Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Med Life with Dr. Horton
    • Podcasts
    • Videos
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • Classified ads
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Activate online account
    • Look up login
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Members Corner
    • Print copies of CMAJ
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
    • Activate subscription
    • Look up login
    • Manage account
    • Manage IPs
    • View Reports
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JPN

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • My Cart
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JPN
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • My Cart
  • Log in
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Med Life with Dr. Horton
    • Podcasts
    • Videos
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • Classified ads
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Activate online account
    • Look up login
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Members Corner
    • Print copies of CMAJ
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
    • Activate subscription
    • Look up login
    • Manage account
    • Manage IPs
    • View Reports
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
News

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

Wayne Kondro
CMAJ December 08, 2009 181 (12) 887-888; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.109-3099
Wayne Kondro
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

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 whistle-blower 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 organizations last month agreed to conduct separate consultations on the report amongst their respective memberships in a run-up to a meeting this winter in 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 such as the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, which has long argued that universities should self-regulate and self-police research miscreants.

Figure1
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint

Universities have the “flexibility” to best handle the shadowy world of ghostwriting, plagiarism, 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. Image courtesy of ©2009 Jupiterimages Corp.

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 team 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 maintaining the status quo 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 often 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’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, he adds.

The consultants examined data from 29 institutions and found that, on average, there are 39 misconduct cases nationally per year. 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.

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 and “institutional noncompliance.” There is also 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.

The international comparison indicated that the US, Denmark and Norway have legislated oversight systems that have clear definitions of research misconduct and a central body with investigatory powers.

Canada, Germany and the UK fell 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.

The report recommends that Canada go no further than to adopt such a body. A German-style office of an ombdus-person need not be costly, it states. “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.”

Footnotes

  • Previously published at www.cmaj.ca

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 181 (12)
CMAJ
Vol. 181, Issue 12
8 Dec 2009
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Research misconduct agency would undermine “academic self-governance,” study says
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
Citation Tools
Research misconduct agency would undermine “academic self-governance,” study says
Wayne Kondro
CMAJ Dec 2009, 181 (12) 887-888; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.109-3099

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Research misconduct agency would undermine “academic self-governance,” study says
Wayne Kondro
CMAJ Dec 2009, 181 (12) 887-888; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.109-3099
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
  • Figures & Tables
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Scopus
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Scopus (3)
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Medical trainees warn practice permits will drive away doctors
  • Coupons for health care a sign of creeping privatization?
  • Canada’s health system is among the least green
Show more News

Similar Articles

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Videos
  • Alerts
  • RSS

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • CMA Members
  • Copyright and Permissions
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact

Copyright 2019, Joule Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

Powered by HighWire