Promoting Good Research Conduct. Report of a UK workshop held at Keele University on 15 and 16 April Martin Ince, June 2008

Transcription

1 Promoting Good Research Conduct Report of a UK workshop held at Keele University on 15 and 16 April 2008 Martin Ince, June 2008 This is the report of a policy workshop organised by the UK s leading bodies in research funding. Held at Keele University in April 2008, it sought to address the key issues concerning the assurance of high standards of research conduct in the UK. It was attended by over 100 people from universities and other research organisations, research funders, academic bodies and publishers. The presentations may be seen at the UK Research Integrity Office web site, at nation_programme.cfm This report will be considered by the key sponsoring bodies for further action

2 Contents 1 Executive Summary 3 2 Current and future issues 6 3 What was said 8 The participants 8 The issues 8 How large a problem? 9 Attaining and applying consistent rules 11 Authorship and responsibility 11 Demands on research institutions 12 Data availability 12 Duty of care 13 Editors and publishers 13 Global responsibility 14 4 What next? 16 Annex 1 The programme 17 Annex 2 Summaries of plenary contributions

3 Section 1 Executive Summary There was agreement at the workshop that unacceptable and poor practices corrupt knowledge, damage careers and institutions, and waste money. Approaches which reinforce good practice and modify potential poor behaviour should be encouraged, to reduce the incidence of poor practice and identify and correct any remaining cases. This will help to maintain research quality and probity, to support public confidence in research, and to encourage public willingness to fund future research. Good research conduct is best maintained by creating an environment in which its principles are clear, consistent, familiar and accepted, and in which breaches are exceptional and are not tolerated. Compliance measures are essential and must be rigorous. But they should exist mainly to support the expectation of good practice. This means that universities and other organisations with an interest in research need to have management procedures in place to promote high standards, and that these measures need to be applied actively in the day-to-day course of research projects. Responsibility for high standards in research runs all the way from the funders of research to the journals which eventually publish the results. But researchers themselves, and their employers, are principally responsible for maintaining high standards. Research misconduct exists in two main forms: fraud, falsification and plagiarism (FFP), in which blatant abuses occur, and damaging poor practice. While most researchers are honest, the problem of poor practice cannot be ignored. And where poor practice becomes unacceptable then it also constitutes research misconduct. Poor practices include, amongst others: the misrepresentation of findings, inadequate collection and preservation of data, inadequate protection of research subjects, inaccurate attribution of authorship and incomplete declaration of interests. Concern over research conduct embraces all these as well as high-profile cases involving FFP. In the past decade, the debate on research conduct has broadened out. Once concerned mainly with FFP, it now engages with poor practice in general. Instead of seeking to detect offenders after the event, a more constructive approach has been adopted which - 3 -

4 emphasises setting up better systems to ensure good practice is the norm and is regularly enforced. National Advisory Body There was clear support at the conference for a national-level body to provide advice on codes of acceptable conduct, on training and development, on procedures for dealing with poor practice, and on transparent and consistent responses to poor practice which could be shared between employers. But that this body should not be a regulatory body. There was support for this body gathering reliable data on poor research conduct, and for it to collate anonymised information on investigations of misconduct to help guide future decisions making. UKRIO has established such a database, working with the University community. This new body could also liaise with other national bodies on international issues. This body might resemble the Office of Research Integrity in the US, but would cover the full range of research. The UK Panel for Research Integrity in the Health and Biomedical Sciences was mentioned as a model for a body which supported good practice for the community in a specific, important subject area. However any new body needed to apply to research across the full range of the sciences, arts and humanities, and not be seen as more or less relevant to any one area. There was no support for a national body with operational responsibility for investigating specific allegations of poor research conduct. The conference heard that any new body should not detract further from university autonomy, or from that of other research institutions. Universities have welcomed the introduction of the UKRIO, which helps them deal with specific cases in a consistent way. Even in a national context, ensuring good research practice will involve collaboration between many participants: researchers and organisations which represent them; universities, the NHS and other institutions which employ researchers and where research is performed; funders of all kinds; and publishers and editors of journals

