Evaluating the oversight of scientific misconduct

The Office of Research Integrity has proposed a new definition of scientific misconduct that will substantively reduce the federal government's role of oversight of scientific practices. The standard is being changed despite the lack of evidence about the effects of current policies or understanding of why research misconduct occurs, how it can be detected and prevented, and the nature and effectiveness of sanctions. Given this lack of knowledge and the perception that the integrity of science is falling, we believe it would be unwise for the academic and scientific community to adopt this new standard.     

Scientific misconduct: Undue process

Numerous professional societies, universities, research funding sources, federal agencies, and Congressional committees have expressed concern about an apparent increasing incidence of scientific misconduct. Many of these organizations also have published standards for defining such misconduct and their procedures for investigating allegations of scientific misconduct. The futility of these procedures is illustrated by an example of blatant data falsification and fabrication in two different research projects conducted by a single researcher. The problem derives from administrative and judicial systems which have evolved to a stage where they are more concerned with process than outcome. An alternative to the resulting interminable “due process”; of the present system is tentatively suggested.     

Associations between attitudes towards scientific misconduct and self-reported behavior

We investigate the relationship between doctoral students’ attitudes towards scientific misconduct and their self-reported behavior. 203 questionnaires were distributed to doctoral candidates at the Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo 2016/2017. The response rate was 74%. The results show a correlation between attitudes towards misconduct and self-reported problematic behaviors among doctoral students in biomedicine. The four most common reported misbehaviors are adding author(s) who did not qualify for authorship (17.9%), collecting more data after seeing that the results were almost statistically significant (11.8%), turning a blind eye to colleagues’ use of flawed data or questionable interpretation of data (11.2%), and reporting an unexpected finding as having been hypothesized from the start (10.5%). We find correlations between scientific misbehavior and the location of undergraduate studies and whether the respondents have had science ethics lectures previously. The study provides evidence for the concurrent validity of the two instruments used to measure attitudes and behavior, i.e. the Kalichman scale and the Research Misbehavior Severity Score (RMSS). Although the direction of causality between attitudes and misbehavior cannot be determined in this study the correlation between the two indicates that it can be important to engender the right attitudes in early career researchers.     

Research misconduct and crime lessons from criminal science on preventing misconduct and promoting integrity

For 200 years, criminologists theorized that delinquent and criminal acts arise from deviant psychological states (such as irrationality or immorality) and/or social conditions that produce these psychological states. This theoretical perspective, which is being duplicated in most efforts to understand and control research misconduct, has not been productive. More recently, criminological perspectives have emerged, emphasizing situational factors that enhance or restrict the opportunity for illegal or imprudent behavior. These so-called "opportunity" theories have been shown to have practical value in reducing crime rates. We explore the promise of these newer theories for the responsible conduct of research (RCR).     

From Baltimore to Bell Labs: reflections on two decades of debate about scientific misconduct

This essay proposes a new definition of scientific "misconduct," which is broader than the definition recently adopted by the U.S. government. According to the proposed definition, misconduct is a serious and intentional violation of accepted scientific practices, commonsense ethical norms, or research regulations in proposing, designing, conducting, reviewing, or reporting research. Punishable misconduct includes fabrication of data or experiments, falsification of data, plagiarism, or interference with a misconduct investigation. Misconduct does not include honest errors, differences of opinion, or ethically questionable research practices.     

Research records and the resolution of misconduct allegations at research universities

Accurate record keeping is an important part of the responsible conduct of research. However, there is very little empirical research on scientific record keeping. No one knows the incidence of serious problems with research records, the types of problems that occur, nor their consequences. In this study, we examined the role of research records in the resolution of misconduct allegations as a useful barometer for the incidence and types of problems that occur with records. We interviewed Research Integrity Officers (RIOs) at 90 major research universities and conducted focus groups with active research faculty. RIOs reported problems with research records in 38% of the 553 investigations they conducted. Severe problems with research records often prevented completion of investigations while problems that are more typical lengthened them by 2 to 3 weeks. Five types of poor record keeping practices accounted for 75 % of the problems with incomplete/inadequate records being the most common (30%). The focus groups concurred with the findings from the interviews with RIOs, stressed the importance of the research group leader in setting and maintaining record practices, and offered additional insights. While university officials and faculty members have suspected for many years that there are serious problems with research record keeping, our study provides empirical evidence for this belief. By documenting some of the problems with record keeping in university-based research, the results of our study provide information that will be useful for policy development at academic institutions.     

