OECD GSF Workshop on Best Practices for Ensuring
Scientific Integrity and Preventing Misconduct
22-23 February, 2007, Tokyo
General Structure of a System
Dealing with Research Misconduct
- General Remarks on its diversity Makoto Misono
National Institute of Technology and
Evaluation (nite), Tokyo, Japan
1
Purposes of a system dealing with
misconduct
Code of conduct and system handling misconduct
are indispensable
for the sound development of sciences and
for the scientific community to be trusted by the
society and hence given the freedom and financial
supports.
The system must be clear and widely disseminated
and ensure
• Fair and transparent treatment of misconduct.
• Then, its presence can prevent misconduct.
2
Scientific Ethics
• General ethics and professional ethics
• Ethics of scientists (a professional ethics)
Are research subjects sound?
(nuclear and chemical weapons,
life science studies, etc.)
Scientific misconducts (FFP, etc.)
General ethics (usage of research fund,
human rights, academic harassment)
3
Recent activities of Science Council of Japan
• 2003, 2005: Reports on scientific misconduct and
proposals to scientific community
• 2006: Official Statement
a code of conduct and appeals to scientific
community with
a survey: from 541 universities and 600 learned
societies plus some other institutions.
code of conduct:
system dealing with misconduct:
13%
13%
4
Diversity (1): Place of investigation
Missions and roles are different among the organizations,
while all are concerned with research integrity.
Laws, regulations,
Governments
and policies
Funding agencies
Academic
(learned)
societies
Scientific community
Society
Research Institutions
(Universities, etc.)
Autonomy by
code of conduct
and policies
5
Diversity (2)
Range of misconduct to cover:
Misconducts in
publication of results (FFP, authorship, etc.),
research (records, safety, etc.), and
usage of research fund
Structure of investigation body:
- Standing or ad-hoc or both? Inside or outside?
Composition of members
- Hierarchical structure
- Who should be the principal investigator?
- Roles of governments, funding bodies, and scientific
community
6
Diversity (3)
• Procedure of investigation:
From reception of allegation to adjudication of penalty
and handling of appeals
•
•
•
•
•
Extent of transparency
Penalty
Rights of defendants (respondents)
Involvement of governments?
Superior court handling the decision of
local institution or academic society?
7
Case 1
Roles of academic society and university
1. An academic (learned) society that defendants (respondents) belong to
requested a faculty of a university where the defendants work
the investigation of the case with some information.
2. After long discussion, the faculty started the investigation.
Ad-hoc committees (in the faculty) for investigation and to recommend the penalty:
Hearing from the defendants and specialists, as well as
several experiments by the defendants. Preliminary actions were taken.
Report (almost guilty and highest level of penalty) to university. (1 year)
3. Reexamination, hearing and decision of penalty by the university.
The defendants (both leader and researcher) were adjudicated dismissal. (8 months)
4. The academic society has not acted yet. Another academic society sent out an official
warning and an appeal to its members.
5. A national research institute (investigation committee) where one of the defendant was
running a project concluded the case is very gray, but the project continued
until the termination of contract.
6. No legal appeals so forth from the defendants.
8
Case 2
Reliability of data and misuse of research fund
1. Scoop by a newspaper followed by repeated reports in mass media
2. Investigation by the university (mainly on research fund):
University found inappropriate use, but unable to identify the amount.
The university returned a large amount of money including those unidentified
to funding agencies. It is said experiments are underway for reproducibility.
The professor was suspended from the position, and then resigned.
3. Investigations by academic societies are underway on FF.
A conclusion will be; there was no FF and the finding is meaningful,
although acquisition and treatment of data were not very prudent.
Academic society must accuse inappropriate behavior of its members,
but it must also protect their rights at the same time.
9
Case 3; Schoen at Bell
• A very well known event and many lessons
• Investigation committee comprising scientists
outside confirmed FF.
• A lack of fundamental research integrity, that is,
Findings should be discussed
in front of primary data and equipments
by the major research members, particularly
with the leader.
- The institution dismissed Schoen but nothing
more.
10
A recommended system of investigation
for research institutions and academic societies
1. Reception desk of allegation (very confidential)
2. A standing committee for research integrity
(oversight of the report from the investigation
committee and proposing penalty)
3. An ad-hoc investigation committee (specialists
and some from the standing committee);
examination of documents, hearings and
judgment
4. Executive directors (responsible for final
decision of the organization)
5. Superior court representing scientific community,
if necessary, in collaboration of the government.
11
A recommended procedure of investigation
for research institutions and academic societies
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Reception of written allegation (confidentiality)
Preliminary assessment by a very limited members
including the chairman of the standing committee (to
start investigation);
Investigation by ad-hoc committee nominated by the
chairman; hearing from both sides and examination of
facts and the conclusion to the standing committee
The standing committee oversees the conclusion and
send its conclusion including penalty to top executives
that make the final decision.
Informing the conclusion to complainants and
defendants
Appeal will be accepted and handled by the standing
committee.
Whole process should appropriately be publicized.
12
Appendix
• Is a superior court necessary? Yes.
Institutions and academic societies tend to
defend their own interests and sometimes unfair and
not sufficiently transparent.
• Roles of governments
Key element of the research integrity is a high ethical
standard and autonomy of science communities.
Governments (and funding agencies in part) handle
illegal actions such as misuse of research fund and,
if necessary, provide basic guidelines.
13