5 Collaboration within and between countries and between disciplines makes the investigation of specific cases more complex. Each nation has its own laws, practices and standards which affect research. The assurance of research quality is of growing international interest and some of the transnational bodies taking an interest in it are mentioned below. The feeling was expressed at this conference that the UK research community s policies and procedures for assuring research quality might be seen as less robust than those of other countries, where systems can be more formalised. UK systems need to be transparent and of high quality to ensure that the UK retains its high status in research and remains attractive as a research partner

6 Section 2 Current and future issues Here we discuss some of the issues on which most conference delegates were in agreement and on which action is required, and look at other areas where more information is needed. Research methods change constantly and ideas of good conduct may also be expected to change over time. For example, we are increasingly aware of the need to protect human participants in research, animals used in research, and indeed the natural environment. Training Training and skills development in research practice are an essential part of general research training. How they should be done needs to be made clearer and should be coordinated between institutions and subjects. There was agreement at the conference that the emphasis should be on clear codes of conduct, and on education and training schemes to ensure that they are observed. Good practice needs to be reinforced throughout a research career, at undergraduate, postgraduate and mid-career stages. Established researchers need to be reminded of its importance and given opportunities to remain aware of developments in this field. Research managers need training in their stewardship responsibilities Need for new mechanisms Poor research practice damages individuals and institutions. Future structures and mechanisms should be designed to minimise its incidence. But it is unlikely to vanish completely. When concerns are raised, systems must be in place that guarantee due process when allegations of unacceptable research behaviour are made. Any such investigation involves a range of stakeholders, including researchers, complainants including whistleblowers, research institutions, funders, journals and others. All of these need to be given a fair, open and appropriate hearing. Not all accusations or suspicions turn out to be justified. The researchers involved have their own human and employment rights, including the right to protect their reputation. This could point to the need for a common source of advice for employers on the full range of issues arising from unacceptable research behaviour

7 Systems do not have to be identical for all subjects and institutions. But there are benefits to common standards and principles. They should allow management systems to be effective, and ensure that sanctions which are applied are equitable and consistent. Monitoring systems should be robust to mean that whistleblowing is called for only rarely. More research is needed on management systems which encourage good research practice. Peer review and refereeing Publishers and editors have an interest in ensuring that peer review is used as far as possible to examine research conduct as well as the originality and quality of research. But peer review is usually carried out at a distance. It would be unreasonable to expect peer reviewers to examine every aspect of the way in which a research project has been carried out. A specific issue discussed but not resolved at the conference is the difficulty of ensuring that funders, referees and publishers have no vested interests in the research they are funding, assessing or publishing. This is not possible for every research proposal. When this happens, it is important that all potentially conflicting interests are disclosed and are managed appropriately. Authorship also emerged as a problem area. The difference between an author and a contributor may need to be spelt out in more detail in future. Might we accept that the lead or corresponding author(s) may be the only persons in a position to take full responsibility for all aspects of a paper? The Universal Ethical Code for Scientists promoted, inter alia, by Sir David King while he was Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK government, looks at scientific ethics in terms of respect for: Rigour, Respect and Responsibility Respect for life, the law and the public good Responsible communication Its wording may provide the framework for guidelines designed to avoid poor research practice. However, it is phrased in very general terms which would need to be translated into a simple and practical code of acceptable and unacceptable behaviours

8 Section 3 What was said The participants The workshop was held at Keele University on April 15 and 16, It was supported by Research Councils UK (RCUK), Universities UK, the UK Research Integrity Office, the Wellcome Trust, and a range of other organisations including all four UK funding councils, the Committee on Publication Ethics, DIUS, the UK Departments of Health, the British Academy and the Association of Medical Research Charities. Plenary and other speakers included Professor Ian Diamond, chair of the RCUK Executive Group; Professor Rick Trainor, president of UUK; Professor Michael Farthing, vice chair of the UK Research Integrity Panel; and two US speakers, Professor Nick Steneck, a consultant to the Office of Research Integrity, and Professor Drummond Rennie of the University of California, San Francisco, deputy editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association; plus Baroness O Neill, President of the British Academy; and Dr Phil Campbell, editor-in-chief of Nature. A total of about 100 participants from universities, funding bodies, industry, the NHS, publishers and government, took part in plenary and breakout sessions. The issues Research is a vital activity in a modern society. Everyone can agree that it must be conducted properly. But what is good research conduct? How can it be encouraged, managed, and, where necessary, assured? This conference heard that thinking on the promotion of good research conduct in the UK had originated mainly in the arena of biomedical research, but now covered the full range of research disciplines, partly in response to public concern over high-profile cases of misconduct, and to concern for the protection of individual rights. Delegates heard that many countries are establishing new practices for research conduct, and that the issue has attracted the attention of international bodies such as UNESCO, the EU, the OECD and the European Science Foundation

