OPINION

APRIL 2008 | VOLUME 11 | NUMBER 460

How can research integrity be best achieved?

Let us consider here what research integrity and

misconduct are, and the approaches that can reduce

violations of acceptable practice.

Research integrity can be defined as the firm

adherence to a code of high moral values, principles,

and professional standards in research. As the African

writer Chinua Achebe said, “One of the truest tests

of integrity is its blunt refusal to be compromised.”

US Federal policy defines research misconduct as

fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing,

performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting

research results. Honest errors, or differences of

opinion, do not constitute research misconduct.

The policy states that: (i) research misconduct

results from a significant departure from accepted

practices of the relevant research community; (ii) is

committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly;

and (iii) is proven by a preponderance of evidence.

What are the standard codes of scholarly conduct

and ethical behavior in research? What are the

best practices for the conduct of research on a

global basis? Research credibility – i.e. scientific

believability – is pivotal in both cases.

In reality there are, in different fields of endeavor,

some dishonest individuals who engage in fraudulent

activities and pursue unacceptable practices to the

detriment of scientific advancement. There are also

some individuals who are honest but, because of

national goals, being in the limelight, peer pressure,

or other factors, are tempted to take liberties with

results, falsify or fabricate data, plagiarize, etc. For

example, at a meeting in which I participated several

years ago in Seoul, Korea and was hosted by the

President of Korea, a researcher asked, “What do you

need to do to get a Nobel Prize?” As someone who

travels to Korea regularly and who admires Koreans

for their determination, love of education and the

arts, I have also witnessed the obsession by Korean

society at many levels to secure a Nobel Prize. This

is essentially a national goal, and could have served

as a licence by a Korean stem cell researcher to

engage in profound research misconduct.

In many nations now, there is significant emphasis

among the scientific and university elite to publish

in top journals and require graduate students to

publish at least one paper/year during their graduate

program. These pressures, in the former case, can

lead researchers to make exaggerated claims to

enhance publication prospects and, in the latter,

result in unnecessary publications and ‘corner

cutting’ in the process.

It is of some concern that, in addition to the

findings of research misconduct, the falsification or

fabrication of research results may go undetected if

the work is of low importance and/or is of marginal

interest and, therefore, less likely to be reproduced

by others. Major, landmark advances attract

attention and are likely to be subject to scrutiny.

It is conceivable that as science evolves and pressure

mounts to obtain results, often in unrealistic

timeframes, the quality of research will not

necessarily improve. The human element is key

– key to discoveries, inventions, research integrity,

and responsible science practices.

There are two principal strategies to consider with

respect to research integrity: (i) the values-based

perspective, which includes the spirit, culture, and

values of science; and (ii) the compliance-based

perspective, which consists of rules and policies

including adherence to strict codes. A good way

forward would be to operate using an outcome-

oriented code – a combination of the best elements

of the two approaches. There are a number of

potentially desirable components of an outcome-

oriented code. For instance, the values-based

perspective is characterized by, among other things,

flexibility and the conviction that positive outcomes

at the workplace can be achieved through the good

judgment of participants. Consistency, and the

realization that good outcomes at the workplace

can be achieved by enforcement, are contributors

to the compliance-based approach [Saner, M., Policy

Brief No. 20, Institute on Governance (www.iog.ca),

2004]. Nurturing research integrity, while addressing

research misconduct, can thus be attained by an

outcome-oriented code.

Prevention of misconduct, in terms of the values-

based perspective (encouragement), begins with

the values instilled in children by their parents at

home and by their teachers at school. University

academics/administrators have the responsibility to

forge alliances with schoolteachers and educators

to assure a continuum of best practices from the

kindergarten to the completion of graduate studies.

Also essential is the development of a strong

science culture and the mentorship of researchers in

universities, industry, and government laboratories.

Rules and structures are key to prevention in a

compliance-based perspective (deterrent).

Integrity is a central tenet in research and

innovation. The actress Vanessa Redgrave has noted

that, “Integrity is so perishable in the summer

months of success.” Our goal must be to establish

agreed best practices in research integrity to

minimize occurrences of research misconduct at any

point in the career development of researchers. We

owe it to ourselves. We owe it to our community.

We owe it to our society.

Howard Alper | University of Ottawa/IDRC, Canada; InterAcademy Panel, Italy | Alper.Howard@stic-csti.ca

Increased attention has been paid to the issue of research integrity in recent years, with some cases attracting considerable notoriety.

mt114p60.indd 60mt114p60.indd 60 05/03/2008 12:48:1405/03/2008 12:48:14