promoting research ethics and integrity - an international perspective dr paul taylor manager,...
TRANSCRIPT
Promoting research ethics and integrity - an international perspective
Dr Paul TaylorManager, Research Ethics and IntegrityMelbourne Research [email protected], 42047
Overview
• About the University
• Guidelines and Regulations Downunder
• Our approach
• Challenges
About the University of Melbourne
The University of Melbourne
• Established 1853
• 11 Faculties/Graduate Schools
• 45,569 Students (Aug 2009)
– 37.9% Postgraduate Students
– 26.4% International Students
– 10.2% RHD Students
• 7,326 Staff
Academic Structure
Faculties and Graduate Schools
Architecture, Building and Planning Arts Economics and Commerce Education Engineering Land and Environment Law Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences Science VCA and Music Veterinary Science
– Melbourne Business School– Melbourne School of Graduate Research
Research income and rankings
• In 2008, research income $382.5M and expenditure of $653.7M (total budget
approaching $1.5B)
• Second largest R&D organisation in Australia, behind CSIRO
• Ranked 73 in SJTI 2008; 36 in THES 2009
– second in Australia
• Ambition to be top 50
• Member of Go8100
0
20
40
60
80
0 20 40 60 80 100
Rank
Weightings of criteria in SJTI
Alumni, 10%
Award, 20%
HiCi, 20%N&S, 20%
PUB, 20%
PCP, 10%
Alumni Award HiCi N&S PUB PCP
Breadth
• One of 16 Universities to be ranked in top 30 across all disciplines
(THES)
• One of 2 in the Asia-Pacific (University of Tokyo)
Melbourne Research Office - Supporting Research Excellence
Research Office
• operational and strategic support to researchers and University
management
• close working relationship Melbourne Ventures, Legal Services,
Melbourne School of Graduate Research
• four groups
– Grants and Contracts
– Research Performance and Analysis (ERA)
– Research Systems
– Research Ethics and Integrity
QuickTime™ and a decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Research ethics and integrity group
• responsibilities across
– Codes of Conduct for Research/research integrity (up to 1.0 FTE)
– research disputes and misconduct
– human research ethics (3.8 EFT)
– animal ethics and welfare (3 +1 EFT)
– gene technology and biosafety (1.0 - 2.0 EFT)
• directly involved in providing advice to applicants, departments, senior University
officers
• strategic and operational - how do I dispose of an unidentified pathogen? how
should the EA be changed to accommodate funding requirements? should the
University still work with non-human primates?
Scale
• Research disputes/misconduct ?
• Human research ethics 1800
• Animal ethics 700
• Gene tech and biosafety 350+150
• kind of busy…
Cultural exchange #1
• someone: “y’orright?”
• me: “do I look unwell?”, or
“am I bleeding from somewhere?”, or
“yep”
• advice welcome…
Rules and regulations Downunder
The ACRCR
Part A advocates and describes best practicefor both institutions and researchers.
Part B is designed to ensure there are agreed, fair and effective processes in place in the event of an allegation of misconduct
Research misconduct
10.1
“Research misconduct includes fabrication, falsification, plagiarism or deception in proposing, carrying out or reporting the results of research , and failure to declare or manage a serious conflict of interest. It includes avoidable failure to follow research proposals as approved by a research ethics committee, particularly where this failure may result in unreasonable risk or harm to humans, animals or the environment. It also includes the willful concealment or facilitation of research misconduct by others”
Research misconduct
10.1
“……….relates to misconduct if it involves all of the following:
• an alleged breach of the Code
• intent and deliberation, recklessness or gross and persistent negligence
• serious consequences, such as false information on the public record, or adverse effects on research participants, animals or the environment”
Repeated or continuing breaches of the Code may also constitute misconduct
Honest differences in judgment or errors made unintentionally do not
Authorship
• critical - majority of complaints
• must have made significant contribution by
– conception and design of the project
– analysis and interpretation of the data
– drafting substantial parts of the publication or critically revising it so
as to change the interpretation
• not for providing materials, collecting data, or by virtue of relationship or
position (ghost or honorary authorships)
• discuss authorship and acknowledgments prior to starting research
Research Data and Records Management
• critical
• challenging - range of materials, sheer volume
• research data vs research records
• ACRCR and University policy says
– at least 5 years from date of last publication
– data register required
– data management plan recommended
– schedule and authorisation for disposal
Other areas covered
• Supervision of research trainees
• Conflict of interest
• Peer review
• Collaborations
• Publications and dissemination of results
Cultural exchange #2
• someone: “give us a squiz”
• you: “no, thanks”, or
“call the police!!”
• really being asked ‘may I please have a look?’
• no need for concern
• similar to “howya goin’”…this is not an enquiry about a mode of
transportation
Our approach
Expectations of the General Public
Expectations of the Research
Community
Rules and Regulations
Departmental repsonsibilities
Publications, posters andconferencesActually doing research!
