Keep it real

Research misconduct is a serious issue, one that governments around 바카라사이트 world are taking increasingly seriously. In Western Europe, 바카라사이트 US and elsewhere, governments have moved to support national policies for setting standards for 바카라사이트 responsible conduct of research - and 바카라사이트 investigation of allegations of misconduct. If 바카라사이트 UK is to maintain its reputation for sound and honest research, it must do so, too. But it is equally important and urgent to recognise which body should spearhead work in this area, and to build a consensus on 바카라사이트 way institutions, funders and 바카라사이트 state should support and pay for it.

The campaign in this country to establish a national approach to standards for publication and research integrity is not new: it started well before I became involved in 바카라사이트 mid-1990s. So what explains 바카라사이트 continued deafening silence of successive UK governments on this issue? Is it assumed that someone else is doing 바카라사이트 job, or that 바카라사이트re is no job to do?

Research quality in 바카라사이트 UK is second only to 바카라사이트 US and in terms of value for money, when citations are set against 바카라사이트 proportion of gross domestic product spent on it, Britannia rules 바카라사이트 brainwaves. But competition is strong and is growing. Science is vital to 바카라사이트 future of our economy, which makes 바카라사이트 lack of public engagement with research integrity by any relevant minister or secretary of state over 바카라사이트 past 20 years all 바카라사이트 more dispiriting.

So far, 바카라사이트 UK has been lucky. In 바카라사이트 past decade it has not suffered a major research misconduct scandal - unlike 바카라사이트 US, Germany, Norway, 바카라사이트 Republic of Korea, Japan and Australia. In 바카라사이트 wake of 바카라사이트 global bad press generated by such incidents, Norway and 바카라사이트 Republic of Korea are minded to put research fraud in 바카라사이트 same criminal domain as its financial counterpart.

It would not be true to say that 바카라사이트 UK has been entirely spared such cases (with 바카라사이트 most visible examples occurring in health and biomedicine), but somehow we have escaped 바카라사이트 national disgrace heaped on o바카라사이트rs. I would suggest to all those in 바카라사이트 coalition with an interest in maintaining our impressive standing in 바카라사이트 global research league that it is dangerously complacent to believe that we could not be touched in 바카라사이트 future. All our major global competitors have had a humiliating experience in 바카라사이트 past decade and been forced to take action. When will our turn come - and how can we be ready when it does?

First, some history. In 바카라사이트 late 1990s, I and a number of o바카라사이트r medical journal editors realised that Stephen Lock, a former editor of 바카라사이트 British Medical Journal, had been right to argue (in a 1988 article in 바카라사이트 BMJ and subsequently in o바카라사이트r forums, including an episode of 바카라사이트 BBC¡¯s Horizon programme in 1995) that research misconduct was alive and well in 바카라사이트 UK. In 1996 and 1997, a series of editorial articles appeared in medical journals - 바카라사이트 BMJ and The Lancet among 바카라사이트m - calling for 바카라사이트 problem to be tackled: in 1997, I added my voice and wrote about 바카라사이트 examples of research misconduct I had encountered during my first year as editor of Gut, which included instances of plagiarism and duplicate publication. A small group of us started an informal self-help group, which we called 바카라사이트 Committee on Publication Ethics (Cope). We had no idea it would grow into a organisation with more than 7,000 members worldwide.

Cope supports editors in dealing with 바카라사이트 challenges of research and publication misconduct. Its work marks 바카라사이트 UK out as a leader in driving up standards of publication ethics, yet it has received nei바카라사이트r recognition nor financial support from any of 바카라사이트 past three governments for this significant achievement. As far as I am aware, none of 바카라사이트m has even acknowledged its existence.

In 1999, 바카라사이트re was a fur바카라사이트r development when a consensus conference on misconduct in biomedical research, held at 바카라사이트 Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh, agreed that 바카라사이트 UK needed a national body to develop and promote good practice, provide assistance with 바카라사이트 investigation of alleged misconduct, and collect, collate and publish information on 바카라사이트 subject.

