sou · H5B310 · 2017-02-22 00:00:00 — Vi anser heller inte att ska fatta beslut om eventuella arbetsrättsliga eller andra konsekvenser för de forskare som har agerat oredligt, eller ge rekommendationer om sådana konsekvenser. Detta bör även fortsättningsvis vara ett ansvar för arbetsgivaren. Om oredlighet i forskning har konstaterats föreslår vi att den forskningsutförare i vars verksamhet oredligheten har begåtts ska informera berörda forskningsfinansiärer, myndigheter, vetenskapliga tidskrifter och andra berörda om beslut. Forskningsutförarna ska återrapportera till vilka åtgärder som vidtagits med anledning av nämndens beslut. Vi föreslår också att statliga forskningsfinansiärer ges i uppdrag att finna gemensamma riktlinjer för hur de ska agera när oredlighet i forskning eller andra avvikelser från god forskningssed misstänks eller konstateras. Förslag om rättssäkerhet för anmälare och anmälda Utredningen har övervägt hur rättssäkerheten för den som anmäler misstänkt oredlighet och den som blir anmäld ska garanteras, och hur utredningar kan bedrivas med såväl offentlig insyn som integritet för den enskilde. Vi bedömer att det inte finns tillräckliga skäl för att motivera några långtgående avsteg från grundprincipen om offentlighet. Känsliga uppgifter om personliga och ekonomiska förhållanden ska dock kunna sekretesskyddas. Utredningens förslag (se nedan) om att statliga universitet och högskolor ska främja medarbetares möjligheter att få råd och stöd i frågor om god forskningssed och avvikelser från sådan sed syftar delvis till att den som misstänker oredlighet ska få stöd för att våga anmäla. Det finns heller inget hinder mot att göra en anonym anmälan. För att ytterligare stärka rättssäkerheten vid bedömning av oredlighet i forskning förslår vi dessutom att beslut ska kunna överklagas hos allmän förvaltningsdomstol. Förslag om upprätthållande av god forskningssed Enligt utredningens mening bör forskarnas och forskningsutförarnas respektive ansvar för att forskning utförs i enlighet med god forskningssed förtydligas genom att ansvaret pekas ut i lag. Vi föreslår därför att det införs en bestämmelse om att den enskilda forskaren ansvarar för att hans eller hennes planering, genomförande och rapportering av forskning sker i enlighet med god forskningssed och en bestämmelse om att forskningsutföraren har det övergripande ansvaret för 1. att forskning sker i enlighet med god forskningssed, 2. att forskande, undervisande, teknisk och administrativ personal fortlöpande informeras om gällande regler för forskningsverksamheten, och 3. att de forskare som deltar i forskningen har tillräckliga kunskaper om god forskningssed. Bestämmelserna ska gälla alla forskningsutförare vars forskning kan utredas av och de forskare som arbetar i dessa verksamheter. För att skapa en samsyn kring vad som utgör god forskningssed föreslår vi att , och det svenska forskarsamhället i samverkan ska utarbeta en svensk nationell uppförandekod gällande god forskningssed. Både offentliga och privata forskningsutförare kan delta i utarbetandet av uppförandekoden och ansluta sig till den. På så sätt kan uppförandekoden främja god sed hos alla forskningsutförare. Utredningen anser att god forskningssed måste vara en fråga som engagerar alla inom universitet och högskolor, från den enskilda forskaren, till forskargrupper, prefekter, dekaner och rektorer. Ansvar och uppgifter behöver tydliggöras. Förutom de ovan nämnda ansvarskraven, som gäller alla forskningshuvudmän, före- slår vi för statliga universitet och högskolor en förtydligande reglering om att de ska hantera alla andra fall av misstänkta avvikelser från god forskningssed än de som ska prövas av , samt krav på att de ska fastställa riktlinjer för sin hantering av misstänkta avvikelser från god forskningssed och att de ska främja medarbetares möjligheter att få råd och stöd i frågor om god sed och avvikelser från sådan sed. I andra länder har det införts ombudspersoner vid universitet och högskolor dit medarbetare kan vända sig med frågor om god forskningssed. Utredningen anser att det skulle vara värdefullt även vid de svenska lärosätena. Vi föreslår vidare att statliga universitet och högskolor till ska redovisa fall av avvikelser från god forskningssed som de har hanterat och hur de arbetar för att främja god sed och förebygga oredlighet i forskning. För att kunskap ska spridas ska nämnden i en årlig rapport sammanställa, analysera och utvärdera information från forskningsutförarna och den egna verksamheten samt ansvara för omvärldsbevakning och kunskapsspridning gällande frågor om god forskningssed. Forskningen inom området oredlighet och god forskningssed är begränsad. I betänkandet föreslås att det tillförs medel till sådan forskning för att ytterligare stärka det förebyggande arbetet. Förslagen i betänkandet syftar till att bidra till värnandet av kvalitet och tillförlitlighet i svensk forskning, god forskningssed och allmänhetens