Printer Friendly

The governance of research integrity in Canada.

Introduction

Researchers have a moral and social contract to uphold several ethical principles in the conduct of research. Much of scientific, social science, and humanities research in many nations is paid for by society through public funds.' Hence, researchers have a social responsibility to ensure that their conduct of research is performed with the highest standards of professionalism, ethics and integrity.

The responsible conduct of research (also known as scientific or research integrity (1)) includes a set of norms and practices that applies to researchers in any discipline. Several principles underlie the responsible conduct of research (RCR), such as, honesty, carefulness, openness, fair credit, respect for colleagues, respect for human and non-human animal subjects, legality, education, and social responsibility. (2) These principles guide all aspects of RCR including research design, the collection, analysis and dissemination of results, the ethical treatment of human and animal subjects, providing appropriate credit to colleagues and students, being open to criticism and review, sharing data, reagents and methods, and avoiding conflicts of interest. A violation of these practices can lead to different harms to the researcher herself, other researchers, research subjects, or society. This can be in the form of research fraud, undermining the health and safety of research participants, preventing scientists from replicating results, or wasting resources. However, research is performed by human beings and human frailties inevitably appear, sometimes in the form of research misconduct. (3)

Much of the Canadian academic literature focuses on the ethics and governance of research involving humans, animals, and conflicts of interests. Little attention, however, has been paid to the ethics and governance of RCR. This paper aims to provide the scope of research misconduct cases reported as news in academic journals and the Canadian popular press, and review the RCR practices and policies in Canada, including various relatively recent initiatives conducted by different governmental and non-governmental organizations with the goal of strengthening the Canadian research integrity system.

Research Misbehaviours in Canadian Institutions

Awareness of RCR by scientists, bioethicists, the media, governing organizations, and the public has been heightened by widely publicized scandals of research misconduct. Many international RCR policies arose from major scandals hitting nationwide headlines and Canadian research misconduct cases have also been featured in the news.

In a large multi-centre breast cancer trial, Dr. Roger Poisson recruited patients who didn't fit the inclusion criteria claiming that he couldn't deny women the best available treatment because of a criterion that had little or no oncological importance. (4) This led to an investigation of several of his studies and in 1993, Poisson was convicted of research misconduct in the U.S. where 115 documented instances of fabrication and falsification were found. (5) Dr. Poisson, a member of the medical faculty at the University of Montreal, was forced to retire a month earlier due to these findings. (6) A second case that received considerable media attention, including an expose by CBC News, was with Ranjit K. Chandra--a retired professor at Memorial University of Newfoundland who was accused of research misconduct in several studies. (7) A third case involved plant researcher Fawzi Razem, who worked in a laboratory of a professor at the University of Manitoba and was found to have fabricated data. (8) Resigning from the University of Manitoba after the initial allegation was made, Razem later turned up to be working as faculty at the Palestine Polytechnic University. (9)

Another highly publicized case involved Dr. Eric Poehlman who was hired by the University of Montreal in 2001 while he was being investigated for fabricating research at the University of Vermont College of Medicine and previously at the University of Maryland. (10) Not only was Poehlman hired, he was awarded $1 million from the Canada Research Chairs and subsequently $200,000 from the Canadian Foundation for Innovation and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)." Similarly, a post-doctoral fellow began working at the Ottawa Health Research Institute (OHRI) in 2005, but was concluded to have previously committed research misconduct while at the University of Pennsylvania and her employment at OHRI was subsequently suspended. (12)

In addition to research fraud, accusations and findings of many research misbehaviours including plagiarism, ghost writing, duplicate publication, misuse of federal research funds, muzzling of scientists, and significant data errors causing publication retractions have been performed by researchers at Canadian institutions. (13) These cases provide some idea of the scope of research misconduct in Canada, yet there is no reliable data on the frequency or range of specific research misbehaviours.

