AAMC Reporter: September 2005
A Word from the President:
"Research Integrity Is Job One"
Nothing we do defines our ethics and our commitment to public welfare more than how we conduct research. Indeed, I would submit that the general level of public trust in medical schools and teaching hospitals is, in large measure, the direct result of our reputation for scientific integrity. Conversely, few things are more damaging to the reputation of academic medicine than published instances of scientific misconduct.
Our community reacted with justifiable indignation last March when a now former research scientist at the University of Vermont College of Medicine admitted to falsifying data in his federal grant applications as well as in his published research. The U.S. Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) defines scientific misconduct as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism (FFP), and the HHS Office of Research Integrity (ORI) sanctions approximately 13 individuals yearly for such unconscionable transgressions.
Even though only a tiny percentage of investigators appears to perpetrate frank scientific misconduct, each individual who does so tarnishes the reputation of the whole community and weakens public trust in medical science. That trust was damaged further last June when Nature published a survey of over 3,000 NIH-funded scientists in early and mid-career that purported to show that a substantial percentage had engaged in "questionable research practices."
One can argue that the Nature survey had some serious shortcomings and should not be taken at face value.
For sure, many questions were vaguely worded and produced ambiguous answers. Even so, some of the behaviors referenced, while not reaching the level of flagrantly outrageous misbehavior as codified in OSTP's definition of research misconduct, nevertheless pose serious threats to public trust. Whether caused by sloppiness, poor mentorship, inadequate training, or other factors, and whatever their 'true' incidence, the trustworthiness of the resulting "science" is undermined.
What can be done to address this problem? How can we ensure that all investigators conduct their research responsibly? Inviting federal oversight by expanding the definition of scientific misconduct to encompass these behaviors is most assuredly not the answer. Fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism are well-understood words. They describe actions that are unambiguous, easily documented, and deserving of stern sanctions. The kinds of behaviors most frequently cited by respondents to the survey reported in Nature are much less definitive and far better handled at the institutional level. This is a matter that calls urgently for self-discipline by the profession, not more regulation by government.
As the authors of the Nature article note, the current environment in which investigators are obliged to work contributes to the apparent weakening of safeguards to the responsible conduct of research. They called on the scientific community "to consider what aspects of this environment are most salient to research integrity, what aspects are most amenable to change, and what changes are likely to be most fruitful in ensuring integrity in science."
The professional organizations composing the AAMC's Council of Academic Societies (CAS) are in an excellent position to play a central role in fostering those changes that can strengthen adherence to high standards of scientific integrity. To help CAS members and others meet this challenge, ORI has inaugurated a small grants program to encourage academic societies to develop initiatives (e.g., guidelines, publication standards, conferences) to foster the responsible conduct of research.
The AAMC has contracted with ORI to manage this program, and, over the past three years, we have made 32 awards totaling more than $680,000.
At a recent workshop evaluating program activities, scientific society officers and AAMC staff proposed a number of new approaches to advance the responsible conduct of research. High atop the list were partnership opportunities between discipline-specific academic societies and medical schools. Participants suggested the formation of regional and other consortia that could facilitate the development of common instructional media and other training materials. Additionally, they suggested that academic societies, medical schools, and teaching hospitals work together to train all students, foreign and domestic, especially about the responsible conduct of clinical research.
Making sure these and other approaches are effective in eliminating scientific misbehavior is critically important if we are to maintain public trust in what we do. It was reassuring to learn from the AAMC's 2004 opinion research that 53 percent of respondents trusted scientific results emanating from medical schools and teaching hospitals more than those from any other component
of the research enterprise, including the federal government. But even that level of trust—respectable but not spectacular—cannot be taken for granted.
Indeed, following the report in Nature, we witnessed a spate of news articles questioning scientific integrity and a rash of editorials admonishing scientists for misbehaving. Headlines like this one—"Breaking the Rules Tarnishes Brilliant Work"—only sully academic medicine's reputation.
We cannot eradicate such headlines nor erase the public's memory of them, but we can do a great deal more to fulfill our obligation to uphold the highest standards of scientific integrity. As someone once said, "Trust is earned, not owed. And the only way to earn it is to be trustworthy." Let's get on with it before we lose it.
|
