Vaccination News Home Page

http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/325/7357/182/c

Abridged text of this article PDF [abridged] of this article Email this article to a friend Respond to this article Download to Citation Manager Search Medline for articles by: White, C. Alert me when: New articles cite this article

Collections under which this article appears: Research and publication ethics

BMJ 2002;325:182 ( 27 July )
 

News roundup

New guidance issued on promoting integrity in scientific research

Caroline White London

Strong institutional leadership, ongoing self assessment, and comprehensive training in ethics are critical to fostering a national climate in which scientific research integrity can flourish, concludes a US report.

The report, by the Committee on Assessing Integrity in Research Environments, was prompted by the US Office of Research Integrity (ORI), which monitors and regulates research misconduct.

The annual ORI review for 2001 reported the highest number of misconduct cases since 1977. Among the 78 reporting institutions, 61 opened 72 new cases to look into 127 allegations, which included 46 cases of falsification, 37 of fabrication, 17 of plagiarism, and 27 "others."

Last year the ORI commissioned the US Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council’s Division on Earth and Life Studies, which jointly formed the committee, to come up with the core elements needed for promoting responsible conduct in scientific research.

The committee took oral and written evidence from a range of invited experts and reviewed publications from the research community and government, as well as media coverage of the issue. It also assessed data on organisational behaviour and learning cultures.

The recommendations have been posted on the internet in advance of its print publication in September.

Research integrity is vital to maintaining public trust and to the scientific enterprise itself, says the report, but as yet there are no established measures for assessing it. Funding agencies need to remedy this by funding relevant research programmes, it recommends.

Regulations designed to encourage research integrity can be effective but increase bureaucracy and can lead to complacency, says the report. Institutional adherence to policies and procedures, while welcome, is insufficient; a more proactive and committed approach needs to be adopted from the inside.

Institutions need to offer strong supportive leadership, denoted by exemplary behaviour and absolute clarity on expected conduct, says the report. "Individuals should be able to seek assistance without fear of retribution."

To be effective, institutions need to provide educational programmes on science ethics, delivered by people actively involved in the relevant line of research, recommends the report.

Institutions also need to continually evaluate their efforts to foster research integrity, to improve quality, and to promote organisational learning. Institutional self assessment should become part of existing accreditation, the report recommends, and to this end the Office of Research Integrity should establish a public database of those actively involved in validating measures of responsible research conduct.

The report, Integrity in Scientific Research: Creating and Environment that Promotes Responsible Conduct, can be accessed from the National Academy Press website: http://bob.nap.edu
 
 

Abridged text of this article PDF [abridged] of this article Email this article to a friend Respond to this article Download to Citation Manager Search Medline for articles by: White, C. Alert me when: New articles cite this article

Collections under which this article appears: Research and publication ethics

Vaccination News Home Page

ALL INFORMATION, DATA, AND MATERIAL CONTAINED, PRESENTED, OR PROVIDED HERE IS FOR GENERAL INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS REFLECTING THE KNOWLEDGE OR OPINIONS OF THE PUBLISHER, AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED OR INTENDED AS PROVIDING MEDICAL OR LEGAL ADVICE.  THE DECISION WHETHER OR NOT TO VACCINATE IS AN IMPORTANT AND COMPLEX ISSUE AND SHOULD BE MADE BY YOU, AND YOU ALONE, IN CONSULTATION WITH YOUR HEALTH CARE PROVIDER.