One Canadian report approximated 1.4 allegations being addressed per year of the 29 institutions that provided information. (14) However, this number may be significantly underestimated due to underreporting and uneven enforcement standards by institutions. For example, between 2000/01 and 2010/11, CIHR received 97 allegations of which 61% were related to alleged research integrity violations while 13% were related to alleged violations of the policy governing ethical research involving humans. (15) Of the 97 allegations received, 72 were referred to the institutions for investigation and 48% were concluded that misconduct did occur while 10% remained a ctive. (16)

Studies from other nations point to differing frequencies of scientific misdeeds. A meta-analysis of several studies measured a misconduct frequency 0f 1.97% where misconduct was defined as fabrication, falsification, and the alteration/modification of research results to improve an outcome; on the other hand, questionable research practices (ii) were found to occur around 33.7% of the time. (17) Another research study sampled 3,247 National Institutes of Health-funded researchers and found that many anonymously self-reported engaging in various scientific wrongdoings including republishing data (4.7%), failing to present data that contradicts one's own research (6%), inappropriate authorship (10%), withholding methods/data in papers/proposals (10.8%), overlooking others' use of flawed interpretation of data (12.5%), using inappropriate study designs (13.5%), dropping data points from analyses based on gut feelings (15.3%), and poor record keeping (27.5%). (19) These studies raise a number of questions as to the effectiveness of RCR policies and education, but also indicate possibly where focus should be emphasized.

The Canadian Research Integrity Framework

Throughout the world, RCR practices have been codified into a variety of policies i.e., laws and regulations, professional guidelines, directions, good clinical/research practices, or inspirational policies. These policies are found at national, provincial/state and institutional levels, and in both public and private sectors where scientific research is performed. Different research integrity policies contain different types of provisions based on the mandate of the organization formulating the policy (see Table 1 for some examples). From 2007 onwards, there has been a series of policy research initiatives in Canada that have raised awareness and served to increase knowledge about the current Canadian research integrity system.
Table 1. Different Misbehaviours or Ethical Practices Outlined
in Research Integrity Policies

Practice Description

Fabrication, "Research misconduct means fabrication,
Falsification & falsification, or plagiarism in proposing,
Plagiarism performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting
 research results. (a) Fabrication is making up
 data or results and recording or reporting them.
 (b) Falsification is manipulating research
 materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or
 omitting data or results such that the research is
 not accurately represented in the research record.
 (c) Plagiarism is the appropriation of another
 person's ideas, processes, results, or words
 without giving appropriate credit. (d) Research
 misconduct does not include honest error or
 differences of opinion." (52)

Publication and Publication policies can define the criteria for
Editorial Ethics authorship credit; credit in acknowledgements;
 ethical peer review; and handling conflicts of
 interest for authors, reviewers and editorial
 staff (see the International Committee of Medical
 Journal Editors). (53) Peer review guidelines For
 reviewers are also produced by many of the journal
 publishers and describe what reviewers should
 assess including originality, research design,
 alignment of a manuscript with the journal;
 clarity of writing, and whether conflicts of
 interests are declared. (54)

Peer Review of Policies from funding agencies provide guidance on
Grants what peer reviewers should assess, and the types
 of conflicts that need to be declared.

Data Management Data management practices are taught through
 mentorship, or learnt by trial and error. (55)
 Policies capture various aspects of data
 management including obtaining or collecting data,
 data analysis and interpretation (including
 statistical analysis), data reporting, storage,
 and sharing. (56) Policies on data
 reporting/communication, sharing, and ownership
 are of particular importance for private companies
 and government organizations.

Animal Ethics Local Animal Care Committees review research
 involving cells, multi-cellular organisms and
 animals. These policies are usually independent
 documents from research integrity policies and may
 serve as national standards or institutional
 policies.

Ethics of Similar to animal ethics policies, policies on the
Research ethics of research involving humans are found
Involving Humans separate from research integrity policies. Many
 countries have local research ethics boards that
 evaluate and approve clinical, behavioural, and
 social science research.

Conflicts of Many research integrity policies contain
Interest & provisions on conflicts of interests e.g.,
Financial financial, having certain relationships, and
Misconduct others.