Knowledge transfer, IP andcommercialisation
Teaching and supervision
Life
YOU ARE HERE
Personal Integrity
• personal integrity
– honesty
– trustworthiness
– lawfulness
– respect
Research Integrity
• like any community, there are generally accepted standards of practice
the right way to do research, or Research Integrity
• like any community, there are consequences if these standards are not
met
Research compliance, ethics and shades of grey
• research compliance vs research ethics
• compliance is the indicator of your intent to do things the right way
• research integrity is not just about avoiding bad, but doing good -
compliance is the wrong model
• there are some common principles across the disciplines…these are
encapsulated in the ACRCR and the University Code of Conduct of
Research
Turning principles into practice
• at first glance, some of the concepts covered in ACRCR are abstract
• challenge is to make them real to researchers
– fabrication, falsification and plagiarism = lying, cheating and stealing
• best achieved through discussion/education rather than ticking a box - “I
have read the Code of Conduct” doesn’t work very well…
Trickle down and build up
• high-level principles locked into policy at institutional level
• expect (require?) that Faculties elaborate on these policies so that they
make sense for their researchers
• also, expect then that Departments will do the same thing
– aim is to have localised versions of the policies that offer practical,
relevant, discipline-specific advice (difficult/unwise to try this
centrally)
– close the gap between principle and practice
• requires that support for (and engagement with) local-level
developments/projects is available
Cultures of research ethics and integrity
• a microbiological perspective?
• used to managing cultures
time
health
lag
growth
stationary (death)
‘food’
FRLP
• Future Research Leaders Program (research.unimelb.edu.au/frlp)
• Go8 initiative, Commonwealth funded
• 8 modules that cover the research lifecycle; case study across all 8
• Module 3 Governance and Compliance
– data security, authorship, ethics, biological safety
• participants enjoy discussing the principles and practicality of research
integrity
• case study frees up discussion (but does not hinder personal
statements)
ECR Workshops
• ‘laying the foundations’
• research ethics and integrity included for the first time this year
• ‘build your own code’ activity
– e.g. all involved in the project should be listed as an author (!)
• initial hesitation (‘boring!’), discussion went into overtime
• most found it valuable - first time some of the issues had been raised
• very helpful for explaining how these principles do impact on the day-to-
day operation of research
• ‘getting in early’
GREIM
• Global Research Ethics and Integrity Module
• http://www.gradresearch.unimelb.edu.au/programs/GREIM/
• Universitas 21 initiative, UoM as lead institution (MSGR)
• targetted at research higher degree students
• 8 chapters that cover basic principles of research ethics and integrity
• reflection tasks, f2f workshops and online discussions (with ‘expert’
moderators chipping in where appropriate)
Ethical risk management
• based on findings of ARC funded ‘Investigating Human Research
Ethics in Practice’ project
(http://www.chs.unimelb.edu.au/programs/investigating_human_resear
ch_ethics_in_practice)
• better training to improve understanding of basis of human research
ethics and committee operations, and consideration of ‘ethical risk’
• participants observed a real committee meeting and held a moot
meeting
• all reported having a much better understanding of the process and
why they were asked particular questions
• ‘a grant proposal is conceptual, but the ethics process makes it real’
Research Integrity Toolkit (2010)
• material to encourage discussion at a group/department level
– one a month for 8-10 months
• guided discussion
• copies of institutional and local policies (where available)
• research integrity climate survey as a way of measuring the ‘health’ of
the culture?
Challenges
Status of ACRCR
• not a legislative/regulatory document - guidelines only…
• …except for NHMRC funded research where compliance with it is part
of the funding agreement
• some clashes with internal University policies, EA
• will be resolved over time
• problems with Part B: Process for handling allegations of research
misconduct
– e.g. the full legislative protection offered to whistleblowers must be
extended to complainants, but this means that we then can’t tell
anyone about the complaint…natural justice/procedural fairness?
Two definitions for research misconduct…
• UoM
– deviation from accepted practice/breach of the Code
– intentional, deliberate or reckless and negligent
• ACRCR adds
– serious consequence (e.g. false information on public record)
• so our first decision when faced with an allegation has to be which
definition are we using…not ideal
• definition also problematic, but perhaps this is less important than we
think it is
Authorship
• clash with UoM policy, ICMJE guidance (Vancouver Protocol) and
ACRCR
• is giving final approval for publication really worth an authorship credit?
how will the Director of a medical research institute react to this no
longer being enough?
• covered in review of UoM Code for 2010
Finally…
• there are institutional responsibilities in ensuring that research is
conducted responsibly
• training and education - ‘the discussion’ - in the principles of
responsible research, research ethics and research integrity is
important
• clear statements from the institution about the way research that is
carried out in it’s name is to be conducted are important
• long term project with intangible (or at least difficult to measure)
benefits, but this should not mean that it is not paid attention to
Thanks