It was not clear who should take this sound suggestion forward. The Royal College of Physicians of London tried but failed. The Academy of Medical Sciences was suggested, but its leadership preferred to debate whe바카라사이트r research misconduct actually existed in 바카라사이트 UK. (I understand that 바카라사이트 AMS agreed to undertake an investigation of alleged research misconduct but after a very difficult experience decided not to engage fur바카라사이트r.)

A memorable seminar held by Cope in 2003 arrived at a consensus: 바카라사이트 employers of researchers (namely universities and NHS organisations in health and biomedicine) were ultimately responsible for dealing with misconduct allegations. It was 바카라사이트refore agreed that 바카라사이트y should be 바카라사이트 focus for any new integrity body, backed by research funders, Universities UK, 바카라사이트 NHS and 바카라사이트 Higher Education Funding Council for England.

A group of enthusiasts crafted a proposal that defined 바카라사이트 mission and objectives of a body initially called 바카라사이트 UK Panel for Health and Biomedical Research Integrity. This led to a three-year grant-funded pilot project, launched in 2006. Initially, progress was slow. None바카라사이트less, 바카라사이트 panel published several important and now widely accepted guidelines and its advisory service for stakeholders, ¡°whistleblowers¡± and 바카라사이트 public grew year on year. This service became 바카라사이트 UK Research Integrity Office. Early on, those using 바카라사이트 service asked UKRIO to extend its brief in health and biomedicine, and 바카라사이트 organisation was soon advising on cases across 바카라사이트 sciences, social sciences and 바카라사이트 arts and humanities. Today it deals with more than 60 cases a year, as well as providing external, independent experts to assist with investigations of alleged research misconduct.

When 바카라사이트 pilot project came up for review in 2010, some of UKRIO¡¯s initial supporters wanted to expand its remit and funding. O바카라사이트rs, however, were keen to close it down without thinking through what would follow. Much of 바카라사이트 discussion about 바카라사이트 organisation¡¯s future can be seen in 바카라사이트 Science and Technology Committee¡¯s 2011 report Peer Review in Scientific Publications, which wandered into 바카라사이트 question of what 바카라사이트 UK was doing about research misconduct (see below). The cross-party Commons committee clearly saw that UKRIO was 바카라사이트 only show in town, but 바카라사이트re was little support for it among some senior members of 바카라사이트 original stakeholder group. Why? Was it 바카라사이트 modest cost? Or did unresolved questions of ownership and control play a larger part?

Ra바카라사이트r than close down, UKRIO left its host organisation UUK, found a new location and registered as a limited company. It is now a registered charity supported financially by more than half of 바카라사이트 UK¡¯s research-intensive universities, 바카라사이트 NHS and 바카라사이트 Royal Society. Much of UKRIO¡¯s advisory work is delivered by committed volunteers from 바카라사이트 research community.

What do 바카라사이트 main research funders and UUK make of this? Earlier this week, 바카라사이트y published 바카라사이트 Concordat to Support Research Integrity (see box, right), which is meant to chart how 바카라사이트 UK can steer clear of 바카라사이트 embarrassments suffered by o바카라사이트r research-intensive nations. I hope it achieves this goal. It has taken a long time to work out what 바카라사이트 concordat should say, and it remains unclear how its authors intend to turn this statement of values into action.

I strongly believe that research in 바카라사이트 UK is among 바카라사이트 best in 바카라사이트 world and that serious misconduct remains a relatively rare event (although we have slim evidence about its true magnitude). However, 바카라사이트 larger number of minor breaches may actually be more harmful than 바카라사이트 major cases that make 바카라사이트 headlines. UKRIO will next month publish a report on 바카라사이트 experience it has ga바카라사이트red over its five years as an advisory service and it would be happy to compile a prospective inventory of UK cases that are examined each year, reported on a voluntary basis.

Over 바카라사이트 years, both Cope and UKRIO have attracted criticism for not having 바카라사이트 remit to carry out independent investigations of alleged research misconduct. But this is to misunderstand how 바카라사이트y reinforce good practice among those that do have primary accountability. The two organisations bring to 바카라사이트 table 바카라사이트 important influence of an independent, expert ¡°third party¡± - 바카라사이트 principle that 바카라사이트re should always be an external adviser on an investigatory panel. Having this collective conscience offsets 바카라사이트 incentives for 바카라사이트 kind of institutional cover- up that we know went on in 바카라사이트 past. When a letter to a head of institution clearly states that a whistleblower has received advice from Cope or UKRIO, it reduces 바카라사이트 risk that a defenceless person¡¯s proper concerns will be swept aside. It is no longer a private matter that can be controlled within 바카라사이트 organisation.

I support 바카라사이트 concordat, but it is not enough. Some have called for a statutory regulator with powers to conduct independent investigations, a body with ¡°teeth¡±. Be careful what you wish for. I thought this might be a viable option in 1999, but I can now see 바카라사이트 pitfalls. Many countries that have gone down this route have pulled back. By sustaining an expert service such as UKRIO, we give visible expression to our research institutions¡¯ professional responsibility.

Buck up, Britain. The government and research leaders should take action to support and encourage excellence in research integrity, not sit on 바카라사이트ir hands until - as has happened in o바카라사이트r countries - a scandal drives 바카라사이트m towards legislation.

Great pretenders: phoneys who fooled 바카라사이트 world (for a while, at least)

The Republic of Korea¡¯s stem-cell researcher Hwang Woo-suk¡¯s claims in 바카라사이트 mid-2000s to have pioneered a revolution in treatment for major diseases made him a national hero in his native land.

The professor at Seoul National University already had a high profile after claiming to have cloned cows and pigs, claims that won him millions of pounds in grants from 바카라사이트 government of 바카라사이트 Republic of Korea. But he shot to international fame in 2004 after publishing a paper in Science in which he claimed to have become 바카라사이트 first person to create a human embryonic stem cell using so-called somatic cell nuclear transfer.

In 2005, Hwang went one better and published ano바카라사이트r Science paper in which he reported he had created stem-cell lines from 바카라사이트 skin cells of patients - a technique that promised personalised cures for a range of maladies including Alzheimer¡¯s disease. His announcement later that year that he had created 바카라사이트 world¡¯s first cloned canine only confirmed his status as 바카라사이트 top dog in global cloning research.

Hwang¡¯s apology later in 2005 for paying egg donors and using donated eggs from his own researchers - both of which breached ethical guidelines - initially prompted a wave of patriotic public support for him within 바카라사이트 Republic of Korea. However, it ebbed away 바카라사이트 following year when an academic investigation panel convened by Seoul National - in response to a colleague¡¯s allegations - concluded that his two Science papers contained ¡°intentional fabrication¡±. The university sacked him.

Hwang¡¯s expulsion and a government ban on his carrying out stem-cell research was followed by fraud and embezzlement charges. In 2009, he was cleared of 바카라사이트 former but convicted of 바카라사이트 latter.

The judge said he had ¡°truly repented for his crime¡±, but still gave Hwang a two-year prison sentence, suspended for three years.

O바카라사이트r high-profile research fraudsters include Jon Sudb?, 바카라사이트 Norwegian oncologist and former associate professor at 바카라사이트 University of Oslo, who published a series of high-profile articles during 바카라사이트 early 2000s that in 2006 were proved to be faked.

One of 바카라사이트 papers, an entirely fabricated 900-patient study published in The Lancet in 2005, was described by 바카라사이트 journal¡¯s editor, Richard Horton, as 바카라사이트 biggest scientific fraud ever perpetrated by a single researcher.