Scientific A few research integrity policies outline the
communication communication of science to the public/press or
 when to disseminate results to the scientific
 community. This includes the premature release of
 scientific findings prior to proper verification,
 maintaining confidentiality, and guidance on how
 to accurately explain complex science in lay terms
 so as to retain the message and not hype or
 exaggerate the findings. These policies are
 important to health organizations, government, and
 private companies.

Intellectual Many institutions also have intellectual property
Property and and copyright policies.
Copyright

Mentoring Research integrity policies may contain
 discussions on the advantages of mentoring and how
 to be a good mentor.

Whistleblowing Many research integrity policies explain that
and Retaliation retaliation against whistleblowers or witnesses
 will not be tolerated.

Procedure for Many research integrity policies describe how
Handling allegations are handled outlining the different
Allegations phases of investigations.


Initiatives to Strengthen Canadian Research Integrity

In 2006, the Canadian Research Integrity Committee (CRIC), now known as the Canadian Research Integrity Forum, was created under the leadership of Health Canada. CRIC is comprised of members from 17 governmental and non-governmental organizations interested in strengthening research integrity in Canada. (20) In January 2007, the CRIC held a two day workshop with the objectives of initiating dialogue about research misconduct in Canada, and developing next steps. (21) One outcome of the workshop was that CRIC should develop a plan to conduct a review of the policies, procedures and training surrounding the governance of research integrity and misconduct in Canada and internationally. (22) The study was contracted to Hickling Arthurs Low and the report titled The State of Research Integrity and Misconduct Policies in Canada was released in 2009. The report examines the Canadian system of research integrity and evaluates it with eight other national systems. It describes the Canadian policy landscape of research integrity as multifaceted and multileveled with a mixture of policies. No one policy governs RCR in all sectors, but notwithstanding the decentralized nature of the Canadian system, the non-governmental sector of research, which includes universities, colleges, hospitals and other institutions, is governed under the policy coordination of the three federal granting agencies: Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC), Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC), and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), collectively referred to as the Tri-Agenciesi (iii). One recognized conflict of interest is that the Tri-Agencies provide funding for research, but also govern the conduct of research and issue reprimands for findings of misconduct. A similar situation existed in the former U.S. Office of Scientific Integrity which was established in 1989 in the Office of the Director at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) (iv). It was criticized that the NIH, who was the main provider of research funds, should not have the dual role of investigating and issuing reprimands for research misconduct. (23) This resulted in the creation of a separate office, the Office of Research Integrity, under the Department of Health and Human Services. The CRIC-sponsored report concludes that the Canadian system fairs well in comparison to other national system, but improvements can be made. The report summarizes three options: Option A--An Evolving Current System; Option B--Office of an Ombudsperson, and Option C--Canadian Office of Research Integrity. (24) Option A involves strengthening the current system within the mandate and jurisdiction by the Tri-Agencies; this option has already been exercised by the Tri-Agencies as explained below. Option B involves establishing a central office that is a 'trusted intermediary' which could serve to offer advice to researchers and provide resources, and be a central point of contact independent of research institutions and funders, but would not investigate allegations. Option C involves developing a central office that has several oversight functions including investigation and issuing reprimands, arid also serve to provide educational materials and other resources. The U.S. Office of Research Integrity would also ensure compliance by institutions and researchers.

Around the same time the CRIC-sponsored study was being undertaken, several reports hit the Canadian news citing that some NSERC-funded researchers allegedly falsified data, plagiarized, or misused research monies. (25) These cases raised a spectre of concerns about the effectiveness of the current research integrity system in Canada and how allegations of misconduct are handled by NSERC and the researchers' respective academic institutions. (26) The Minister of Industry asked NSERC, SSHRC, and the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada to review the existing policy framework. The review showed that the Tri-Agency framework of research integrity is "essentially sound" and "comparable to international norms". (27) However, the report clearly notes that improvements can be made. A series of actions were recommended i.e., reviewing, clarifying and assessing whether NSERC and SSHRC are fulfilling their role, and updating and strengthening the financial policy and research integrity policy. In order to further strengthen the policy framework, the Minister of Industry requested the Council of Canadian Academies (CCA) to assess and develop a set of key research integrity principles, procedural mechanisms, and practices appropriate within a Canadian context that could be applied to all research disciplines covered by the Tri-Agencies. (28)

