Promoting integrity in science

WASHINGTON D.C. — Scientists, physicians, policy makers, educators, and concerned citizens examined issues of integrity in scientific research in an Institute of Medicine (IOM ) town meeting on October 10. Discussions focused on the recent IOM report titled "Integrity in Scientific Research: Creating an Environment that Promotes Responsible Conduct," whose authors were present to explain their findings, recommendations and how they might be implemented. "I'm saddened that after so many years we still need to be raising these issues," said panelist Alan Leshner, CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), who also expressed concern that a few high-publicity cases of misconduct have damaged the reputation of the scientific enterprise in the eyes of the public. "But I'm heartened," he added, "that the report has done a good job articulating the issue." Commissioned by the Office of Research Integrity at the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), the report was first released in July 2002, a product of more than a year of workshops, meetings and background papers. When committee members began their task, they received a wide variety of comments, according to committee chair Arthur Rubenstein—ranging from "don't tinker with the research" to "we need to regulate research much more strictly." Rubenstein, executive vice president of the University of Pennsylvania Health System, told IOM meeting participants that the committee's objectives had included defining "research integrity," identifying elements of the research environment that promote research integrity, suggesting how those elements could be measured, citing outcome measures, and making recommendations for implementation by research institutions, scientific societies, and government agencies.However, unlike past reports, this IOM effort was focused not on identifying and punishing egregious misconduct, but on finding ways to raise the level of integrity throughout the research enterprise and encourage adherence to the highest possible standards. For example, if a scientist puts his name on a paper despite not having contributed to the research, it may not be considered misconduct. Nor is it, strictly speaking, misconduct if a researcher delays sending a reagent to a colleague or even refuses to do so. But, Rubenstein told The Scientist, such practices "taint science" and make the enterprise less productive and efficient.The IOM committee chose to analyze integrity at both the individual and institutional levels. Their definition of responsible conduct at the individual level includes fairness in peer review, sharing of resources, transparency in conflicts of interest, protection of human subjects, and intellectual honesty in proposing, performing and reporting research. At the institutional level, responsible conduct comprises management of individual and institutional conflicts of interest, productive interactions between mentors and trainees, and continuous quality improvement based on an evaluation of the institutional environment.Among the report's recommendations were that funding agencies support research to identify factors influencing integrity, developing comprehensive institutional programs that promote integrity in research, as well as education programs that enhance responsible conduct. The report also encourages evaluation of the integrity of research environments based on self-assessment and external peer review, and the establishment of a public database of institutions actively assessing the integrity of their own research.Several of the panelists emphasized that issues of integrity are not separate from science, but are ingrained in the process of science itself. The report's authors will be further examining the implications of their findings at a two-day HHS-sponsored research conference in Potomac, Maryland, November 16-18.

Promoting integrity in science

Town hall talks consider what integrity means and how to encourage more of it.

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of