完善科技创新法律环境探析

科技创新需要良好的法律环境。目前 ,制定科技创新基本法 ,加大科技创新相关法律的创制与修订力度 ,建立健全政府引导和扶持科技创新的法律环境 ,是完善科技创新法律环境的重要举措     

Assessing the seriousness of research misconduct: considerations for sanction assignment

Federal and institutional policies recommend the criterion of "seriousness" as a guide for sanction assignment in cases where researchers have been found to have committed research misconduct. Discrepancies in assessments of seriousness for similar acts of misconduct suggest the need to clarify what might be meant by the seriousness of research misconduct and how the criterion can be used to assign sanctions. This essay demonstrates how determinations of seriousness can differ depending on the set of ethical appeals employed and argues that an expanded lexicon for talking about the seriousness of research misconduct would help to promote fairness and consistency in sanction assignment. It concludes with some policy recommendations for those charged with research misconduct sanction assignment and for those who oversee research integrity at institutional levels.     

Research misconduct,NSF v NIH: Its nature and prevalence and the impact of their respective methods of investigation and adjudication

ABSTRACT

The National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have established separate administrative mechanisms for investigation and adjudication of alleged research misconduct.

This report compares research misconduct at NSF and NIH and the possible effects of their respective methods of investigation and adjudication.

Notable and paradoxical findings were identified: NIH supported four times the number of grants as NSF, yet NSF reviewed 2.5 times the number of research misconduct reports. NSF faculty were two-times more likely to be found guilty (88%) than faculty at NIH (42%). 83.6% of NSF offenders were guilty of plagiarism, vs. 4.8% at NIH. NSF trainees made up 6% of the guilty, vs. 42% at NIH. These findings are most likely related to the nature of their respective sciences, scientists, and the nature of their publications.

Investigative policies and procedures are quite similar at these two agencies with the exception of the subpoena power available to the NSF’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) where it would be infrequently utilized in investigations of its predominant offense, plagiarism. However, it could prove useful if made available to the NIH Office of Research Integrity (ORI) for investigations of fabrication/falsification, its most common offense. Federal criteria for prosecution should be modified to increase the likelihood of prosecution of serious offenders referred by ORI.     

Resource allocation and project selection: Control of r & d under dynamic process of data improvement

This paper deals with the problem of optimal control of R&D. The fundamental aspects of this problem are viewed as: uncertainty about economic parameters of new technology (or new activity, e.g. a search for new oil fields) explored by a group of parallel projects attempting to make advances in this technology as well as improve economic data; allocation of investments among rival projects under a given total budget; timing of the ultimate selection of new technology (activity) according to the most successful project. The process of data improvement (PDI) is described as a (random) process of reducing the intervals of uncertainty, the rate of data improvement being controlled, in effect, by the investment policy. A stationary dynamic model with infinite horizon of planning and with the criterion of total discounted costs is developed. The model is carefully investigated from the economic point of view, and some new effects are discovered. It is demonstrated that uncertainty may be the source of additional gain; the bigger the initial uncertainty, the bigger the gain may be under optimal control. This effect is based on PDI, the economic background of which is presented as multiplication of the expected gain over time, which is typical for the classical macromodels of economics.Optimal continuous control is constructed at every time moment, and answers to two main questions are given:(1) either to prolong R & D or to make ultimate selection of one project, (2) how to allocate resources among the rival projects in the case of R&D prolongation. The last question is answered on the basis of profitability indices that relate efficiencies of PDI for particular projects to the costs of information.     

