Abstract
Despite the ever increasing collaboration between industry and universities, the previous empirical studies on research integrity and misconduct excluded participants of biomedical industry. Hence, there is a lack of empirical data on how research managers and biomedical researchers active in industry perceive the issues of research integrity and misconduct, and whether or not their perspectives differ from those of researchers and research managers active in universities. If various standards concerning research integrity and misconduct are upheld between industry and universities, this might undermine research collaborations. Therefore we performed a qualitative study by conducting 22 semi-structured interviews in order to investigate and compare the perspectives and attitudes concerning the issues of research integrity and misconduct of research managers and biomedical researchers active in industry and universities. Our study showed clear discrepancies between both groups. Diverse strategies in order to manage research misconduct and to stimulate research integrity were observed. Different definitions of research misconduct were given, indicating that similar actions are judged heterogeneously. There were also differences at an individual level, whether the interviewees were active in industry or universities. Overall, the management of research integrity proves to be a difficult exercise, due to many diverse perspectives on several essential elements connected to research integrity and misconduct. A management policy that is not in line with the vision of the biomedical researchers and research managers is at risk of being inefficient.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
All European Academies. European Code of Conduct for Research Intregrity. Revised Edition. http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/hi/h2020-ethics_code-of-conduct_en.pdf. 08 August 2017.
Anderson, M. S., Horn, A. S., Risbey, K. R., Ronning, E. A., De Vries, R., & Martinson, B. C. (2007). What do mentoring and training in the responsible conduct of research have to do with scientists’ misbehavior? Findings from a National Survey of NIH-funded scientists. Academic Medicine, 82, 853–860.
Bosch, X., et al. (2012). Misconduct policies in high-impact biomedical journals. PLoS ONE, 6, e51928. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0051928.
De Vries, R., Anderson, M. S., & Martinson, B. C. (2006). Normal misbehavior: Scientists talk about the ethics of research. JERHRE, 1, 43–50.
DeAngelis, C. D., & Fontanarosa, P. B. (2008). Impugning the integrity of medical science: The adverse effects of industry influence. JAMA, 299, 1833–1835.
Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62, 107–115.
Fanelli, D. (2009). How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS One, 4, e5738. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005738.
Fanelli, D. (2010). Do pressures to publish increase scientists’ bias? An empirical support from US states data. PLoS One, 5, e10271. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0010271.
Fang, F. C., Steen, R. G., & Casadevall, A. (2012). Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 2012(109), 17028–17033.
Garegnani, G. M., Merlotti, E. P., & Russo, A. (2015). Scoring firms’ codes of ethics: An explorative study of quality drivers. Journal of Business Ethics, 126, 541–557.
Godecharle, S., Nemery, B., & Dierickx, K. (2013). Guidance on research integrity: No union in Europe. Lancet, 381, 1097–1098.
Godecharle, S., Nemery, B., & Dierickx, K. (2014). Heterogeneity in European research integrity guidance: Relying on values or norms? JERHRE, 9, 1–12.
Godecharle, S., Nemery, B., & Dierickx, K. (2017). Scientists still behaving badly: A survey within industry and universities. SEE. doi:10.1007/s11948-017-9957-4.
Hvistendahl, M. (2013). Corruption and research fraud send big chill through big pharma in China. Science, 341, 445–446.
ICMJE. http://www.icmje.org/. 04 July 2017.
Kaptein, M., & Schwartz, M. S. (2008). The effectiveness of business codes: A critical examination of existing studies and the development of an integrated research model. Journal of Business Ethics, 77, 111–127.
Kornfeld, D. (2012). Perspective: Research misconduct: The search for a remedy. Academic Medicine, 87, 877–882.
Martinson, B. C., Anderson, M. S., & De Vries, R. (2005). Scientists behaving badly. Nature, 435, 737–738.
NIH. https://grants.nih.gov/grants/research_integrity/whatis.htm. 08 August 2017.
Prinz, F., Schlange, T., & Asadullah, K. (2011). Believe it or not: How much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 10, 712.
Rosenbaum, L. (2015a). Conflicts of interest: Reconnecting the dots—Reinterpreting industry-physician relations. New England Journal of Medicine, 372, 1860–1864.
Rosenbaum, L. (2015b). Conflicts of interest: Beyond moral outrage—Weighing the trade-offs of COI regulation. New England Journal of Medicine, 372, 2064–2068.
Seife, C. (2015). Research misconduct identified by the US food and drug administration: Out of sight, out of mind, out of the peer-reviewed literature. JAMA Internal Medicine, 175, 567–577.
Singapore Statement on Research Integrity. (2010). http://www.singaporestatement.org/statement.html.
Steen, R. G. (2011). Retractions in the scientific literature: Is the incidence of research fraud increasing? Journal of Medical Ethics, 37, 249–253.
Steneck, N. H. (2007). ORI—Introduction to the responsible conduct of research link to external site. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Titus, S. L., Wells, J. A., & Rhoades, L. J. (2008). Repairing research integrity. Nature, 453, 980–982.
Watts, L. L., et al. (2016). Are ethics training programs improving? A meta-analytic review of past and present ethics instruction in the sciences. Ethics and Behavior. doi:10.1080/10508422.2016.1182025.
Acknowledgements
We wish to thank the interviewees for their participation. This research was funded by Research Foundation—Flanders (Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek-Vlaanderen), PhD Fellowship: 11U8214N.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Godecharle, S., Nemery, B. & Dierickx, K. Differing Perceptions Concerning Research Integrity Between Universities and Industry: A Qualitative Study. Sci Eng Ethics 24, 1421–1436 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9965-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9965-4