# Presentation: 050080

## Research MisconductInternational Issues

**Christine C. Boesz, Dr.P.H.**
**Inspector General**
**National Science Foundation, USA**
**INORMS**
**Brisbane, Australia**
**24 August 2006 **

##  Global Challenge

- Some cases of research misconduct have:
- Attracted widespread media attention
- Eroded public confidence in science
- Caused concern in scientific communities
- Questioned role of government
- Other cases of research misconduct have:
- Escaped public scrutiny, but
- Contribute to a growing body of evidence that defines the problem

## Intra-country or Inter-country Issues

- Intra-country cases:
- Erode public confidence in research integrity
- Raise domestic doubts on research and academic communities’ abilities to promote responsible conduct of research
- Raise questions of government’s role & responsiveness
- Raise international concerns
- Strain international collaborations

## Intra-country Issues

- Single-country issues may include:
- Policies and procedures may vary by stakeholder, e.g., funder, publisher, university, private laboratory
- Inconsistent definitions
- Inconsistent standards of evidence
- Inconsistent findings
- Untimely actions
- Inconsistent sanctions

## Inter-country Issues

- Multiple country issues may include, but not be limited to:
- Same as intra-country issues
- Differing rules or legal systems
- Differing cultures
- Differing constructs of ethical/legal issues

## Example of Differences“misconduct in research”

- United States government defines “misconduct in research” as plagiarism and fabrication or falsification of data.
- Finland government defines “misconduct in research” as “gross negligence and irresponsibility,” e.g., understatement of another’s contributions, negligence in referring to earlier findings, publication of same results several times.

## Example of Differences             “fraud”

- United States government does not have a notion of fraud in science.
- Finland government (Board on Research Ethics) considers “fraud in science” as deceiving the research community and decision makers in 4 areas:
- Fabrication
- Misrepresentation (falsification)
- Fabrication
- Plagiarism
- Misappropriation

## So what’s the problem?

- Ambiguous “terminology” among scientific disciplines and among countries
- Growing number of international collaborations
- Growing number of cross-discipline projects
- Demands of peer review, international reviewer
- Dependency on voluntary compliance
- In research and university communities
- In government and other funding organizations

## Case Study from the US

- National Science Foundation Standards:
- Research community relevance: Significant departure from accepted practices
- Intent: Committed intentionally, or knowingly, or recklessly
- Legal: Proven by preponderance of Evidence
- 	     United States: 45 Code of Federal Register §689.2(c)

## Case Study from the US

- Initial allegation
- Case development
- Case facts
- Conclusions
- Lessons learned

## Plagiarism means:

-           the appropriation of another person’s
-           ideas, processes or words without giving
-           appropriate credit.
- 			Intellectual Property Theft

## Intellectual Property Theft

- Initial allegation
- 	A reviewer of an NSF proposal noticed that the principal investigator (PI), an established scientist, copied ideas and text from her proposal that had previously been submitted to a funding agency in another country (UK).

## Intellectual Property Theft

- Case development
- Complainant contacted to firmly establish substance of the allegation
- UK funding agency then contacted and provided official information
- Subject claimed a collaborative relationship (not confirmed by complainant)
- Subject intercepted OIG initial inquiry letter to the Co-PI

## Intellectual Property Theft

- Case facts
- NSF PI was a reviewer of the UK agency proposal
- UK agency review predicated on confidentiality
- Plagiarism was extensive and confirmed on proposal comparison
- University committee established that a central unique idea was stolen

## Intellectual Property Theft

- Conclusions
- Subject knowingly committed plagiarism
- Action exacerbated by the source document being a confidential proposal
- Interception of letter was subject's self-protection
- University terminated the subject's contract, among other sanctions
- NSF made a finding of research misconduct
- NSF imposed two years debarment
- Subject location unknown

## Intellectual Property Theft

- Lessons learned
- International cooperation works when the process is explained
- UK funding agency had no internal process to pursue the violation
- Investigation often relies on non-secure communications

##               Is there a Solution?

## The Quest for Solutions 

- Professional conferences and other discussion forums, e.g., INORMS, ORI/ESF 2007 conference in Portugal
- Research Codes of Conduct
- Education/ training
- Global Science Forum
- Project to enhance research integrity and prevent scientific misconduct

## Global Science Forum

-   “The Global Science Forum brings together science policy officials from OECD countries. The delegates, who meet twice a year, seek to identify and maximize opportunities for international co-operation in basic scientific research.”
- OECD : http://www.oecd.org/department/

## Organization for Economic                        Co-operation and DevelopmentMember Countries

- AUSTRALIA
- AUSTRIA
- BELGIUM
- CANADA
- CZECH REPUBLIC
- DENMARK
- FINLAND
- FRANCE
- GERMANY
- GREECE
- HUNGARY
- ICELAND
- IRELAND
- ITALY
- JAPAN

- KOREA
- LUXEMBOURG
- MEXICO
- NETHERLANDS
- NEW ZEALAND
- NORWAY
- POLAND
- PORTUGAL
- SLOVAK REPUBLIC
- SPAIN
- SWEDEN
- SWITZERLAND
- TURKEY
- UNITED KINGDOM
- UNITED STATES

## OECD/GSF Project To Date

- Delegation of Japan proposed the project
- Experts Group was convened to refine the project
- Delegations of Canada and Japan co-leaders
- Conducted survey to establish baseline of information: types of misconduct, mechanisms to handle, and suspected causes
-  Project accepted at the GSF meeting, Helsinki, July 2006

## OECD/GSF Project Next Steps

- Establish an International Steering Committee
- Delegations of Japan and Canada will Co-chair
- Scope of Project
- Focus on fabrication and falsification of data and research results
- Identify causes and possible remedies
- Not prescriptive directives for handling cases of misconduct

## OECD/GSF Project Next Steps (Continued)

- Work shop
- Tokyo in early 2007
- To include multiple stakeholders, e.g., science organizations, academia, publishers
- After Workshop, develop policy report for GSF consideration
- Organize special session
- To be held in conjunction with the European Science Foundation/Office of Research Integrity (US) meeting
-     in Portugal, September 2007

## Ending considerations

- Science and science tools change faster than either the creation of regulations or the underlying understanding of ethical issues
- Generational and cultural and community "gaps" are real and important
- Many problems may result from the "process"
- Unclear definitions
- Inconsistencies