Advertisement

Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 18, Issue 2, pp 241–246 | Cite as

A Tale of Two Perspectives: Regulation Versus Self-Regulation. A Financial Reporting Approach (from Sarbanes–Oxley) for Research Ethics

  • Vincent RichmanEmail author
  • Alex Richman
Article

Abstract

Reports of research fraud have raised concerns about research integrity similar to concerns raised about financial accounting fraud. We propose a departure from self-regulation in that researchers adopt the financial accounting approach in establishing trust through an external validation process, in addition to the reporting entities and the regulatory agencies. The general conceptual framework for reviewing financial reports, utilizes external auditors who are certified and objective in using established standards to provide an opinion on the financial reports. These standards have become both broader in scope and increasingly specific as to what information is reported and the methodologies to be employed. We believe that the financial reporting overhaul encompassed in the US Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002, which aims at preventing accounting fraud, can be applied to scientific research in 4 ways. First, Sarbanes–Oxley requires corporations to have a complete set of internal accounting controls. Research organizations should use appropriate sampling techniques and audit research projects for conformity with the initial research protocols. Second, corporations are required to have the chief financial officer certify the accuracy of their financial statements. In a similar way, each research organization should have their vice-president of research (or equivalent) certify the research integrity of their research activities. In contrast, the primary responsibility of the existing Research Integrity Officers is to handle allegations of research misconduct, an after-the-fact activity. Third, generally accepted auditing standards specify the appropriate procedures for external review of a corporation’s financial statements. For similar reasons, the research review process would also require corresponding external auditing standards. Finally, these new requirements would be implemented in stages, with the largest 14 research organizations that receive 25% of the total National Institutes of Health funding, adopting these research oversight enhancements first.

Keywords

Accounting Disclosure Financial audit Mandatory reporting Research ethics Sarbanes–Oxley Scientific misconduct Trust Publishing standards Professional autonomy 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the reviewer for his/her valuable comments.

References

  1. Brenkert, G. G. (2004). Corporate integrity and accountability. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  2. Clikeman, P. M. (2008). Called to account: Fourteen financial frauds that shaped the American accounting profession. Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Downie, J. (2006). The Canadian agency for the oversight of research involving humans: A reform proposal. Accountability in Research, 13(1), 75–100.Google Scholar
  4. Editorial. (2010). Under suspicion. Nature, 464(7293), 1245.Google Scholar
  5. Errami, M., & Garner, H. (2008). A tale of two citations. Nature, 451, 397–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. John, J. L. (2009). The future of saving our past. Nature, 459, 775–776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Lynch, C. (2008). How do your data grow? Nature, 455, 28–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Michigan State University (2009). Video: The role of the RIO. Office of research integrity, US Department of Health and Human Services. http://ori.dhhs.gov/rio/riovideo/. Accessed 26 June 2010.
  9. Mihajlovic-Madzarevic, V. (2010). Clinical trials audit preparation: A guide for good clinical practice (GCP) inspections. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. National Institutes of Health (2010). Award data 2006 (aggregate data for individual organizations). Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools (RePORT), Reports, Data and Analyses of NIH Research Activities. http://report.nih.gov/award/trends/AggregateData.cfm?Year=2006#skipnav Accessed 5 July 2010.
  11. Rezaee, Z. (2007). Corporate governance post-Sarbanes-Oxley: Regulations, requirements, and integrated processes. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  12. Ross, V. (2008). Budget internet information system: Providing statistical and funding information. Budget Division, Office of Budget, Finance and Award Management, National Science Foundation. http://dellweb.bfa.nsf.gov/. Accessed 27 June 2010.
  13. Steneck, N. H. (2007). ORI introduction to the responsible conduct of research. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services.Google Scholar
  14. Titus, S. L., & Bosch, X. (2010). Tie funding to research integrity. Nature, 466, 436–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Titus, S. L., Wells, J. A., & Rhoades, L. J. (2008). Repairing research integrity. Nature, 453, 980–982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Wikipedia (2010). Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes-Oxley. Accessed 26 June 2010.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Business and EconomicsSonoma State UniversityRohnert ParkUSA
  2. 2.School of Business AdministrationDalhousie UniversityHalifaxCanada
  3. 3.AlgoPlus Consulting LimitedHalifaxCanada

Personalised recommendations