Correctable Myths About Research Misconduct in the Biomedical Sciences
- 169 Downloads
A recent National Academy report on research integrity noted that policies are not evidence-based, with no formal entity responsible to attend to this deficit. Here we describe four areas of research misconduct (RM) regulations governing Public Health Service funded research that are empirically and/or ethically questionable. Policies for human subject protection, RM and conflict of interest are not harmonized, making it extremely difficult to deal with complex cases which often contain allegations in all of these areas. Second, detection of RM has depended entirely on whistleblowers in spite of evidence of significant under-reporting. Third, the scientific record is far from cleansed of the effects of falsified/fabricated work through current mechanisms of retraction. Finally, lack of fairness in the regulations may reflect lack of a Belmont Report-like document to guide ethics of RM policy. These issues are likely common in other countries. RM regulations should be harmonized with related regulations and their effectiveness tracked, open access to data for independent replication and improved statistical tests are an essential supplement to whistleblowers, correction of the scientific record will require a major effort, and further ethical analysis and guidance are as important as is empirical study for the improvement of RM regulations. Further consideration should be given to assigning current regulations for human subjects protection, RM and conflict of interest to a single authority and to the further development of a Belmont-like report of essential principles, for RM.
KeywordsResearch misconduct Research ethics Whistleblowers Research regulation
- Belmont Report, Federal Register 1979 April 18; 44(76), 23192–23197.Google Scholar
- Bierer, B., Mark, B., & on behalf of the IRB/RIO/IO Working Group. (2014). Research misconduct involving noncompliance in human subjects research supported by the Public Health Service: Reconciling separate regulatory systems. The Hastings Center Report, 44(4 Special Number), S2–S26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Elia, N., et al. (2016). How do authors of systematic reviews deal with research malpractice and misconduct in original studies? A cross-sectional analysis of systematic reviews and survey of their authors. British Medical Journal Open, 6, e010442.Google Scholar
- Fuster, G., & Gutwirth, S. (2016). Promoting integrity as an integral dimension of excellence in research. D II.4 Legal analysis, 7/6/2016. http://www.hioaresponsibleinnovation.wordpress.com/projects/printeger. Funded from European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme.
- Jacob, M. (2016). On the scope and typology of research misconduct: The gaze of the General Medical Council, 1990–2015. Medical Law Review, 24(4), 497–517.Google Scholar
- National Academy of Science, Engineering and Medicine. (2017). Optimizing the nation’s investment in academic research. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
- Watts, G. (2017). Herbert Leroy Needleman, obituary, Lancet 930.Google Scholar