9 The conference agreed on the need for better information on the amount and type of poor research practice in the UK. However, it was also agreed that even a low level of such behaviour, whatever might be regarded as low, is damaging and undesirable. There is no all-inclusive list of unacceptable research practices. Participants agreed that they might include, inter alia, unacceptable means of gathering data, perhaps in relation to consent or confidentiality, or of reporting it, for example by the selective use of statistics, inadequate disclosure of relations with funders, or the giving of misleading credit is given to the authors of a paper. The indicative list in the draft RCUK consultative paper perhaps made an interesting start towards defining these. How large a problem? The conference was asked how big the problem of poor research might be. It was noted that in 2004, a BBC survey found that 25 per cent of undergraduates admitted to plagiarism, and 16 per cent to multiple such offences. Some of these people were the researchers of the future. Was there any reason to suppose that their behaviour would alter as soon as they got their first degree? Anecdotal accounts from UK schools suggest that such practices are common there, and that some forms of plagiarism are regarded as acceptable at school level. A few high-profile cases of research misconduct attract most of the attention. But an international survey published in 2000 showed that 51 per cent of biostatisticians claimed to know of some fraud in a medical research project, and that most had gone unreported. While there are no reliable figures for the UK, the conference heard of suggestions that malpractice in health and biomedical sciences is on the rise. If UK practices mirror those of the US, there is likely to be a substantial volume of unreported poor research conduct. Most reported cases of research misconduct are in the biomedical world, but the very prominent Schön case concerned a materials scientist. The conference heard that research conduct is now a concern across the full range of disciplines, as the participation in the conference itself showed. Biomedical research including clinical trials can obviously have a direct effect on human life. But so can research on climate change, the economy, religion, party politics, poverty, and many other areas of environmental, social and cultural concern. Research in these areas can be controversial, and so can some organisations that might to support it, including governments and public bodies as well as commercial organisations. Research on these subjects is vital to the UK s economy and to social and - 9 -

10 cultural progress, and needs to be carried out to the highest standards. It is now generally agreed that outright fabrication, falsification and plagiarism (FFP) and more general poor research practices (PRP) are both issues that need to be addressed. FFP mainly may have a more immediate effect on people and institutions, including the whistle-blowers who draw attention to it. It damages the image of research in general as well as that of specific institutions, and wastes money. However, delegates at the conference pointed to the need for a better definition of plagiarism and how it differs from summarising or translating another s work. The same applies at the frontier between allowable and unacceptable manipulation of data, including images. Here there is a need for standards to prevent inappropriate image manipulation. The conference heard that the limited evidence that is available suggests that questionable and poor practices are more common than FFP. These include behaviour such as failing to fully acknowledge sources of research funding, perhaps from a company with a commercial interest in the results. In the US, evidence shows that such studies are more likely than others to report positive outcomes. A study carried out in the US and reported in Nature found that over 15 per cent of a sample of 3,247 scientists reported changing the design, methodology or results of a study in response to pressure from a funding source. 9.5 per cent of early career scientists agreed they had done so, but 20.5 per cent of those in mid-career. Such changes may sometimes be suggested by an informed outside body to improve the research, but this was not always the case. Improved codes of practice might help drive out poor practices such as the non-reporting of negative or detrimental results, and the selective reporting or over-reporting of supposedly significant results, perhaps from a small sub-sample. Such biases can be evident in reviews, abstracts and conclusions as well as in the main body of a research paper. In the UK, the Committee on Publication Ethics has offered advice on many hundreds of cases of poor or questionable research practice. Its findings may be seen at Also discussed was the issue of the sharing of information on cases of unacceptable practice. It is in the public interest that decisions arising from investigations where poor practice is proven or where