CCA appointed a multidisciplinary Expert Panel on Research Integrity consisting of academic researchers and other professionals to undertake the charge. The CCA report titled Honesty, Accountability, and Trust: Fostering Research Integrity in Canada highlights several aspects of the current system that could be improved: 1) develop a system-wide approach where the standards and principles are clearly defined and shared; 2) assess the usefulness of educational initiatives and increase accessibility to policies, educational materials, and best practices; and 3) strike a balance between privacy legislation and the need for transparency with respect to proven cases of misconduct. (29) This latter feature is something several others have echoed as crucial to prevent the movement of researchers who have committed research misconduct from one institution to another." In addition, the CCA Expert Panel on Research Integrity recognized the need to create a positive research integrity environment through a common set of principles based on five values: honesty, fairness, trust, accountability, and openness. The principles are discussed as general practices of ethical research i.e., 'conducting research in an honest search for knowledge', 'knowing one's level of competence and limitations', 'using research funds responsibly', and 'acknowledging all contributors in research'. (31) The report recommends the formation of a new central body, at arms-distance from the Tri-Agencies, and whose main responsibilities would include: providing advice, gathering and disseminating information, and developing best practices in terms of education. Specifically, the CCA Expert Panel on Research Integrity did not want the new organization to police or issue sanctions as it was meant to be recognized as a trusted entity to which researchers and institutions could turn to for advice.

Both the CR1C and CCA reports have been important in deepening our understanding of the Canadian and international systems, identifying the gaps in the current system, and providing options to improve the current framework. Based on the information from these reports, the Tri-Agencies' have revised their research integrity policy and framework.

The Tri-Agency Framework: Responsible Conduct of Research

All institutions receiving funds from the Tri-Agencies must follow the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) which describes the requirements for obtaining and maintaining research funds and outlines the responsibilities of institutions, grant/award holders, and the Agencies.32 It consists of 15 Schedules that refer to specific policies such as the Tri-Council Policy Statement (TCPS): Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (December 2010) and the Updated Guidelines for Human Pluripotent Stem Cell Research (June 30, 2010). (33) The policies under the MOU apply to the institution and all individuals working as part of the institution despite whether they receive funds directly from the Tri-Agencies.

The Tri-Council Policy Statement: Integrity in Research and Scholarship (TCPS-Integrity) was developed in 1994 and served, until most recently, as the national research integrity policy. (34) The TCPS-Integrity has now been revised and the Tri-Agencies held a public consultation on the draft Tri-Agency Framework: Responsible Conduct of Research (Tri-Agency Framework) from August 15 to September 30, 2011. On December 5, 2011, the Tri-Agencies officially launched the new national-level research integrity policy: Tri-Agency Framework: Responsible Conduct of Research. (35) The Tri-Agency Framework 'sets out the responsibilities and corresponding policies for researchers, Institutions, and the Agencies, that together help support and promote a positive research environment". (36) The Tri-Agency Framework has been significantly substantiated providing more guidance to researchers and institutions on ethical behaviours in research.

