drew attention to the nature and risks of scientific fraud. After a long debate on the exact definition of fraud, analyses were begun to investigate the various aspects of fraud in science. As a result, the early years of the new millennium gave way to various developments and policy initiatives fostering scientific integrity; the development of ethical codes and guidelines on scientific conduct; formalised procedures for investigating questionable cases; the establishment of specific regulatory agencies; data collection procedures on misconduct and so on. After three decades of increasing activities on scientific integrity it seems that the education of young scientists became the primary focus for fostering scientific integrity and controlling the emergence of questionable practices in science. Accordingly, in the US and in some European countries, one can find numerous courses and educational initiatives focusing on the ethics of scientific conduct, usually under the name of responsible conduct of research (RCR) education (Steneck, 2013). Both as a researcher interested in misconduct, and as a teacher of such courses, I became sceptical as to whether these courses can fulfil their aims of changing the behaviour of scientists and fostering scientific integrity. Most of my scepticism is based on the apparent tension between the formal curriculum of RCR courses and the informal and hidden curriculum of science education…

In the study of research ethics and integrity, I come across four general observations that influence one's understanding thereof (see Lategan, 2010, 2011, 2012a, 2012b). They are “general” because these observations are informing the research environment although these observations may not always be well researched and because these observations impact all categories of research workers — researchers, research assistants, research managers and administrators and research policy-makers…

The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) published guidelines on cooperation between research institutions and journals on research integrity cases in March 2012 after extensive consultation with COPE members and people involved with research integrity at universities (Wager & Kleinert, 2012). The guidelines set out general principles for such interactions, but do not attempt to describe detailed processes or to describe the best methods for handling specific questions about research and publication integrity…

Research on (un)ethical conduct in science has advanced rapidly. We have learned that ethical misbehaviour is not just the work of a few bad apples, but is something virtually everyone does, deliberately or inadvertently. Most scientists report having witnessed colleagues engaging in questionable behaviour (Titus et al., 2008; Keith-Spiegel & Koocher, 2010)…

Physicians and medical students in Russia have only recently started studying ethical problems. “Medical Ethics” appeared as part of their curriculum about 10 years ago. Before then, all ethical matters were discussed in philosophy courses. Integrity is still not a prominent part of the instruction of future doctors…

Taiwan's higher learning institutions, including both teaching-oriented colleges and universities and research-oriented think-tanks and industrial laboratories, are generally modelled after the West, especially the US. It is thus quite natural that when various institutional monitoring mechanisms were established in the US to ensure research integrity among academic disciplines and research facilities and to protect the rights of research objects, the same protocols would soon be copied in Taiwan. Even the sequential order for the involved institutions would be the same: first in the biomedical fields, to be followed by the humanities and the social sciences — although with a clear time lag of about 10 to 15 years. This chapter discusses the processes with which the research ethics review protocol was developed in Taiwan in recent years.

Training in the responsible conduct of research (RCR, also called research ethics training) is slowly spreading throughout the global research world. A decade or so ago, formal RCR training was the exception and not the rule in most countries. This part present reports on effort to implement and assess RCR training in Australia, China, Finland, Germany and the US. They illustrate the different approaches that have been taken, the challenges associated with implementation and different strategies for assessment…

The following sections are included:

• General Background of Emergent Need for RCR Training in Universities in China
• RCR Training in PUHSC
• Build RCR Atmosphere in the Whole University
• References

This chapter seeks to highlight some observations that I have made while instructing responsible conduct of research (RCR) courses for graduate students at a large engineering institution, the Georgia Institute of Technology, in the US. I currently administer an academic policy that requires all new doctoral students to receive online and in-person RCR training.

The following sections are included:

• Background
• Issues and Challenges
• Research Integrity Training Framework and Implementation Process
• Conclusion and Future Improvements
• References
• Further Reading

Academic research institutions provide a formal training ground for developing the critical thinking and reasoning skills that scientists and engineers will need as professionals. For many, this training includes instruction in the responsible conduct of research (RCR) where students and trainees become acquainted with rules, regulations, professional codes and standards of practice thought to influence research integrity. Since many science graduates pursue careers in business, industry, government and non-profit employment sectors, instructional materials were developed to facilitate learning about cross sector application of core topics typically associated with planning, conducting and reporting research. The instructional strategies were then field-tested with four Professional Science Master's (PSM) degree programmes within the California State University (CSU) system including medical physics, biotechnology, computational sciences and environmental sciences. Participants included programme faculty, graduate students and employers who provide internships for PSM students. Results indicate that topics typically associated with RCR (e.g., data management, collaboration, conflict of interest) combined with instruction that actively engages participants in the learning process through inquiry, guided interaction and collaborative projects can be used to facilitate learning about the ethical dimensions in non-academic science professions. In addition, the instructional elements were examined against a framework derived from research on human learning to identify the extent to which the instructional techniques aligned with accepted standards. While this instructional model was developed and tested with PSM programmes, the concepts and framework can be applied to RCR instruction broadly.

