http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/323/7318/889/c

 

BMJ 2001;323:889 ( 20 October )

News

Meeting calls for a national body to respond to research misconduct

Richard Smith, BMJ

Britain needs a national body to respond to research misconduct, concluded a meeting this week organised by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Exactly how the body should be constituted, what it should do, and how it should be started was less clear.

Professor Michael Farthing, the committee's chairman, said that the case of Dr Anjan Banerjee illustrated the deficiencies in the current system (BMJ 2000;321:1429). Dr Banerjee was found guilty of serious professional misconduct some 10 years after he had falsified research published in the journal Gut. His supervisor, Professor Timothy Peters, was later found guilty of serious professional misconduct for failing to take action over the falsified research (BMJ 2001;322:573). "The existing system simply didn't work," said Professor Farthing. Many people at the meeting pointed to the conflict of interest in institutions investigating their own staff.

"In the United States," said Professor Drummond Rennie, deputy editor of JAMA, "the investigation of research misconduct is routine. It needs to become routine in Britain as well. Britain needs a definition of research misconduct and a detailed process for investigating any accusations. The whistleblower needs to know the number to call."

The United States has had a system now for 20 years. Every research institution that receives government moneyalmost all of themhas to have a system for investigating accusations of misconduct. A national body, the Office of Research Integrity, ensures that investigations are properly conducted.

Denmark, Sweden, and Norway have had national bodies for almost 10 years, said Dr Magne Nylenna, editor of the Norwegian Medical Journal. They hear about eight cases a year and find dishonesty in a fifth. As in the US, they began with biomedical research but are now expanding to cover all research.

Supporting the call for a national body, Professor George Alberti, president of the Royal College of Physicians, praised the proposals for a body produced after a consensus meeting in Edinburgh in 1999 (BMJ 2001;323:652). The Royal College of Physicians will be publishing similar proposals itself very soon, and the General Medical Council will be publishing standards on good practice for medical researchers.

The meeting had difficulty agreeing on whether a new body should be statutory or voluntary. Most of those present supported a model whereby research institutions would voluntarily join the national body, follow its advice on how to investigate accusations, and then be audited on how well they followed the advice. In summing up the meeting, Professor Ian Kennedy, professor of medical law and ethics at King's College, London (pictured), supported such a model and urged those present to speak to government about creating the body. "If it's that important," he said, "then everybodynot just the professionalsmust be part of it."

© BMJ 2001

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.