Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • COVID-19
    • Articles & podcasts
    • Blog posts
    • Collection
    • News
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • Classified ads
  • Authors
    • 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
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
    • Career Ad Discount
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • COVID-19
    • Articles & podcasts
    • Blog posts
    • Collection
    • News
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • Classified ads
  • Authors
    • 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
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
    • Career Ad Discount
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
News

Tentative steps toward transparency and accountability

Sabrina Doyle
CMAJ March 20, 2012 184 (5) 517; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.109-4132
Sabrina Doyle
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Although erstwhile hopes for the creation of some manner of national oversight and investigatory agency to handle research misconduct in Canada appear to have dissipated, the nation’s three research granting councils have taken a tentative step toward more public accountability in cases of ethical breaches such as misappropriation of funds, plagiarism, falsification of data and ghostwriting.

In the event of serious breaches, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council now have the power to release the names of researchers who acted inappropriately, as well as the names of their institutions and at least some detail regarding their indiscretions.

That authority lies at the core of a new tri-council policy framework outlined during a research integrity workshop at Feb. 16 session of the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s annual meeting, which was held in Vancouver, British Columbia.

“We didn’t used to publish even serious bad actors,” said Susan Zimmerman, executive director of the secretariat on responsible conduct of research. “This is a step in the right direction.”

A very small step — in the eyes of many who have called for the creation of an agency similar to the United States Office of Research Integrity or its sister agencies in Europe (www.cmaj.ca/lookup/doi/10.1503/cmaj.070213). It’s been conservatively estimated that 0.001%–1.0% of research involves misconduct (Sci EngEthics 2006;12:53–74).

Zimmerman indicated that the power to publicize was made possible by the councils’ ability to sidestep privacy laws that had previously restricted them from exposing misconduct. That was managed by obligating applicants for council grants to sign a waiver stating that, in the event they made a grave transgression, they would forfeit their right to polite discretion.

The new framework is applicable only to research funded by the councils. Investigation of allegations of research misconduct will remain the domain of universities, which have often been accused of unnecessary secrecy in the interest of protecting their institutional reputations and staving off fears of “withdrawal of funding” in cases where their staff were proven miscreants (www.cmaj.ca/lookup/doi/10.1503/cmaj.109-3099).

Figure1

There are new consequences for Canadian researchers discovered to have fudged their data or committed other ethical breaches.

Image courtesy of © 2012 Thinkstock

A 2009 report commissioned by the Canadian Research Integrity Committee, a loose affiliation of 16 research and academic bodies, including the three councils and the Association of Faculties of Medicine of Canada had indicated that the health sciences community was the most vocal in calling for tighter restrictions because of their 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.”

Zimmerman indicated that in cases in which an allegation of misconduct is made against a member of a university’s faculty, the institution has two months to conduct and “inquiry” and then five months to complete an “investigation” and send their report to one of the granting councils. Only then can a council recommend recourse, although in cases of an allegedly extreme breach of policy, it reserves the right to conduct its own review or compliance audit.

The nascent Panel on Responsible Conduct of Research will preside over the new framework, which replaces the 1994 tri-council research integrity statement, Zimmerman said.

She also indicated that the framework, which was two years in the making, involved an analysis of misconduct policies from around the world and the resulting product clarifies the responsibilities of researchers and defines what constitutes misconduct.

Concerns about university secrecy have been mitigated by a new requirement that investigatory teams include at least one member who is not affiliated with the university, she added.

Zimmerman questions whether Americans are actually better served by having a national investigatory and oversight body, or whether there’s a need for legislators to step into the breach because the current system of having universities self-regulate and self-police research miscreants simply isn’t working.

“Is there less misconduct in the US because of legislative power?” she asked in a later interview with CMAJ. “I would argue no, there isn’t.”

Canadians are just as protected, but in a different way, Zimmerman asserts.

Although the council’s new authority to publicize misconduct is, de facto, an admission that miscreants have often been able to escape scrutiny in the past, Zimmerman argues that in the “rare” number of cases in which misconduct occurs, they are widely publicized.

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 184 (5)
CMAJ
Vol. 184, Issue 5
20 Mar 2012
  • 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.
Tentative steps toward transparency and accountability
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Tentative steps toward transparency and accountability
Sabrina Doyle
CMAJ Mar 2012, 184 (5) 517; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.109-4132

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Tentative steps toward transparency and accountability
Sabrina Doyle
CMAJ Mar 2012, 184 (5) 517; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.109-4132
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Feds update immunization advice with Moderna vaccine approval
  • Canada will have three-digit suicide prevention hotline by 2023
  • Trudeau promises to boost federal health transfers when the pandemic is over
Show more News

Similar Articles

Collections

  • Topics
    • Medical ethics
    • Journalology & publication ethics

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

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

Copyright 2021, 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