11 an investigation is curtailed by an employee leaving should be made available to other institutions. This does not always happen. There needs to be a debate of these issues, aimed towards setting up a mechanism of sharing such information which is compatible with data protection, employment law and freedom of information legislation. Attaining and applying consistent rules Delegates at the conference agreed that responsibility for minimising poor research practice is widely shared, but that researchers themselves, and the institutions that employ them, have the most important duty to ensure good practice. Learning about acceptable practice should be a career-long process starting at school. Making researchers aware of these issues involves ensuring that they are taught about them, especially as undergraduates and as research students. In addition, institutions may need stronger management systems at department level and overall if they are to have clear stewardship of research conduct. One suggestion made at the conference was that universities should not award a research degree to anyone who cannot show that they understand good research practice and have applied its principles in their own work. Authorship and responsibility Researchers are responsible for anything that appears in their name. However, we are no longer in a world where every author can take complete responsibility for a whole paper. There could be a system for recognising that to use a common example some authors have complete oversight of the content of a paper while another might be accountable only for the gathering of data with a specific instrument. Such authors are not fully answerable for a paper but are key guarantors of its quality in a defined area. Journals and editors could take the lead in developing a system whereby the roles of authors and contributors are made clearer. Peer review, of applications for research funding and of manuscripts submitted for publication, is generally regarded as the key arbiter of research quality. But it is unreasonable to expect peer review at a distance to spot all cases of poor research practice. There are past instances in which peer reviewers have failed to spot severe research malpractice. This points to the importance of immediate colleagues and managers in ensuring research quality. Peer review is central to the Research Excellence Framework, the proposed successor to the UK Research Assessment Exercise

12 There was agreement in the workshop discussion that institutions, especially universities, are vital to ensuring that high standards are promoted, especially the declaration or avoidance of conflicts of interest such as a funder with a commercial interest in results. UUK and others have acted on this responsibility, especially by the establishment of UKRIO. Demands on research institutions Institutions need to have stronger codes of practice that are communicated and used effectively. They also need strong management and accountability mechanisms. Heads of laboratories and departments may be required to give annual assurances to research governance or audit committees that robust systems for education and training, mentoring, and monitoring and management of good research conduct are in place in their domains. The financial memorandum sent to universities by their funding council might in future emphasise the need for high standards of research conduct. The conference heard that institutions might find it valuable to be able to refer to an advisory and supervisory body which issued guidance on practice, procedures and sanctions, collated reliable reports and statistical information, and provided advice and supervision on investigations. It might issue nationally-agreed templates for research practice which universities and other organisations could modify in accordance with their formal statutes and their established practice. This would allow existing systems to be strengthened and enhanced. In the US, the ORI has produced such templates for biomedical research. In the UK, such templates might allow agreement on responses to different levels of poor research practice. Some cases might require individuals to be rehabilitated via training and guidance, while others involve behaviour which is so unacceptable that more extreme sanctions are called for. It was agreed that more discussion is needed of appropriate responses to poor practice. Proven research fraudster Jan Hendrik Schön was only barred from DFG funding for eight years. His offences were especially severe. But his real punishment is that it is exceptionally difficult for someone to resume a research career after being found responsible for such exceptionally poor behaviour in research. Data availability The collection and stewardship of research data also emerged as a key concern at the conference. It was agreed that all research data

13 needs to be connected to an appropriate audit trail that guarantees its origin. Once a project is complete, a university or other research employer still has much to lose if bad practice is uncovered. They may have a claim to the copyright on data produced by its employees, but this should not prevent it from being in the public domain for verification purposes. Best practice here might vary from subject to subject and will rarely be as simple as copying old-fashioned notebooks. One possibility is for more data to be visible on open web sites, while another is for research records to be retained for audit later if needed. Some funders such as the Wellcome Trust and ESRC already require data to be deposited in publicly available databases. The academic community may need to discuss these issues further. Initiatives in open access are driving progress in this field and are regarded as being the way forward. Duty of care A specific concern that emerged at the conference was the need to protect research participants and the environment in which research takes place. Researchers have a duty of care to human research participants, animals, and the natural environment. This involves protecting them against incompetent as well as dishonest practice. For people this covers a range of duties such as consent, confidentiality, risk management and health and safety. For animals it includes minimising suffering. There are already codes of practice designed to prevent students and researchers carrying out fieldwork from causing damage to the environment. This may be a growing requirement in future years, alongside the many longer-standing codes of practice relating to work involving human participants. Editors and publishers Publishing is a significant commercial business and a key intermediary in the research process. As well as exercising their own judgement, editors are in overall charge of the peer review of manuscripts. They discuss issues such as research conduct with their direct competitors. In the UK the Committee on Publication Ethics has taken a valuable role in raising standards