After several serious cases of scientific misconduct had occurred in the 1990s, the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, DFG) published the memorandum “Proposals for Safeguarding Good Scientific Practice” (DFG, 1998). Following the second recommendation in this memorandum, which is binding on all DFG members and institutions supported by the DFG, the German research institutions and universities developed codes of conduct and rules to safeguard good scientific practice. One main goal is the prevention of misconduct in science. But only a few people had asked for Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) teaching programmes and the demand for courses had been scarce…

The study focuses on the ethical sensitivity of university students in light of their research ethics skills and the university as a learning environment. Eighty-seven students in behavioural sciences (psychology and educational science) responded to a questionnaire that included three vignettes and measures of empathy, socialisation and experiences of ethical aspects of the learning climate. The relationship between socialisation into the practices of the profession and the institution and the ability to recognise ethical issues in research suggests that students who have already “worked out” the norms and values for themselves have committed to these values and are willing to apply them in practice.

During the discussion leading to the adoption of the Singapore Statement on Research Integrity at the Second World Conference on Research Integrity (2010), some division arose over whether Responsibility 14 (SS14), Societal Consideration, was appropriate for a statement on integrity. Some felt that it was too broad and not directly relevant to research as a professional activity, others that it was essential and could not be ignored. The chapters in this part continue this discussion directly and through examples of ways in which different organisations are promoting social responsibility in research…

Scientists have two basic responsibilities: (1) their professional responsibilities to uphold the accepted standards and practices of science for conducting and reporting research, and (2) their social responsibilities to the larger society. At the July 2010 Second World Conference on Research Integrity in Singapore, participants drafted a Statement on Research Integrity, later finalised in September 2010, which included the following provision: 14. Societal Considerations: Researchers and research institutions should recognize that they have an ethical obligation to weigh societal benefits against risks inherent in their work (Singapore Statement on Research Integrity, 2010). There was considerable debate at the meeting on whether “societal” considerations belonged in a statement dealing with research integrity, but the view that it did prevailed…

The hundreds of attendees who, at the Second World Conference on Research Integrity, discussed and voted on the Singapore Statement generally agreed on all points, except one: should the Statement include a point about social responsibility? The lively debate that ensued led to the inclusion of point number 14, a general recommendation that: “Researchers and research institutions should recognize that they have an ethical obligation to weigh societal benefits against risks inherent in their work” (see http://www.singaporestatement.org/statement.html). This appeal seems to leave many questions to be answered, and gives little practical guidance.

Scientific peer-reviewed journals play a key role in the communication of scientific knowledge, and in the dissemination of information detailing developments in scientific practices. Within the scientific community, concerns have been raised about the quality of reporting in relation to research involving the use of animals. These concerns encompass a number of issues including problems with the experimental design and/or analysis of animal studies, as well as publication bias due to the under reporting of so called “negative”, and/or commercially sensitive results. There is also a growing body of literature evaluating the effects of poor animal welfare on the quality of the resulting scientific data, which quite apart from the ethical issues this raises, also contributes to problems such as reproducibility of results. It is at this crossroads that the interests of animal welfare and research integrity converge. If research involving the use of animals is planned, conducted and reported according to contemporary good practice, then scientists can be seen to be acting with integrity and in accordance with the 3Rs principles of humane science: to replace the use of animals wherever practical; reduce the number of animals used whilst ensuring results remain statistically valid; and refine the animals lifetime experience to minimise the potential for them to experience pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm…

Geoethics reflects the intersection of geology, sociology and philosophy and frequently focuses on important environmental issues and problems often related to natural risk management and mitigation. Geoethics promotes a critical analysis of the use of natural resources, highlighting educational and communication aspects in sciences. Above all, Geoethics encourages geoscientists to assume responsibility in carrying out their research activities with the greatest integrity, especially since such activities can effectively contribute in guiding civil society and industry towards adopting sustainable practices in relation to the Geosphere. The research in Geoethics is multidisciplinary in nature, often requiring a team of experts of different backgrounds…

In reviewing the major issues in scientific research over the past several decades, it is clear that the research community has both greatly increased in size and increased in range, becoming truly a global community with all the attendant challenges — disparate languages, cultures, histories. Two main challenges emerge in terms of scientific credibility and integrity: maintaining trust in the process and ensuring transparency. Escalating realities have brought to the fore issues around conflicts of interest and increasing pressure for broad-based collaborations, specifically through public–private partnerships (PPPs)…

The contract between science and society in the 21st Century has changed (Gibbons, 1999). According to scholars in Science and Technology Studies (STS), society is speaking back to science, seeking to participate in debates and decision-making about how science and technology shape our natural world and society (Jasanoff, 2004; Nowotny et al., 2001). Science today is engaged in addressing complex problems caused by technological advancement and innovation, such as climate change, loss of biodiversity and the challenges brought about by a growing global population such as food and energy security. Science increasingly confronts intractable and “wicked” challenges. These challenges blur and traverse the boundaries of science and politics, what are perceived as public or private interests, and what constitutes knowledge and practice. As such they present an entanglement of actors, knowledge, values and cultures (Jasanoff, 2004). They are also what Bruno Latour called “scientific imbroglios”, sites of knowledge, meaning, power and politics (Latour, 1993)…