Universities UK blog

Yes, there’s more to do, but it’s wrong to imply research misconduct is widespread in the UK

January 27, 2012 at 3:14 pm Chris Hale Leave a comment

At the recent BMJ meeting I attended on what to do about research misconduct in the UK, there was a strong sense of urgency that action is needed, and frustration that this issue is long overdue attention.

We heard a number of chilling instances of misconduct, mostly in the medical field, which have put patients at risk, jeopardised the reputation and careers of those who speak out and have the potential to undermine the reputation of UK research. We also heard about the potentially corrosive effect of ‘lesser offences’, such as bias reporting. The desire for action was compounded by a BMJ survey, which suggested that 13 per cent of researchers had first-hand knowledge of misconduct, and 6 per cent believed that allegations had not been properly investigated by their own institutions. Critical articles in the BMJ, Nature and the Financial Times have ensured that this survey has been widely reported.

Universities carry out a substantial amount of the research undertaken in the UK and it is crucial that they take their responsibilities seriously. On the whole I think they do, but there is more that can be done. The BMJ meeting and statement are very helpful in bringing the issue into focus and highlighting the need for action with institutions, research institutes, funders and other bodies.

At Universities UK we also take this issue very seriously. But in considering the actions raised in the BMJ meeting there are a number of points we should bear in mind.

Professor Michael Farthing, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Sussex raised a critical point. He was clear on the need to act, but struck a note of caution: we should be very careful not to inadvertently talk down UK research and overstate the problem.

The reporting of the BMJ survey sailed quite close to the wind in this regard. The survey wasn’t intended to be the most ‘scientific’ piece of research (and some have raised questions over its own integrity), but it did make headlines. The way the results were reported could lead readers to believe that misconduct in the UK is pervasive, rather than the exception. It is one thing to develop a sense of urgency, but we need to be mindful of how this may be perceived. We need to ensure that such surveys can really help us be clear about the true extent of the problem so that we can devise proportionate solutions.

I came away from the BMJ meeting with the sense that most present agreed direct regulation wasn’t appropriate in a UK context. But some called for greater surveillance and detection and some of this language found its way through to the consensus statement. Aside from the costs of doing this, I can’t imagine anyone would actually want to police researchers in such a heavy handed way, or for their institutions to do this. Surely developing a strong sense of responsibility, transparency and accountability and working with the grain of regulatory frameworks already in place is a better approach and more in tune with the principle of academic freedom?

There was also a strong focus on setting up a new national oversight body . The advantage of having a body is that it can provide a focus and reassure us that it’s someone’s job at a national level to be thinking about research integrity; and that there is a ‘go to’ for institutions and researchers who need help. However, it’s by no means a silver bullet. Indeed, having a body whose job it is to deal with research integrity raises the danger that institutions may not continue to recognise it is primarily their responsibility as an employer. Arms-length bodies can also struggle with the stubborn but important issue of cultural change. The UK Research Integrity Office was an important pilot project, and continues to work with institutions, but their ability to really leverage change across the sector has to date been fairly limited.

The BMJ discussion was wide ranging, but I left with the feeling at it was dictated by concerns in medicine. I can understand why this is the case, with patient safety paramount in everyone’s mind, but a sustainable solution should be flexible and work for all disciplines. Engagement with a wider group of disciplines, to make sure they see it as their concern and not just one for medicine, will be important. Universities UK is committed to acting on the issues that came up at the meeting (the BMJ will publish a consensus statement arising from this shortly) and we now have a vehicle in place to do this.

We have been working with research funders to develop a Concordat that can articulate the broad principles that underpin integrity in research and outline the shared expectations, roles and responsibilities of researchers, employers and research funders. For example, the Concordat will promote enhanced processes and transparency at institutional level. It won’t preclude other mechanisms to promote research integrity or to provide support in dealing with research misconduct.

However, , the Concordat can ensure we are in a better position to increase the profile of this issue with all involved. With a clear statement of expectations agreed by all signatories, it can create a stronger and more joined up framework for further action.

We hope to publish later in the spring along with plans for implementation monitoring progress and we’ll give a heads up of the draft principles on the UUK blog in March.

Entry filed under: About Higher Education, Quality and standards, Research. Tags: .