14 Peer review is based on papers and the reviewers rarely see underlying data. There may be a case for more data to be seen by referees, as well as being openly available. Editors would also welcome more routine information on the relative roles of authors. Here the principal concern is that some people listed as authors may have responsibility for only a specific part of the project being reported upon, and may perhaps be better regarded as contributors to the paper than as full authors. When things go wrong, editors have the role of negotiating the response, including the correction or withdrawal of articles. This involves discussions with employers and funders, which are the main bodies called on to investigate, and when appropriate, the subsequent retraction or correction of a paper or the publication of a note of concern about it. Nature is adding to this process by introducing open public commentary for all its journals. Global responsibility The conference heard that research quality and governance have emerged as concerns around the world. And because research is increasingly international, international coordination and structures may be needed to ensure its quality. The UK needs improved procedures partly to show potential collaborators in countries such as the US that it is a robust research partner in terms of its approach to research integrity. The European Commission, the OECD and UNESCO are all taking an interest in this issue, while national systems for research quality exist in a wide range of countries. Some would appear to be regarded as more rigorous than the UK s, for example in Germany and the US. India is developing new approaches. The notably open and rigorous processes of Scandinavian nations were especially noted at the conference. Some of these systems have grown out of concerns on the part of universities and funders, while others are rooted in national judicial systems. Of special importance are the EU expert group on research integrity, the OECD Global Science Forum, and the ECARI (European Coordinated Approaches to Research Integrity) collaboration between UKRIO, the ESF and the Alliance of European Academies. The OECD is involved in setting up machinery for the international investigation of research misconduct. FP7 funds are available for work on supporting research integrity on a European scale

15 Poor research practice in an international project may require investigation via the governance machinery of individual countries, but would also require the bodies performing such investigations to be in contact with each other. Researchers are among the most mobile of workers, while research itself is an international commodity whose users are entitled to expect common standards

16 4. What Next? The views expressed at the workshop provide guidance towards steps which might be taken to support the research community, and to reinforce current initiatives which emphasise research integrity and good research conduct. Five main areas of development were noted. Employers should remain the primary bodies responsible for investigating allegations of misconduct in research, although the provision of guidance and assistance, and with the availability of national standards for investigations, were welcomed. The proposed RCUK consultation on what constituted good research conduct and how it should be pursued was noted. It was commented upon as a useful step forward, and participants would offer their own comments on the pre-draft. Organisations with interests in research, including Universities UK, should take forward a programme to develop support for the research community Consideration should be given to extending the remit of the Research Integrity Panel through a Panel or Panels covering all fields of research. This would require consultation to address the specific needs of the different communities. The UK should continue to take an active role in initiatives taken by international bodies such as OECD, ESF, the European Commission and UNESCO, with the aim of developing stronger approaches to support the integrity of research and address misconduct in research at a global level