Whistle blowing and research integrity: Potential remedy for research misconduct in Malaysian institutions of higher education

This study found that less than half of the respondents are willing to blow the whistle. The results reveal that a lack of protection with regard to the whistleblower’s identity, the tedious investigative process, and the notion of avoiding confrontation, which is more apparent in Asian cultures as compared to the West, are among the reasons why individuals who witnessed misconduct chose to remain silent. Adhering to the Asian cultural upbringing where the young must respect the old, those of lower rank must obey those with higher authority, and subordinates do not question the actions of their superior, has become a norm even in the working environment. Therefore, emphasize the need for better protection for whistleblowers including using experienced individuals with a research ethics background to handle allegations from whistleblowers. In addition, established guidelines and procedures for whistleblowers with regard to voicing their allegations against colleagues engaged in research misconduct is still lacking or, to a certain extent, is still unknown to researchers. Thus, the concern indicates a need for institutions to create awareness among researchers regarding the existing platform for whistleblowers, or to develop a systematic and clear procedure which is reliable and independent to promote professionalism in academia.     

Preventing ethical misconduct in the risk sciences: Opportunities,barriers, and strategies summary of June 17, 1993 conference

On June 17,1993, the Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute (EOHSI) hosted an invitational conference at Rutgers University (New Brunswick, NJ) that focused on preventing misconduct in risk science. After a brief presentation of EOHSI's empirical surveys and focus group studies, panelists discussed the use of educational programs, auditing and other methods to reduce misconduct.

The symposium had 31 registrants, including journal editors, university educators, government and industry officials, national and regional heads of professional organizations in risk assessment and risk management, and experts on ethical issues. They were trained in a wide variety of disciplines that bear directly on risk analysis, such as biology, chemistry, economics, epidemiology, health education, industrial hygiene, law, medicine, statistics, and toxicology. The majority have substantial experience in risk analysis.     

Bridging the divide: elders and the assessment process

Summary At the heart of needs-based assessment is an uneasy tensionbetween agency-centred and user-centred objectives. Using casematerial from an ethnographic study of the process of assessmentfor older people, this paper looks at what happens when practitionerstry to understand the needs of individual elders through a processdominated by agency agendas. By marginalizing the older person'sinsights, the risk of unwelcome or inappropriate interventionmay increase. A user-centred approach, by contrast, requiresinformation gathering and provision that is meaningful to theolder person and sensitive to their efforts to analyse and managetheir situation. These efforts are often revealed in narrativeform as the person tells their story which, in an agency-centredassessment, is easily overlooked or even ignored.     

The immense and continuing challenge of urban governance: Developments in Australia and across Greater China

The article describes the long history of urbanisation, including developments in four jurisdictions – three in Greater China (the People's Republic of China, Hong Kong and Taiwan) and Australia. While each has its own history, all now face challenges associated with continuing urbanisation and the growth of very large cities. There are broadly similar economic forces at work, but differences in scale and differences in the “growth machines” involved and the institutional arrangements within which urban governance operates. The article explains the growing importance internationally of urban governance and the growing interest in the “performance” of cities. The authors then set out two case studies describing developments in urban governance around Shanghai and around Sydney. In both cases, the scale of big city growth is demanding both horizontal and vertical coordination, and processes that facilitate citizens and civil society participation. While the very different institutional arrangements in these jurisdictions have led to different urban governance arrangements, there are common challenges that have led to some common governance developments such as having a lead government with citywide and comprehensive public service responsibilities, and also having the national government play an increasingly active role in support.     

Ensuring scientific integrity in research: Aspects of fairness and justice

The procedures established by the Public Health Service and the National Science Foundation reflect an inclination to keep lawyers and legalistic procedures out of scientific misconduct cases. Although misconduct cases resolved at the agencies’ Washington headquarters probably reflect a greater degree of concern with due process, their published procedures require institutions to resolve misconduct cases with virtually no guidance as to the demands of procedural due process.

A number of deficiencies in the handling of misconduct cases under PHS rules at the institutional level are discussed anecdotally on the basis of the author's experience in representing both whistle blowers and accused scientists in misconduct cases.

It is inevitable that some misconduct cases will be heard by the federal courts, and that some of the legalistic trappings of due process will be imposed by the courts. Lawyers and scientists should work together to develop techniques for resolving cases in a way that meets due process requirements without smothering science in a legalistic straight‐jacket.