The Tri-Agency Framework contains both positive and negative elements to promoting research integrity by outlining what should be done and by discussing breaches. (67) The Tri-Agency Framework covers a range of ethical practices and areas of misconduct described in Table 1. Many of the responsibilities for researchers in the Tri-Agency Research Integrity Policy (Tri-Agency RIP) stem from the CCA Report including the principles that researchers should aim 'to follow best research practices honestly, accountably, openly, and fairly'. (38) Some of the hallmarks from the initial TCPS-Integrity are maintained in the draft Tri-Agency RIP such as researchers are responsible for using 'a high level of rigour in proposing and performing research, in recording, analyzing, interpreting and reporting data.' (39) There are also provisions for (i) good recordkeeping; referencing and obtaining permission to use published and unpublished work; (iii) providing authorship and acknowledgment credit accordingly; and (iv) managing conflicts of interest. (40) Along with positively outlining the aspects that promote integrity, the Tri-Agency Framework also outlines breaches including: (i) fabrication, falsification and plagiarism; (ii) intentionally destroying research records to avoid detection of wrongdoing; (iii) redundant publications; (iv) invalid authorship and inadequate acknowledgement; (v) failing to appropriately manage conflicts of interest; (vi) misrepresentation on a grant/award application; (vii) the mismanagement of funds; and--(viii) breaches of other Agency policies or requirements. (41) The Tri-Agency Framework also outlines the roles of individuals in addressing allegations of policy breaches.

In order to ensure full accountability and transparency for the proper use of public funds in supporting research and to battle against researchers who have committed misconduct from moving institutions and having their deed go unrecognized, the Tri-Agencies have implemented a new requirement. Researchers applying for funding must provide consent to disclosure of their personal information, in cases of a serious breach of Tri-Agency policies. Consent will be required for an application to be accepted by the Tri-Agencies. (42) The information disclosed includes: I) the researcher's name, 2) the nature of the breach, 3) the name of the institution where the breach occurred, and 4) the name of the institution where the researcher is currently employed. (43) Examples of serious breaches may include recruiting subjects in studies with significant risks without Research Ethics Board approval; using animals in studies with significant harms without having Animal Care Committee approval; deliberately misusing research funds for personal benefit not related to research; knowingly publishing research results based on fabricated data; and misrepresenting one's credentials, qualifications or contributions when obtaining funds from the Tri-Agencies. It seems the timing of this announcement has caught universities by surprise, but it might be welcomed by university administrators and researchers. (44)

The Tri-Agencies have created the Panel on Responsible Conduct of Research (PRCR) whose membership consists of individuals external to the Tri-Agencies with a range of expertise in ethics, RCR, research administration, and research experience from different academic disciplines. (45) The PRCR has several responsibilities including reviewing investigational reports created by institutions on allegations of breaches of Tri-Agency policies, recommending recourses for confirmed breaches, and providing advice to the Agencies on RCR-related matters and future revisions to the Tri-Agency Framework. (46) The development of the PRCR creates some arm's length between the Tri-Agencies and the institutions when it comes to reviewing and administering sanctions on breaches of Tri-Agency policies.

In addition to outlining the responsibilities to individuals, the Tri-Agency Framework explains that institutions are responsible for promoting RCR through establishing policies and procedures, education, reporting breaches, and raising awareness. (47) It also instructs institutions to develop a mechanism to address and report misconduct. (48) Canadian institutional policies however show considerable heterogeneity in their definitions of misconduct, (49) which indicates that the new Tri-Agency Framework might help institutions develop a common understanding of research integrity and misconduct. Yet it remains unclear the extent to which institutions will promote RCR and bow actively they will report breaches. Institutions have a significant interest in maintaining secrecy and preventing openness in cases of violations of research integrity and possibly even to back-off active enforcement in this area. These incentives include avoiding damaging institutional reputation, legal liability, losing research funds, and committing resources. It is because of these reasons among others that many have recommended the creation of an arms-length agency from both the institutions and the Tri-Agencies. It thus becomes imperative to determine how institutions across Canada promote RCR. For example, how do institutions handle allegations of research misconduct, or what educational RCR programs (beyond animal care and the ethics of research involving humans) are in place within academic institutions? Research in these and other areas of research integrity in a Canadian context is needed. (50)

Summary

Research integrity has both ethical and practical dimensions, and publically-funded researchers and institutions are trusted by society because of the professional and ethical standards to which they adhere to. To this end, many nations have developed different research integrity governance systems. Over the past few years, several research and policy governance initiatives on RCR in Canada have been undertaken which has resulted in reforming the national integrity policy framework governed by the Tri-Agencies. There are, however, many areas for further improvement including having a central body researchers can turn to for advice, which disseminates learning materials, and possibly oversees investigations. Moreover, there is a lack of understanding of research integrity in a Canadian context including the prevalence of different research misbehaviours, best practices, the availability of educational materials, and the understanding of RCR by researchers working in Canadian institutions. This can be remedied by emphasizing research on research integrity in a Canadian context which is needed to make sound, evidence-based decisions on policy, governance, and education. (51) The development of a strong and publically accountable Canadian research integrity system requires an all-encompassing approach including policy and procedures, best practices, education and outreach, institutional backing, and research on research integrity.

