News

Call for research misconduct agency

Caroline White, London

The UK needs an independent agency to monitor standards in publication ethics and prevent the growing problem of research misconduct. This is one of the principal recommendations of The COPE Report 1998, published this week by the Committee on Publication Ethics.

Since its inception in April 1997, the committee has received a steady stream of examples of research fraud, data fabrications, plagiarism, and redundant publication. A substantial number of these are published in the report as anonymised case studies. There are no official data on the scale of the problem, but the report suggests that only a comparatively small proportion of cases is actually detected: it is estimated that redundant publication accounts for 13% of all published papers.

The UK has been very slow to act to regulate research affairs, says Professor Michael Farthing, editor of the gastroenterology journal Gut and chairman of COPE. He would like to see an agency developed along the lines of the US Office of Research Integrity, which considers and investigates suspected cases of research misconduct. Australia, Denmark, Norway, and Finland also have similar structures in place. The first step, he believes, is to set up an independent inquiry modelled on the report submitted to the government by Professor Philip James, which has formed the basis of the proposed Food Standards Agency.

"Protecting the public from research misconduct is just another aspect of public health," comments Professor Farthing. "It is no different, say, to the Drinking Water Inspectorate, which monitors our domestic water supply, or the Food Standards Agency, which will ... ensure that the food we buy is safe to eat."

At present, cases of serious professional misconduct are referred to the General Medical Council, but, says Professor Farthing, the GMC covers only doctors, and there is no equivalent for scientists. Major research institutions, he believes, are also often unwilling to investigate research misconduct for fear of dragging big names into the fray.

The witness of misconduct is encouraged to say nothing for fear of losing his or her job, agrees Ian Kennedy, professor of health law, ethics, and policy at University College London. "Abundant anecdotal evidence suggests that this fear is not misplaced ... until relatively recently, the GMC placed professional solidarity above speaking out in the public interest."

The report recommends that all institutions involved in research and publication should draw up clear guidance for research protocols. Any studies involving patients or human volunteers should have the written informed consent of the participants as well as ethics committee approval, and it suggests that regulations for the supervision of research projects be tightened.

"What medicine has lacked is robust criticism from within the profession and outside," comments Dr Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet and one of the founders of COPE. "Doctors have rested too long on the comfortable bow of professional autonomy." (See p 1686)

The COPE Report 1998 is available from the BMJ Bookshop, price £10 (tel: 0171 383 6244) or in full on the BMJ website http://www.bmj.com/misc/cope/.
CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

Related Articles

The dark side of medicine
BMJ 1998 316: 0. [Full Text]

The need for a national body for research misconduct

Richard Smith
BMJ 1998 316: 1686-1687. [Extract] [Full Text]

Dealing with research misconduct in the United Kingdom • An American perspective on research integrity • Conduct unbecomingthe MRC's approach • An editor's response to fraudsters • Deception: difficulties and initiatives • Honest advice from Denmark

Drummond Rennie, Imogen Evans, Michael J G Farthing, Cyril Chantler, Shireen Chantler, and Povl Riis
BMJ 1998 316: 1726-1733. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]