Research Integrity:self-evident or not?

James ParryChief Executive, UK Research Integrity Office

University of WarwickApril 2014

www.ukrio.org info@ukrio.org @UKRIO

What is research integrity?

• ‘Things we should do’• ‘Requirements from funders that we have to meet’• ‘Basic practice’• ‘Gets you thinking about your work’• ‘Obvious’• ‘We know what we’re doing so don’t need to worry about it’• ‘My supervisor takes care of it’• ‘Something to get out of the way at the beginning so we can

get on with the real work’• ‘Not really relevant to my discipline’

What is research integrity?

• ‘In general terms, responsible conduct in research is simply good citizenship applied to professional life.’

Steneck, N., 2007. Office of Research Integrity Introduction to the Responsible Conduct of Research Revised Edition.

• Council for Science and Technology (2006) - Rigour, respect and responsibility – a universal ethical code for scientists.

• UKRIO’s Code of Practice for Research (2009) describes principles for good research conduct: Excellence, honesty, integrity, co-operation, accountability, training and skills, safety.

• The Concordat to Support Research Integrity (2012)

A common theme: principles and standards that apply to the entire life cycle of a research project, from beginning to end.

Why do we promote research integrity?

• Ensure research is carried out to the highest possible standards of quality and ethics.

• Retain the public’s trust.• Ensure the safety of research participants.• Reduce poor practice and mistakes.• Prevent research misconduct.• Prevent ‘questionable research practices’.• Encourage researchers to engage critically with issues of

good practice and high ethical standards in research.

Isn’t research integrity obvious?

• Don’t researchers naturally practice ‘good’ research?

• Aren’t standards for research practice self-evident?

So do we really need to worry about research integrity?

• Assumptions about research conduct include:

1. Misconduct and questionable practices are rare.

2. Self-regulation keeps any problems in check.

3. It is impossible to prevent misconduct and questionable practices occurring anyway.

• These assumptions are not accurate…

1. Problems are rare?

• Fanelli, D., 2009. How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data: 21 misconduct surveys included in systematic review, 18 in

meta-analysis. On average, 1.97% of respondents admitted to have

fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once. Up to 33.7% admitted to questionable research practices. In surveys asking about the behaviour of colleagues, 14.12%

knew of falsification and up to 72% knew of other questionable research practices.

PLoS ONE 4(5): e5738. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005738

2. Does self-regulation work?

• Bell Labs/ Jan Henrick Schön Case:

Co-authored dozens of papers on superconductivity.

Other researchers could not replicate his results.

Colleagues, supervisors, editors and competing research teams failed to notice anything was wrong.

Someone who read one of his papers raised concerns…

Bell Labs appointed an investigation committee and 16 papers were found to have fraudulent data.

Science retracted 7 papers, Nature retracted 8.

3. Can problems be prevented?

• A recurring them from UKRIO: problems occurring because of overconfidence, bad habits or a failure to get help.

• Researchers need to be encouraged to be self-critical and there should be no stigma attached to asking for assistance.

• Organisations need to support their researchers in this.• A key lesson from UKRIO’s unique experience: serious

problems could have easily been avoided with a bit of foresight.

It is relevant to you and your research 1/2

• Protection re. liability and institutional insurance constraints• Enhancing awareness of legal issues (e.g. consent)• Assurance of continuing opportunities to seek funding• Strengthening case for research funding• Gaining public confidence• Facilitating recruitment willingness in participants• Helping research students understand the issues• Bringing on next generation of scientists with integrity• Encouraging collegiality around standards• Collaborative research: ‘making sure you’re all on the same page’ –

with different teams, organisations, countries, etc.

It is relevant to you and your research 2/2

• Halting ethical 'drift‘ and keeping up with developments in ethics• Supporting reasoning around new challenges/ methods/ topics• Protecting academic freedom in institutions• The moral case• Borderline between some questionable practices and normal /

sloppy practice can be fine … so even honest researchers need training and a good understanding to avoid problems

• Conventions for research often set by others – e.g. regulators, funders and journals –so researchers need to be taught the ‘rules’ and can’t necessarily work them out for themselves

• Sustaining and enhancing quality and ethical standards: research must not only be honest but must be seen to be honest

Why is research integrity important?

• Research integrity is vital to ensure that research is carried out to the highest possible standards.

• It should be self-evident but often it is not.

• It therefore needs to be promoted and supported.

• For researchers: know what is required of you, where to get help and try to think about issues and problems in advance.

• For organisations: support your researchers and make sure there is no stigma attached to asking for help.

Acknowledgements/ further reading

• Council for Science and Technology, 2006. Rigour, respect and responsibility – a universal ethical code for scientists [online]. Available from: www.bis.gov.uk/assets/bispartners/goscience/docs/u/universal-ethical-code-scientists.pdf

• Fanelli, D., 2009. How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data. PLoS ONE 4(5): e5738. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005738 [online]. Available from: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0005738

• Fang, F. C., Steen, R. G. & Casadevall, A. Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA (2012) doi: 10.1073/pnas.1220649110 [online]. Available from: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/09/27/1212247109.abstract

• Research Councils UK, 2013. Policy and Guidelines on Governance of Good Research Conduct [online]. Available from: http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/funding/researchintegrity/

• Steneck, N., 2007. Office of Research Integrity Introduction to the Responsible Conduct of Research Revised Edition [online]. Available from: www.ori.hhs.gov/documents/rcrintro.pdf

• UK Research Integrity Office, 2009. Code of Practice for Research: Promoting good practice and preventing misconduct [online]. Available from: www.ukrio.org/publications/

• University of Warwick, 2013. Research Code of Practice [online]. Available from: http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/services/rss/researchgovernance_ethics/research_code_of_practice/

• Universities UK et al., 2012. The Concordat to Support Research Integrity [online]. Available from: http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/highereducation/Documents/2012/TheConcordatToSupportResearchIntegrity.pdf

Additional material provided by Prof. Michael Farthing, Prof. Ron Laskey and Prof. Nick Steneck, UKRIO.