Acknowledgements and Disclaimer

With the permission of Drs. Michael McDonald and Holly Longstaff, University of British Columbia, some of the work presented here was originally written for the Stem Cell Ethics Education website, Theme 2: Culture of Science (http://www.stemcellethics.ca/themes/theme-2-culture-science/basic-requirements-knowledge). I would like to thank Dr. Michael McDonald for his valuable feedback on the manuscript. The author was previously an employee of Health Canada where he developed Health Canada's Scientific Integrity Framework and served as secretariat to the Canadian Research Integrity Forum. The views expressed here are those of the author and do not reflect the positions of Health Canada, the Canadian Research Integrity Forum, the Government of Canada or the author's respective academic institution.

(i) The terms "research integrity" and "responsible conduct of research" carry the same meaning and are used interchangeably.

(ii) Questionable research practices are not clearly defined and may include failing to retain significant research data for a reasonable period; conferring or requesting authorship on the basis of a specialized service or contribution that is not significant; refusing peers reasonable access to unique research materials or data; and using inappropriate statistical or other methods of measurement to enhance the significance of research findings. (18)

(iii.) Td-Agency refers to Canada's three federal granting agencies: Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC), the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC), and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR). Both NSERC and SSHRC are within the Industry portfolio under the Minister of Industry whereas CIHR is within the Health portfolio under the Minister of Health.

(iv.) The U.S. National Institutes of Health is part of the Department of Health and Human Services and is one of the major funding organizations for biomedical and behavioural research in the United States.

Endnotes

(1.) Ruth Ellen Bulger, "The Scientist in Society. Interactions, Expectations, and Obligations" in Ruth Ellen Bulger, Elizabeth Heitman & Stanley Joel Reiser, eds., The Ethical Dimensions of the Biological and Health Sciences Second Edition (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002). 2 David B. Resnik, The Ethics of Science: an introduction (New York: Routledge, 1998); Actil E. Shamoo & David B. Resnik, Responsible Conduct of Research.

(2.) Edition (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009).

(3.) Bruce Alberts, Robert M. White & Kenneth Shine, "Scientific conduct" (1994) 91:9 Proc Nati Acad Sci USA 3479.

(4.) Alex Robinson, "Science and scandal: What can be done about scientific misconduct?" (1994)151:6 CMAJ 831.

(5.) Horace Freeland Judson, The Great Betrayal: Fraud in Science (Orlando: Harcourt Inc., 2004).

(6.) Supra note 4.

(7.) Caroline White, "Three journals raise doubts on validity of Canadian studies" (2004) 328:7431 BMJ 67; Richard Smith, "Investigating the previous studies of a fraudulent author" (2005) 331:7511 BMJ 288.

(8.) Jen Skerritt, "U of M research results fake. University probe finds fraud, sanctions scientist" (2009), online: Winnipeg Free Press <http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/u-of-m-research-results-fake-52421942.html>.

(9.) Margaret Munro, "Canadian science fraudster now employed at Palestinian university" (2011), online: Canada.com <http://www.canada.com/story_print.html?id=5432470&sponsor=>.

(10.) Wayne Kondro, "Universite de Montreal in the dark about fraud" (2005) 172:10 CMAJ 1278.

(11.) Ibid.

(12.) Nature, "Researcher suspended for falsifying data" (2008) 453 Nature 969.