17 Annex 1 The Programme DAY 1 THE GOVERNANCE OF GOOD RESEARCH CONDUCT IN THE UK Policy Workshop, Keele Hall, Keele University, 15 and 16 April :00 Registration and buffet lunch 13:30 Chair Professor Janet Finch, independent co-chair UK Council for Science and Technology and Vice Chancellor of Keele University Welcome Professor Ian Kennedy, Chair of UK Research Integrity Panel 13:35 Introductory Keynote Speech Professor Ian Diamond, Chair of Research Councils UK Executive Group Plenary 1 13:50 Professor Nick Steneck, Office of Research Integrity, USA: What are the Key Issues in Good Research Conduct? 14:20 Dr Phil Campbell, Editor-in-Chief, Nature Magazine: Research Conduct from the publishers perspective 14:55 Dr Andy Stainthorpe, UK Research Integrity Office: Global initiatives to promote Good Conduct in Research 15:05 Discussion - questions 15:45 Breakout Sessions 19:30 Reception / Drinks and Dinner. DAY 2 09:00 Chair Mr Simon Denegri, Chief Executive of the Association of Medical Research Charities 09:05 Introductory Keynote Speech Professor Richard Trainor, Vice Chancellor Kings College London and President Universities UK Plenary 2 09:15 Professor Drummond Rennie, University of California San Francisco: How Do We Get Consistent Rules? 09:35 Professor Michael Farthing, Vice Chancellor University of Sussex and Vice-Chair of UK Research Integrity Panel: How Do We Apply Rules Consistently? 09:55 TBC: When Might Issues of Conduct Go Beyond the Employer? 10:45 Breakout Sessions 12:15 Buffet Lunch Chair Professor Janet Finch 13:30 Summary Report Back from Breakout Sessions (rapporteurs on each issue) 14:10 Plenary Discussion of Issues 15:00 Summing Up by Chair

18 Annex 2 The plenary presentations Professor Ian Diamond FBA AcSS Ian Diamond introduced the first plenary and welcomed colleagues to the conference on behalf of RCUK. He outlined the development in RCUK thinking over recent years, from concern primarily with the avoidance of misconduct to a more positive emphasis on engendering and inculcating the principles of good research conduct, including the preservation and integrity of data; openness and transparency and the avoidance of misrepresentation; the ensurance of appropriate methods to support research findings; and research ethics, ethical consent and ensuring informed consent for research. He stressed the importance for Research Councils UK of ensuring that the licence to research in the UK is protected for future generations. The means ensuring that government and business, other public and voluntary agencies, and the general public, are satisfied that all research is conducted to the highest possible standards; that risks and dangers to research subjects, the environment, and the wider community are fully regulated; and that reliance can be placed on research outcomes in the development of policy and practice. He outlined RCUK's approach to minimising risks to the UK s licence to practice research. He stressed the importance of all parts of the research system working together in this area. Professor Nick Steneck Professor Steneck told the conference that concern over research conduct over the past 25 years had been focused on eliminating misconduct. While a few high-profile cases had damaged reputations and cost money, the research record is corrected when they are spotted. However, survey research data suggests that between 0.1 and 1 per cent of researchers engage in seriously unacceptable practices. This means that research misconduct is not "rare" if judged by the standards of a "rare" disease. Examples of questionable practices that waste money but are not outright misconduct include the failure to report funding that creates conflicts of interest, and the mixing of tobacco industry funds with other funding I ways that contracts do not permit. Other forms of questionable behaviour include inappropriate reporting of findings and their statistical implications, failure to report uncomfortable results, and ignoring the

19 needs of human subjects, both during experiments and afterwards in terms of data confidentiality. Dr Philip Campbell Dr Campbell said that recent misconduct cases point up the responsibilities of authors, editors, referees, the media, and the employers and funders of research. The Schön case draws specific attention to the role of co-authors, which may need to be specified more closely in future. Collaborative research requires trust but this has to be balanced by responsibility. He added that lack of checking and transparency allow cheats to get away with misconduct and that refereeing is an imperfect way of spotting it, partly because referees can be professionally close to the people whose work they are judging. But Dr Campbell added that standards are rising. For example, there are more archived e- notebooks, a key tool in later investigation of possible poor practice. Dr Andrew Stainthorpe Dr Stainthorpe described some of the coordinated initiatives currently being taken forward at the Global and European level to further the promotion of good conduct in research. Such steps have been taken, he said, as researchers are increasingly mobile internationally and there has been a strong growth in international research cooperation with the expectation that this will continue to grow. These initiatives have been taken to assist states to create, modify, and/or review their administrative mechanisms for promoting good conduct in research and handling misconduct in research. He outlined steps taken by the European Commission to develop a rationale for community action and then to issue a call for proposals to study current approaches to supporting integrity in research, including the issues raised by the different approaches currently operating in Europe to promote good conduct and investigate misconduct in research. He reported that UKRIO was a partner in the consortium with the European Science Foundation (which includes the UKESF) and the All European Academies (ALLEA), bidding to this call, to conduct work in a project entitled European Coordinated Approaches to Research Integrity (ECARI). Professor Richard Trainor

20 Professor Trainor introduced the second plenary session. He noted the importance to the UK of research, as indicated in the Government s recent Innovation Nation White Paper. Yet for public confidence to be sustained research must be carried out in a manifestly ethical way. Although cases of gross research misconduct were evidently infrequent, there could be no complacency, particularly as a significant minority of researchers in a recent survey from another country admitted lesser forms of suboptimal practice. Researchers should aim for the very best practice at all times. In pursuit of this goal UK researchers can turn to the Research Integrity Office (ORI) established within Universities UK. There is also help available, with particular regard to ways of investigating alleged research misconduct, from the UK Panel for Research Integrity. Likewise international assistance can be found in the templates being developed by the OECD Global Science Forum, the ESF and the European Union. In improving the guidelines for research conduct, emphasis should fall on prevention, proportionality, clarity and consistency. Proceeding in these ways provides the best hope of reconciling academic freedom and efficiency with the maintenance of public confidence. Baroness Onora O Neill Baroness O Neill told the conference that research integrity is a broad notion that cannot be codified. Because of constantly evolving norms, there is no final answer to the problem. Research is also endeavour. If it lacks quality and the outputs are not useful, does it lack integrity? Integrity is a normative issue, so empirical reasoning does not work. We cannot prove that any standards we set are any good. While ethical questions cannot be settled from a position of authority and answers must address the viewpoints of many, Sir David King s Rigour, Responsibility, Respect document is a good example of normative standards relevant to research. It is a tool for cultural change in the natural sciences and should be taken forward in the social sciences too. Cultural change must start with training which is reinforced throughout research careers. Informed consent is a specific problem. Do research participants actually understand methods such as RCT? Would a focus on adequate rather than full informed consent be preferable? Professor Michael Farthing

21 Consistent application of rules should be through the local application of local, but preferably, national or international rules, but we must also consider what to do if this fails. The wide range of research institutions in the UK means it would be useful to have guidelines for managing different types of research misconduct. Employers are responsible for employee conduct, but good practice in developing procedures is needed for misconduct. This raises the question of the lack of a regulatory body for research in the UK There is a fear of additional bureaucracy on researchers, while employers fear loss of control of their staff. Research institutions take employment responsibilities seriously. They devise and promulgate a code of conduct, conduct education and training of staff, include relevant information in induction packs (often to be signed once read), check compliance, and have policies for breach of contract. Complicating factors include inter-institutional collaboration, multi-authorship issues, increasingly complex relationships with funding agencies, especially in the funding of large consortia, and international expectations. An ideal position therefore might be to have a nationally agreed guidance for the responsible conduct of research including an agreed robust process for investigating allegations of research misconduct. Monitoring of compliance might be best achieved through self-regulation by an employer driven advisory body such as the recently established UK Research Integrity Office. Mr Glyn Davies All stakeholders recognise that they have responsibility for stewardship of research conduct. But does everyone in general mean no one in particular? It is important to think about the issue in terms of good conduct as it gives the sense of an inclusive and positive approach, promoting the good rather than monitoring by exception. But a key question, especially in the UK context, is who has lead responsibility. He told the conference about RCUK compliance surveys which reveal positively that universities and other research organisations do have procedures in place to manage research behaviour. But there are remaining issues about how these are taken beyond the immediate employer, such as the reporting of problem behaviour to later employers, or cases in which an investigation comes to a halt because the researcher resigns. Employers often have poor knowledge of a researcher s previous poor behaviour. A more

22 cautious approach might be taken to some cases, as identifying poor conduct which has to be addressed formally can reflect adversely on the research organisation. But if these are not dealt with adequately informally, there is a danger of inculcating a more permissive culture. A national framework may be needed to inculcate a strong culture of best conduct, but, it was suggested, this would need to have a light touch and allow for the differences between subjects and institutions. Professor Drummond Rennie Professor Drummond Rennie of the University of California at San Francisco, a specialist medical school in the University of California system, provided a thought-provoking after dinner presentation on the poor practices that can occur in research, with interesting examples which included the ghost-writing of papers