In Chaps. 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 I have focused on specific issues related to research with human subjects, such as informed consent, confidentiality, risks, benefits, and vulnerability. In this chapter, I will shift gears and examine a topic that indirectly impacts human subjects but which is nevertheless very important: research integrity. Research integrity (or responsible conduct of research, RCR) has to do with following ethical and legal standards in the conduct of research (Shamoo and Resnik 2015). These include rules pertaining to research with human and animals subjects as well as those concerning the conduct of science itself, such as norms for recording, reporting, analyzing, sharing, publishing and interpreting data; assigning authorship; disclosing and handling conflicts of interest; working with collaborators, students, and trainees; reviewing manuscripts and grants; managing financial and other resources; and investigating allegations of misconduct (Shamoo and Resnik 2015). This chapter will consider some RCR issues which have an important bearing on research with human subjects. But first, I will explain why investigator integrity is essential to research with human subjects.
- Association for the Accreditation of Human Research Protection Programs. 2012a. Considering accreditation. Available at: http://www.aahrpp.org/learn/considering-accreditation. Accessed 26 July 2017.
- ———. 2012b. The value of accreditation. Available: http://www.aahrpp.org/learn/considering-accreditation/value-of-accreditation. Accessed 26 July 2017.
- ———. 2017. FDAAA 801 requirements. Available at: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/manage-recs/fdaaa. Accessed 17 Aug 2017.
- Committee on Publication Ethics. 2012. Cooperation between research institutions and journals on research integrity cases: Guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Available at: http://publicationethics.org/files/Research_institutions_guidelines_final_0_0.pdf. Accessed 17 Aug 2017.
- ———. 2011. Responsibility of applicants for promoting objectivity in research for which Public Health Service funding is sought and responsible prospective contractors; final rule. Federal Register 76 (165): 53256–53293.Google Scholar
- Goldberg, P. 2015. Duke officials silenced med student who reported trouble in Anil Potti’s lab. The Cancer Letter, 9 January 2015. Available at: http://www.cancerletter.com/articles/20150109_1. Accessed 17 Aug 2017.
- Goozner, M. 2004. Unrevealed: Non-disclosure of conflicts of interest in four leading medical and scientific journals. Center for Science and the Public Interest. Available at: https://www.cspinet.org/new/pdf/unrevealed_final.pdf. Accessed 17 Aug 2017.
- Hampson, L.A., J.E. Bekelman, and C.P. Gross. 2008. Empirical data on conflict of interest. In The Oxford handbook of clinical research ethics, ed. E.J. Emanuel, C. Grady, R.A. Crouch, R.K. Lie, F.G. Miller, and D. Wendler, 767–779. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- ———. 2002a. Responsible research: A systems approach to protecting research participants. Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine.Google Scholar
- ———. 2002b. Integrity in scientific research: Creating and environment the promotes responsible conduct. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
- ———. 2009. Conflict of interest in medical research, education, and practice. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
- Krimsky, S. 2003. Science in the private interest—Has the lure of profits corrupted biomedical research? Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
- Laine, C., R. Horton, C.D. DeAngelis, J.M. Drazen, F.A. Frizelle, F. Godlee, C. Haug, P.C. Hébert, S. Kotzin, A. Marusic, P. Sahni, T.V. Schroeder, H.C. Sox, M.B. Van der Weyden, and F.W. Verheugt. 2007. Clinical trial registration—Looking back and moving ahead. New England Journal of Medicine 356 (26): 2734–2746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Michaels, D. 2008. Doubt is their product: How industry’s assault on science threatens your health. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Miller, A., and M. Davis. 2011. Intellectual property. 4th ed. St. Paul: West Publishing.Google Scholar
- ———. 2016b. Allegations of noncompliance with requirements of the NIH human research protection program. Available at: http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/ohsr/public/SOP_16A_V3_3-17-16_508.pdf. Accessed 17 Aug 2017.
- Office of Research Integrity. 2015. Case summary: Anil Potti. Available at: https://ori.hhs.gov/content/case-summary-potti-anil. Accessed 17 Aug 2017.
- Office of Science and Technology Policy. 2000. Federal policy on research misconduct. Federal Register 65 (235): 76260–76264.Google Scholar
- Potti, A., H.K. Dressman, A. Bild, R.F. Riedel, G. Chan, R. Sayer, J. Cragun, H. Cottrill, M.J. Kelley, R. Petersen, D. Harpole, J. Marks, A. Berchuck, G.S. Ginsburg, P. Febbo, J. Lancaster, and J.R. Nevins. 2006. Genomic signatures to guide the use of chemotherapeutics. Nature Medicine 12 (11): 1294–1300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- ———. 2003b. Owning the genome: A moral analysis of DNA patenting. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
- ———. 2015. Responsible conduct of research. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Stancil, J. 2015. US says Anil Potti, former Duke doctor, falsified research. Raleigh News and Observer, 9 November 2015:A1.Google Scholar
- United States Congress, Committee on Government Operations. 1990. Are scientific misconduct and conflicts of interest hazardous to our health? Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
- Wolf, L.E., and J. Zandecki. 2007. Conflicts of interest in research: How IRBs address their own conflicts. IRB 29 (1): 6–12.Google Scholar