Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Differing Perceptions Concerning Research Integrity Between Universities and Industry: A Qualitative Study

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bosch, X., et al. (2012). Misconduct policies in high-impact biomedical journals. PLoS ONE, 6, e51928. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0051928.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Vries, R., Anderson, M. S., & Martinson, B. C. (2006). Normal misbehavior: Scientists talk about the ethics of research. JERHRE, 1, 43–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeAngelis, C. D., & Fontanarosa, P. B. (2008). Impugning the integrity of medical science: The adverse effects of industry influence. JAMA, 299, 1833–1835.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62, 107–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godecharle, S., Nemery, B., & Dierickx, K. (2013). Guidance on research integrity: No union in Europe. Lancet, 381, 1097–1098.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godecharle, S., Nemery, B., & Dierickx, K. (2014). Heterogeneity in European research integrity guidance: Relying on values or norms? JERHRE, 9, 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hvistendahl, M. (2013). Corruption and research fraud send big chill through big pharma in China. Science, 341, 445–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kornfeld, D. (2012). Perspective: Research misconduct: The search for a remedy. Academic Medicine, 87, 877–882.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martinson, B. C., Anderson, M. S., & De Vries, R. (2005). Scientists behaving badly. Nature, 435, 737–738.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbaum, L. (2015a). Conflicts of interest: Reconnecting the dots—Reinterpreting industry-physician relations. New England Journal of Medicine, 372, 1860–1864.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbaum, L. (2015b). Conflicts of interest: Beyond moral outrage—Weighing the trade-offs of COI regulation. New England Journal of Medicine, 372, 2064–2068.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steneck, N. H. (2007). ORI—Introduction to the responsible conduct of research link to external site. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Titus, S. L., Wells, J. A., & Rhoades, L. J. (2008). Repairing research integrity. Nature, 453, 980–982.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

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

  1. Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, University of Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 35, Box 7001, 3000, Louvain, Belgium

    Simon Godecharle & Kris Dierickx

  2. Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Centre for Environment and Health, University of Leuven, 3000, Louvain, Belgium

    Benoit Nemery

Authors
  1. Simon Godecharle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Benoit Nemery
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kris Dierickx
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Simon Godecharle.

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.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 52 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9965-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation