Main

September 19, 2007

Integrity: the dark-side of mentoring

The final morning of the research integrity meeting began with a question that should probably have come earlier in the meeting: what do we know for certain about bad research behaviour? Is misconduct actually on the rise? Sure, there are more scientists than ever, and competition between them is rising, factors that you think would contribute to more misconduct. There are also worrying signs from the young that internet ´research´ at school and university is becoming a substitute for real academic work. But does that mean this is a problem that is only going to get worse? And what can the science community do about it?

Continue reading "Integrity: the dark-side of mentoring" »

Posted by Sarah Tomlin at 02:23 PM |

Integrity: conference bingo

There are a bewildering number of acronyms, and their representatives, at the research integrity meeting in Lisbon. Many I had never heard of. So during a more pedestrian session I started playing conference bingo: could I construct the words 'research integrity' from the organisations in attendance?

After all, one goal of the conference is more joined-up thinking and dialogue between attendees. Could they, by getting together (even just fleetingly on my notepad), address the challenges of research integrity more effectively? Let's see how I did.

We have the conference organisers: ORI and ESF. Plus their supporters and partners: EMBO, ICSU (the international council for science), UKRIO (the UK integrity office) and COPE (committee on publication ethics).

Indeed, when it comes to publishing organisations there were more than I could imagine: as well as COPE, there is EASE (european assoc of science editors), CSE (council of science editors), WAME (world assoc of medical editors) and STM (the international assoc of scientific, technical and medical editors). Phew!

At the global level, where some attendees are looking for leadership on questions of harmonization and setting community standards, there is ICSU, but also UNESCO and its commission on the ethics of science and technology (COMEST). At the European level there is ALLEA (all european academies) and EUROHORCS (the research councils).

How am I doing? I still need a G and a Y. Well there is that report from the OECD's Global Science Forum (GSF) perhaps they can provide the 'why' for future activity by all these groups...

Posted by Sarah Tomlin at 07:42 AM | | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

September 18, 2007

Integrity: What did we learn from Hwang?

So what did the science community learn from the biggest scandal in recent years?

Herbert Gottweis, a political scientist from the University of Vienna, tried to summarize the lessons learned for the attendees in Lisbon. Gottweis arrived in South Korea just 3 weeks before the scandal broke and admits he was as shocked as everyone else by the revelations. He was there to meet the successful star of human embryonic stem cell research for a book he was writing. Instead, he found himself witnessing an unfolding drama.

Gottweis identified five lessons from what he calls Hwang-gate:

1) hyping science can lead to fraudulent behaviour
2) peer review is no substitute for good science governance
3) research integrity is increasingly a matter of the integrity of research networks (including hospitals, ethical review boards, foreign collaborators...)

and on more positive notes:
4) the globalization of science may lead to greater globalization (or harmonization) of research integrity
5) once misconduct is uncovered its important to act quickly and decisively with the right institutions

On this last point Gottweis praised the final report of the committee of the Seoul National University that investigated Hwang. What did the Koreans think of Gottweis' talk? I asked one representative from SNU for her perspective, and she generally welcomed the analysis. It would have been good to hear more from the Korean delegation - there were six of them in Lisbon - but none of them were invited to give presentations. More's the pity.

Posted by Sarah Tomlin at 08:58 PM |

Integrity: codes, clubs and copying

There are some clear divisions emerging in the discussions this week. One question that gets people fired up is the issue of whether science should be a profession - similar to medicine or law - with a professional code of conduct, an accreditation body and most importantly the ability to kick misbehaving scientists out of the club.

Proponents of this view include Ray Spier from the University of Surrey and the editor of Science and Engineering Ethics. As he argued following a discussion about national and international codes of behaviour for scientists: a code of conduct without an institutional ``anchor`` would not be worth the paper its written on.

Others worry that a formal professional body does little to address the underlying cultural issues faced by science, where too little is done by too few to challenge misbehaviour. Brian Martinson of HealthPartners Research Foundation in Minneapolis is one who believes that integrity has to come from within the community rather than being
imposed externally.

Continue reading "Integrity: codes, clubs and copying" »

Posted by Sarah Tomlin at 04:35 PM |

September 17, 2007

Integrity: Zero tolerance in Portugal

It’s the end of the first day of the World Conference on Research Integrity in Lisbon and there has already been a lot of talk about responsible research, misconduct, questionable behaviours by scientists and what to do about it all.

Some of the most interesting discussions at a meeting like this happen during Q&A sessions after talks and during gossipy coffee breaks. I've already met one attendee who got into research policy as a consequence of her advisor publishing her PhD work under his name. And the best excuse yet for an author not supplying the original data requested by a journal editor? White ants ate my data.

‘Talk’ is the main goal of the first ever world conference on research integrity: an opportunity to bring together 300-plus scientific managers, policy makers, funders, editors and academics for open and frank discussions of this difficult and sensitive topic. Supported by the US Office of Research Integrity and the European Science Foundation, the hopes are high for a meeting that, some say, could not have happened even 5 years ago. Whether any concrete actions will emerge is yet to be seen.

Continue reading "Integrity: Zero tolerance in Portugal" »

Posted by Sarah Tomlin at 11:52 PM | | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Search