(13.) Margaret Munro, "Falsified experiments lead to research nightmare for U of A team" (2004), online: The Michener Awards Foundation <http://www.michenerawards.ca/english/munroSeries/misconduct.htm>; Kathryn O'Hara, "Canada must free scientists to talk to journalists" (2010) 467:7315 Nature 501; Margaret Munro, "Queen's caught up in bitter 'self-plagiarism' debate" (2010), online: Leaderpost.com <http://www.leaderpost.com/story_print.html?id=3959947&sponsor=>; Jullia Belluz, "The murky world of academic ghost writing" (2011), online: Macleans.ca <http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/05/06/the-murky-world-of-academic-ghostwriting/>; Margaret Munro, "Canadian scientist padded CV, grant applications with fake research" (2011), online: Vancouver sun <http://www.vancouversun.com/story_print. html?id=5421355&sponsor=>; Margaret Munro, "Montreal heart research retracted for 'possible scientific error'" (2011), online: Montreal Gazette <http://www.montrealgazette.com/story_print.html?id=5230042&sponsor>.

(14.) Hickling Arthurs Low, "The State of Research Integrity and Misconduct Policies in Canada. Prepared for the Canadian Research Integrity Committee" (2009), online: Hickling Arthurs Low <http://www.hal.ca/index.php?option=com_content&view=artic_le&id=65:hal-publishes-research-integrity-reportcatid=39:news&Itemid=43>.

(15.) Canadian Institutes of Health Research, "CIHR Report on Allegations of Non-Compliance with Research Policies (Fiscal Years 2000/012010/11)" (2011), online: <http://www.cihrirsc.gc.ca/e/29073.html>. The statistics reported here are until March 31, 2011.

(16.) Ibid.

(17.) Daniele Fanelli, "How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data" (2009) 4:5 PLoS One e5738.

(18.) Panel on Scientific Responsibility and Conduct of Research, Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring Integrity of the Research Process (Washington DC: The National Academies Press, 1992).

(19.) Brian C. Martinson, Melissa S. Anderson & Raymond de Vries, "Scientists behaving badly" (2005) 435:7043 Nature 737.

(20.) Canadian Association for University Teachers, "The Canadian Research Integrity Committee (CRIC) is releasing a report entitled: The State of Research Integrity and Misconduct Policies in Canada" (2011), online: <http://www.caut.ca/pages.asp?page=833>.

(21.) Plamondon and Associates, "Research Integrity Workshop Discussion Paper" (2007), online: <http://www.bobplamondon.com/public-policy/selected-reports---public-policy>.

(22.) Supra note 14.

(23.) Supra note 2 Shamoo and Resnik.

(24.) Supra note 14.

(25.) Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, "Review of NSERC's and SSHRC's Policy Framework for Research Integrity" (2008), online: <http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/NSERC-CRSNG/govemance-gouvernance/ReviewPolicyFramework-ExamenCadreReference_eng.asp>.

(26.) Ibid.

(27.) Supra note 25.

(28.) Council of Canadian Academies, "Honesty, Accountability and Trust: Fostering Research Integrity in Canada" (2010), online: <http://www.scienceadvice.ca/uploads/eng/assessments%20and[degrees]/020publications%20and[degrees]/0 20news%20releases/research[degrees]/020integrity/ri_report.pdf>.

(29.) Ibid.

(30.) Nature, "Blackened names. Canada should make public the identities of researchers who commit misconduct" (2011) 477:7366 Nature 509; Matthew B. Stanbrook, Noni E. MacDonald & Ken Flegel, Paul C. Hebert, "The need for new mechanisms to ensure research integrity" (2011) 183 CMAJ E766.

(31.) Supra note 28.

(32.) Tri-Agencies, "Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on the Roles and Responsibilities in the Management of Federal Grants and Awards" (2011), online: Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada <http://www.nserc.ca/institution/mou_e.htm>.

(33.) Ibid.

(34.) Tri-Agencies, "Tri-Council Policy Statement: Integrity in Research and Scholarship" (2009), online: Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada <http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/NSERC-CRSNG/Policies-Politiques/tpsintegrity-picintegritie_eng.asp>.