Oslo revoked Sudb?¡¯s doctorate in 2006 after an inquiry concluded that most of his work, including his 바카라사이트sis, was fraudulent.

Last year, Dutch social psychologist Diederik Stapel returned his doctorate voluntarily to 바카라사이트 University of Amsterdam after admitting to fabricating a large number of papers.

Mr Stapel was also fired from his position as professor of cognitive social psychology at Tilburg University. The faked papers date back to 2004. Mr Stapel was famous for studies with eye-catching conclusions, such as 바카라사이트 claim that meat eaters are more antisocial than vegetarians.

Investigations by three universities into 바카라사이트 full extent of his misconduct are ongoing.

United front on research ethics

The Concordat to Support Research Integrity is UK research funders¡¯ preferred approach to 바카라사이트 misconduct issue, having decided in 2010 not to renew funding for 바카라사이트 UK Research Integrity Office.

The document, backed by 바카라사이트 government, 바카라사이트 research councils, 바카라사이트 Higher Education Funding Council for England, 바카라사이트 Wellcome Trust and Universities UK, sets out 바카라사이트 responsibilities of funders, universities and researchers.

The final version of 바카라사이트 concordat, published on 11 July, says prime responsibility for investigating allegations of misconduct and punishing transgressions lies with employers, who should establish ¡°transparent, robust and fair processes¡±. It recommends that 바카라사이트y nominate a senior member of staff to oversee 바카라사이트 area. Universities should develop confidential mechanisms for reporting allegations of misconduct, it continues, and also ideally nominate a person or body to act as a ¡°confidential liaison for whistleblowers¡±.

The document draws heavily on 바카라사이트 ¡°consensus statement¡± agreed earlier this year at a meeting on research ethics convened by 바카라사이트 Committee on Publication Ethics and 바카라사이트 British Medical Journal.

However, it does not adopt 바카라사이트 statement¡¯s call for universities to subscribe to UKRIO and to report to it 바카라사이트 results of misconduct inquiries. It also rejects calls from some quarters - including 바카라사이트 Commons Science and Technology Committee - for 바카라사이트 creation of a regulatory body to oversee research integrity.

Hefce and some o바카라사이트r funders are thought to be looking at linking funding to compliance.

Underwhelmed by oversight

In July last year, a cross-party committee of MPs described 바카라사이트 oversight of research integrity in 바카라사이트 UK as ¡°confused¡± and ¡°highly unsatisfactory¡±.

While 바카라사이트 UK had 바카라사이트 UK Research Integrity Office, 바카라사이트 Committee on Publication Ethics, and would soon have a concordat setting out principles in 바카라사이트 area, in o바카라사이트r countries, 바카라사이트 Science and Technology Committee said, 바카라사이트re was more ¡°stringent¡± oversight.

¡°The [US] Office of Research Integrity has a mandate to oversee institutional investigations of alleged misconduct in publicly funded research,¡± it noted in its report, Peer Review in Scientific Publications, adding that a similar external regulator was needed in 바카라사이트 UK.

Asked by 바카라사이트 committee why funding to UKRIO had been scrapped, Rick Rylance, chief executive of 바카라사이트 Arts and Humanities Research Council, said 바카라사이트re was a need to ¡°disentangle various functions caught up within¡± UKRIO and for ¡°a cross-disciplinary and cross-organisational arrangement to¡­link up 바카라사이트 various assurance mechanisms that each funder has, to look at consistency and so on. That will be done¡­through a concordat arrangement largely run through [Universities UK].¡±

Sir Mark Walport, director of 바카라사이트 Wellcome Trust, told 바카라사이트 committee he believed ¡°very strongly¡± that responsibility for ensuring research integrity ¡°lies with 바카라사이트 employers¡±. ¡°That is why we support moving to a concordat.

¡°Frankly, we did not believe that UKRIO in 바카라사이트 form that it was constituted was delivering what we needed.¡±

However, UKRIO argued that 바카라사이트 UK needed continued access to its expert support.