NEWS

November 3, 2009

Research misconduct agency would undermine "academic self-governance," study says

Universities have the "flexibility" to best handle the shadowy world of ghostwriting, plagarism, falsification of data and other forms for research misconduct, states a report, The State of Research Integrity and Misconduct Policies in Canada, prepared by Ottawa, Ontario-based consultants Hickling Arthurs Low.

Universities have the "flexibility" to best handle the shadowy world of ghostwriting, plagarism, falsification of data and other forms for research misconduct, states a report, The State of Research Integrity and Misconduct Policies in Canada, prepared by Ottawa, Ontario-based consultants Hickling Arthurs Low.

Photo Credit: ©2009 Jupiterimages Corp.

There’s no need for any manner of national oversight and investigatory agency to handle research misconduct, according to a report commissioned by the Canadian Research Integrity Committee (CRIC), a loose affiliation of 16 research and academic bodies, including the three granting councils and the Association of Faculties of Medicine of Canada.

Rather, Canada should maintain the status quo and continue to rely on universities to investigate and police abuse, or, at best, establish an Office of an Ombudsperson or a Canadian Office of Research Integrity to mitigate the perception that it currently lacks a system (CMAJ 2009. DOI:10.1503/cmaj.070213).

The upside of creating such a body is that it would throw a bone to the health sciences community, which, the report states, has expressed concerns about “a weakness in formal oversight; inadequate reporting requirements; inconsistent educational efforts; differing definitions as to what constitutes research misconduct; and poor whistleblower assistance.”

But if a body is created, the report urges that its scope be limited to an educational and advisory role.

Prepared by Ottawa, Ontario-based consultants Hickling Arthurs Low, The State of Research Integrity and Misconduct Policies in Canada report disdains any manner of legislated response to research misconduct, even though it concedes that the current university-based system is largely compromised as institutions are averse to “bad publicity” and fear “withdrawal of funding” in cases where their staff are proven miscreants.

CRIC members met last month met to review the report and agreed to conduct separate consultations amongst their respective memberships in the coming months in a run-up to a meeting in January or February, at which they will seek to achieve a consensus on a research misconduct policy to promote to government.

In recommending the status quo, the consultants provided ammunition for the stance of organizations like the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, which has long argued that universities should be left to self-regulate and self-police research miscreants.

While noting that there is increased potential for conflict-of-interest as universities enter more partnerships with industry and chase more money from the private sector, the consulting headed by Tijs Cruetzberg argues that the current system for handling research misconduct has the advantage of being very flexible and is in keeping with “academic self-governance.”

The system is highly decentralized and entirely reliant on vagaries within individual institutions, but “is accommodating of the complexity of many misconduct allegations and allows for discretion in dealing with cases, many of which, it is noted, are based on misunderstanding or due to poor oversight,” the report states.

It adds that the status quo is preferable to legislation but should nevertheless be strengthened by adopting national definitions of what constitutes research misconduct; annual public reporting requirements; and standardized guidelines for procedures to address misconduct allegations.

There is a risk to a status quo approach, though, the report concedes. The nation’s three granting councils — the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Natural Sciences and Humanities Research Council and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council — would continue to have no authority to police misconduct and could not address the problem of “competing obligations and interests” within universities. “While the councils are well positioned to develop policies related to research misconduct, they are not so well situated for being directly involved in specific cases, cases which can tarnish the reputations of all involved.”

Canadian Association of University Teachers Executive-Director Jim Turk says if CRIC members and government simply opt to maintain the status quo, it will do nothing to stem the apparent tide of abuses within the health sciences, where ghostwriting appears to have become the norm (CMAJ 2009. DOI.10.1503/cmaj.109-3036) and pharmaceutical firms distort or cloak the results of clinical trials.

There’s a need for a national regime to oversee misconduct in all research, whether conducted within universities, governments or the private sector, Turk says. “There should be a broad regime to deal with misconduct that applies to all research in the country, however it’s funded.”

“There’s some serious problems with the status quo,” including a lack of consistency in how misconduct allegations are handled across the country and very little scrutiny of clinical trials funded by pharmaceutical firms, Turk adds.

The consultants examined data from 29 institutions that provided information about their misconduct cases and found that, on average, there are 39 such cases nationally per year. From that tally, the consultants extrapolated that there is an average of 2.2 cases of research misconduct per year in larger universities, 1.3 cases in medical research organizations, 1.2 in small universities, 0.8 in medium-size universities and 0.5 cases in government labs.

But the consultants added that their estimates are probably “underreported,” if only because there is no obligation on anyone to publicly report and everyone has different definitions of what constitutes misconduct. Some institutions don’t, for example, include authorship disputes in their tallies, while others don’t include allegations resolved by mediation.

The consultants also compared the misconduct policies of 37 institutions across Canada, interviewed 60 senior research administrators and undertook a comparative analysis of Canada’s system against that of eight other nations: Australia, Denmark, France, Germany, Japan, Norway, the United Kingdom and the United States.

The “gaps” within institutional systems across Canada include: limited accountability and transparency, “institutional non-compliance,” as well as considerable variability as to what constitutes research misconduct; what procedures are utilized to investigate allegations; what sanctions are ultimately applied in what circumstances; and what, if any, disclosure is made to the public.

In terms of international comparisons, the study notes that US, Denmark and Norway have legislated oversight systems that have clear definitions of research misconduct, a central body with investigatory powers and two-tiered investigation systems. (The local institution is the primary investigator but the central body can step in when the case is serious or contentious).

Canada, like Germany and the UK, falls into a category of nonlegislated systems in which granting councils provide policy leadership. Germany and the UK, though, also have national arm’s length advisory bodies.

In a third category, in which fall Australia, Japan and France, there is typically some manner of national code but an “absence of any independent research integrity body or compliance mechanism.”

The report states that the flexibility of Canada’s system “has allowed for continuous improvement, as demonstrated by the introduction of new schedules and frameworks related to research integrity. This flexibility has allowed research institutions to tailor research integrity policies to their own institutional environments.”

But should Canada feel compelled to introduce some manner of national body, the report recommends that it go no further than has Germany or the UK.

A German-style Office of an Ombdusperson need not be costly, the study says. “It could be limited to only one individual appointed by the Tri-Councils on a full or part time basis for a limited period of time, with assistance of secretariat support.”

A UK-style Office of Research Integrity, meanwhile, would have the advantage of designating someone as being responsible for education and training, while serving as a sort of clearinghouse for misconduct statistics and best practices, while “broadcast(ing) a stronger message internationally that Canada is committed to upholding research integrity.”

Either body would also serve to inspire government and private sector labs to adopt more stringent misconduct policies, the report argues. — Wayne Kondro, CMAJ

DOI:10.1503/cmaj.109-3099