(35.) Tri-Agencies, "Introducing the New Tri-Agency Framework: Responsible Conduct of Research" (2011), online: Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada <http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/NSERC-CRSNG/governance-gouvernance/Message-Message_eng.asp>.

(36.) Tri-Agencies, "The 'Tri-Agency Framework: Responsible Conduct of Research" (2011), online: Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada <http://www.rcr.ethics.gc.ca/eng/policy-politique/framework-cadre/>.

(37.) Ibid.

(38.) Ibid at Part 2.1.2.

(39.) Ibid at Part 2.1.2a.

(40.) Ibid at Part 2.1.2b-f.

(41.) Ibid at Part 3.1.

(42.) Tri-Agencies, "Agency Statement: Consent to Disclose Personal Information" (2011), online: Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada <http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/NSERC-CRSNG/governancegouvernance/consent-consentement_eng.asp>; Tri-Agencies, "Consent to Disclosure of Personal Information Frequently Asked Questions" (2011), online: Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada <http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/NSERC-CRSNG/governance-gouvernance/consentFAQ-consentementFAQ_eng.asp>.

(43.) Ibid.

(44.) Rosanna Tamburri, "Tri-council changes policy to curtail incidents of academic fraud" (2011), online: University Affairs <http://www.universityaffairs.ca/tri-council-changes-policy-to-curtail-incidents-of-academic-fraud.aspx>.

(45.) Panel on Responsible Conduct of Research, "PRCR Members" (2012), online: Panel on Responsible Conduct of Research <http://www.rcr.ethics.gc.ca/eng/prcr-gcrr/members-membres/>.

(46.) Panel on Responsible Conduct of Research, "New Panel on Responsible Conduct of Research (PRCR)" (2012), online: Panel on Responsible Conduct of Research <http://www.rcr.ethics.gc.ca/engundex/>.

(47.) Supra note 36, Part 4.2.

(48.) Supra note 36, Part 4.3 & 4.4.

(49.) Jordan Schoenberr & Bryn Williams-Jones, "Research Integrity/Misconduct Policies of Canadian Universities" (2011) 41:1 Canadian Journal of Higher Education 1.

(50.) Zubin Master, Michael McDonald & Bryn Williams-Jones, "Promoting Research on Research Integrity in Canada" (2012) 19:1 Account Res 47.

(51.) Ibid.

(52.) Code of Federal Regulations. Title 42 Public Health. Chapter 1 Public Health Service, Department of Health and Human Services. Part 93 Public Health Services Policies on Research Misconduct. Revised October 1, 2007. Pp. 587-615.

(53.) International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, "Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Writing and Editing for Biomedical Publication" (2010), online: <http://www.icmje.org/urm_full.pdf>.

(54.) Zubin Master, "The Responsible Conduct of Bioethics Research" (2011) 18:2 Account. Res. 102. 55 Francis L. Macrina, Scientific Integrity. Text and Cases in Responsible conduct of Research. 3rd Edition (Washington DC: ASM Press, 2005).

(56.) Clinical Tools Inc., "Guidelines for responsible data management in scientific research" (2009), online: U.S. Office of Research Integrity <http://ori.dhhs,govieducation/products/clinicahoolsdata.pdf>; Nicholas H. Steneck, "ORI Introduction to the Responsible Conduct of Research" (2007), online: U.S. Office of Research Integrity <http://ori.hhs.govidocuments/rcrintro.pdf>.

Zubin Master, PhD, is a Research Associate with the University of Alberta's Health Law and Science Policy Group. His area of research interest in bioethics includes research ethics and integrity, stem cell ethics and policy, and genetics and ethics. Zubin can be contacted at zubin@zubsplace.com
COPYRIGHT 2012 Health Law Institute
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2012 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Master, Zubin
Publication:Health Law Review
Date:Jun 22, 2012
Words:5442
Previous Article:Field notes.
Next Article:Funding in vitro fertilization: exploring the health and justice implications of Quebec's policy.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2018 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters