The Responsible Conduct of Research in the Health Sciences (1989) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
5 Recommendations
5 Recommendations
Pages 23-42
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 23... ...
The National Institutes of Health needs to respond vigorously to the perception that science has not maintained high standards of integrity. Although the committee believes that the primary responsibility for developing and implementing professional research standards rests with principal research investigators, medical schools, universities, and other research institutions and professional organizations, the members conclude that NIH must provide leadership and motivation to induce the research community to define professional standards for research practice, monitor levels of supervision, arm provide education in professional stanzas and the ethics of research.
|
From page 24... ...
The areas to be addressed by local institutions should include: o policies for recording and retention of research data; o professional standards for training and supervision; O education In p~vfession~1 standards and the responsible conduct of research; policies and procedures for responding to allegations of misconduct; designation of an institutional official to address concerns related to the conduct of research; and description of the process by which the university faculty, staff, and students -- are kept informed of institutional and professional research standards and policies. o o o There are some potential disadvantages with the establishment of an office to promote responsible research practices as proposed.
|
From page 25... ...
NIH and other research funders can exercise an influential rode by organizing conferences and workshops in which their grantees and professional organizations exchange information about and experience with the development of standards to promote responsible research practices. m ese meetings could highlight useful models, identify problems and barriers to the development of effective research guidelines, and suggest collaborative solutions to problems that may appear intractable to individual institutions.
|
From page 26... ...
When the assurances are received, the NIH office for the promotion of responsible research should monitor the adequacy of local institutional guidelines and statements of compliance by investigators with these standards. The office should notify applicants and grantees from institutions that have not.
|
From page 27... ...
, i_ Some investigator-initiated, grant-supporbed research involves therapeutic trials, other interventions, or measurements on human subjects following clearly specified protocols that have been filed with Institutional Review Cards. Data audits of these studies cod be corx~uc~ by auditors without extensive scientific expertise.
|
From page 28... ...
m e intramural research standards should address, but not be limited to, the recording and retention of research data, the training and supervision of young scientists, and authorship and other publication practices. NIH should take the lead in studying the issue of rights and responsibilities of all relevant parties to research data within the intramural program and prepare model guidelines for data sharing and access.
|
From page 29... ...
m e guidelines should specify desirable behavior and also provide a basis for identifying unacceptable research practices. At a minimum, these guidelines should be in accord with the requirements discussed In Recondensation 1.
|
From page 30... ...
Private and public research funding agencies are encouraged to support projects that will create and disseminate model curricula and supporting materials related to the responsible conduct of research. The committee emphasizes that the value of mentoring should not be overlooked in institutional efforts to communicate responsible research practices.
|
From page 31... ...
The institution should also provide mediation and counseling servi ~ for faculty, staff' and students who wish to express concerns about professionally questionable training or research practices. Universities should not rely upon formal complaints of scientific misconduct as the sole means of monitoring the integrity and causality of the research conducted under their auspices.
|
From page 32... ...
This is sometimes done out of generosity towards a younger colleague, sometimes at the insistence of the laboratory chief, and sometimes because it is thought that including the name of a well-known senior researcher will enhance the chances of publication in a particular journal. Not only does the pressure to publish lead to Me practices of repetitive Publication.
|
From page 33... ...
law, have concluded ~t the nest significant determinant of cc~mpliar~ce with professional norm is the social settle of professional practice (Bayles, l9Bl; Marlin, 1966; Freidson, 1970~. In keeping with this firmly, there is a rum new for scientific institutions to across the social ~vin~mner~t of their faculty, staff, and sets are to identify organizational e1 ~ Its, incentives, and barriers that shape their understanding of, and adherence to, responsible research standards.
|
From page 34... ...
There should also be regular meetings in which the individuals within a research unit are able to scrutinize and critique each other's work. Conversely, laboratory or clinical research practices that encourage cxxlxur~nentalization, secrecy, or isolation within the research unit should be viewed as incompatible with the conduct of good research.
|
From page 35... ...
The committee considered, but opposes, a proposal that universities review research manuscripts prior to their submission to journals or professional meetings. This review is unnecessary and intrudes upon traditions of academic freedom by suggesting that some form of administrative or departments clearance is required prior to the communication of research findings.
|
From page 36... ...
The deparLmenta~ record will help facilitate colloquial review of published research and will also highlight Native publication p~-ac~ti~. If questions are raised ascot inappropriate assignment of authorship credit, the de~rtrarnt art its institution Uphold take appropriate steps to investigate the allegation.
|
From page 37... ...
m e topics that require immediate attention by scientific journals include repetitive publication, supernumerary authorship, institutional responsibilities for discI06ure and notification of research misconduct in publication, the use and misuse of peer-review, and the appropriate response to suspicions or confirmations of misconduct in published work or work submitted for publication. The committee endorses proposals made at the workshop that encourage journals to require all authors submitting a manuscript to 37
|
From page 38... ...
The committee recommends that science journal editors develop a uniform system for reporting serious violations of professional standards to research institutions so that institutional officers can be informed in a timely manner of the nature of these complaints. The committee does not encourage editors of journals to conduct random data audits to ensure the responsible conduct of research (see Recommendation 3~.
|
From page 39... ...
_ _ ,= ~.= ~ Although the issues of data access and data sharing have been discussed in many settings, there does not yet appear to be real acnsensus over the basic standard Fat dhaald govern individual practice (a Ration 15)
|
From page 40... ...
o Although it is clear that poorly supervised scientists are more likely to develop unacceptable research practices, it is not known with any precision what constitutes adequate supervision. m e perception needs to be a~]
|
From page 41... ...
The committee reccmmen~s that professional and scientific organizations initiate studies to understand and encourage responsible research practices. IN its review of the topic of fraud and quality assurance ~ hearth sciences research, the committee identified a number of areas in which information is insufficient to warrant specific policy recommendations.
|
From page 42... ...
identify research errors. The quality of research would be improved by characterization and analysis of the procedures COPE by research institutions, journals, professional groups, and individual investigators in various disciplines to detect and correct error.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.