Research Misconduct International Issues

1
Research MisconductInternational Issues

• Christine C. Boesz, Dr.P.H.
• Inspector General
• National Science Foundation, USA
• INORMS
• Brisbane, Australia
• 24 August 2006

2
Global Challenge

• Some cases of research misconduct have
• Attracted widespread media attention
• Eroded public confidence in science
• Caused concern in scientific communities
• Questioned role of government
• Other cases of research misconduct have
• Escaped public scrutiny, but
• Contribute to a growing body of evidence that
  defines the problem

3
Intra-country or Inter-country Issues

• Intra-country cases
• Erode public confidence in research integrity
• Raise domestic doubts on research and academic
  communities abilities to promote responsible
  conduct of research
• Raise questions of governments role
  responsiveness
• Raise international concerns
• Strain international collaborations

4
Intra-country Issues

• Single-country issues may include
• Policies and procedures may vary by stakeholder,
  e.g., funder, publisher, university, private
  laboratory
• Inconsistent definitions
• Inconsistent standards of evidence
• Inconsistent findings
• Untimely actions
• Inconsistent sanctions

5
Inter-country Issues

• Multiple country issues may include, but not be
  limited to
• Same as intra-country issues
• Differing rules or legal systems
• Differing cultures
• Differing constructs of ethical/legal issues

6
Example of Differencesmisconduct in research

• United States government defines misconduct in
  research as plagiarism and fabrication or
  falsification of data.
• Finland government defines misconduct in
  research as gross negligence and
  irresponsibility, e.g., understatement of
  anothers contributions, negligence in referring
  to earlier findings, publication of same results
  several times.

7
Example of Differences fraud

• United States government does not have a notion
  of fraud in science.
• Finland government (Board on Research Ethics)
  considers fraud in science as deceiving the
  research community and decision makers in 4
  areas
• Fabrication
• Misrepresentation (falsification)
• Fabrication
• Plagiarism
• Misappropriation

8
So whats the problem?

• Ambiguous terminology among scientific
  disciplines and among countries
• Growing number of international collaborations
• Growing number of cross-discipline projects
• Demands of peer review, international reviewer
• Dependency on voluntary compliance
• In research and university communities
• In government and other funding organizations

9
Case Study from the US

• National Science Foundation Standards
• Research community relevance Significant
  departure from accepted practices
• Intent Committed intentionally, or knowingly, or
  recklessly
• Legal Proven by preponderance of Evidence
• United States 45 Code of Federal Register
  689.2(c)

10
Case Study from the US

• Initial allegation
• Case development
• Case facts
• Conclusions
• Lessons learned

11
Plagiarism means

• the appropriation of another persons
• ideas, processes or words without
  giving
• appropriate credit.
• Intellectual Property Theft

12
Intellectual Property Theft

• Initial allegation
• A reviewer of an NSF proposal noticed that the
  principal investigator (PI), an established
  scientist, copied ideas and text from her
  proposal that had previously been submitted to a
  funding agency in another country (UK).

13
Intellectual Property Theft

• Case development
• Complainant contacted to firmly establish
  substance of the allegation
• UK funding agency then contacted and provided
  official information
• Subject claimed a collaborative relationship (not
  confirmed by complainant)
• Subject intercepted OIG initial inquiry letter to
  the Co-PI

14
Intellectual Property Theft

• Case facts
• NSF PI was a reviewer of the UK agency proposal
• UK agency review predicated on confidentiality
• Plagiarism was extensive and confirmed on
  proposal comparison
• University committee established that a central
  unique idea was stolen

15
Intellectual Property Theft

• Conclusions
• Subject knowingly committed plagiarism
• Action exacerbated by the source document being a
  confidential proposal
• Interception of letter was subject's
  self-protection
• University terminated the subject's contract,
  among other sanctions
• NSF made a finding of research misconduct
• NSF imposed two years debarment
• Subject location unknown

16
Intellectual Property Theft

• Lessons learned 
• International cooperation works when the process
  is explained
• UK funding agency had no internal process to
  pursue the violation
• Investigation often relies on non-secure
  communications

17
Is there a Solution?
18
(No Transcript)
19
The Quest for Solutions

• Professional conferences and other discussion
  forums, e.g., INORMS, ORI/ESF 2007 conference in
  Portugal
• Research Codes of Conduct
• Education/ training
• Global Science Forum
• Project to enhance research integrity and prevent
  scientific misconduct

20
Global Science Forum

• The Global Science Forum brings together
  science policy officials from OECD countries. The
  delegates, who meet twice a year, seek to
  identify and maximize opportunities for
  international co-operation in basic scientific
  research.
• OECD http//www.oecd.org/department/

21
Organization for Economic
Co-operation and DevelopmentMember Countries

• AUSTRALIA
• AUSTRIA
• BELGIUM
• CANADA
• CZECH REPUBLIC
• DENMARK
• FINLAND
• FRANCE
• GERMANY
• GREECE
• HUNGARY
• ICELAND
• IRELAND
• ITALY
• JAPAN

• KOREA
• LUXEMBOURG
• MEXICO
• NETHERLANDS
• NEW ZEALAND
• NORWAY
• POLAND
• PORTUGAL
• SLOVAK REPUBLIC
• SPAIN
• SWEDEN
• SWITZERLAND
• TURKEY
• UNITED KINGDOM
• UNITED STATES

22
OECD/GSF Project To Date

• Delegation of Japan proposed the project
• Experts Group was convened to refine the project
• Delegations of Canada and Japan co-leaders
• Conducted survey to establish baseline of
  information types of misconduct, mechanisms to
  handle, and suspected causes
• Project accepted at the GSF meeting, Helsinki,
  July 2006

23
OECD/GSF Project Next Steps

• Establish an International Steering Committee
• Delegations of Japan and Canada will Co-chair
• Scope of Project
• Focus on fabrication and falsification of data
  and research results
• Identify causes and possible remedies
• Not prescriptive directives for handling cases of
  misconduct

24
OECD/GSF Project Next Steps (Continued)

• Work shop
• Tokyo in early 2007
• To include multiple stakeholders, e.g., science
  organizations, academia, publishers
• After Workshop, develop policy report for GSF
  consideration
• Organize special session
• To be held in conjunction with the European
  Science Foundation/Office of Research Integrity
  (US) meeting
• in Portugal, September 2007

25
Ending considerations

• Science and science tools change faster than
  either the creation of regulations or the
  underlying understanding of ethical issues
• Generational and cultural and community "gaps"
  are real and important
• Many problems may result from the "process"
• Unclear definitions
• Inconsistencies