förtroende för forskningen. Förslagen innebär bl.a. att frågor om god sed och oredlighet i forskning kommer att regleras i författning i större utsträckning . Vissa av de föreslagna bestämmelserna bör dock ses som ett förtydligande av rådande praxis än nya åtaganden för forskare och forskningsutförare. Den föreslagna nya myndigheten kommer att överta uppgifter som sköts av forskningsutförarna och Expertgruppen för Oredlighet i forskning vid . Expertgruppen föreslås därmed läggas ner. Förslagen innebär endast små eller försumbara ekonomiska konsekvenser för myndigheter och forskningsutförare. Bestämmelserna föreslås träda i kraft . The Inquiry was instructed to investigate the need for new procedures for cases concerning the investigation of research misconduct, and make proposals to ensure clear and legally certain handling of alleged misconduct. Our remit included surveying how research misconduct is handled in other countries, and investigating how the terms ‘good scientific practice’ and ‘research misconduct’ are used and how higher education institutions’ responsibility to uphold good practice in research can, where necessary, be made clearer. The Inquiry was also instructed to review the activities of the expert group for misconduct in research at the Board. Work of the Inquiry The Inquiry has held individual consultations with a large number of representatives of research-performing organisations (RPOs), government agencies and scientific societies. We have also circulated a questionnaire concerning research misconduct and good practice among higher education institutions, held a hearing to which representatives of the research community and government agencies were invited, and visited and and been in contact with to examine the experiences of those three countries’ systems for investigating alleged research misconduct. While the Inquiry has been conducting its work, the issue of research misconduct and its consequences has attracted considerable media attention in . In the countries studied by the Inquiry, there are several examples of research misconduct scandals that have resulted in tighter regulatory frameworks. The representatives of the research community and government agencies we have met in the course of the Inquiry often expressed a wish (in line with the Inquiry’s terms of reference) for a clearer and more legally certain system for investigating research misconduct. At the same time, they raised apprehensions that a single case of misconduct that receives a lot of attention may give an inaccurate image of the state of Swedish research. Good scientific practice and research misconduct The term good scientific practice has been defined as the collective ethical standards for how good research should be conducted. These standards are based on society’s ethical norms and values. According to these standards, researchers must be truthful about their research, consciously scrutinise and outline the basic premises for their studies, openly report their methods and results, refrain from stealing research findings from others, maintain good order in their research, and seek to conduct their research without harming people, animals or the environment. In and internationally, there are a large number of guidelines concerning good scientific practice. Certain serious breaches of good scientific practice are generally referred to as research misconduct. There is no generally accepted understanding of the precise deviations that are encompassed by the term. Our questionnaire survey shows that there is not a consensus among Swedish higher education institutions on this matter. Nonetheless, the majority of Swedish and international definitions centre on fabrication, falsification and plagiarism (FFP). Between 2010 and 2015, Swedish higher education institutions investigated a total of 110 cases of alleged research misconduct. Misconduct was established in 16 cases, which is equivalent to 2.7 cases per year. There are substantial indications that the problem of misconduct is more widespread than the number of cases investigated would suggest, but there are no reliable studies showing how common it is. Ambition, vanity, recklessness, increased competition, pressure to publish, new technologies, etc. are some of the possible factors behind research misconduct raised in academic literature and debate. Who is responsible for upholding good scientific practice? The individual ethical responsibility of each researcher is research ethics, and research ethics is largely about how individual researchers must or should conduct themselves. Researchers therefore have a major responsibility to conduct their research in accordance with good scientific practice. They share this responsibility with their employers, the RPOs. RPOs should, for example, ensure that researchers receive training on good scientific practice, that research environments are healthy, and that researchers have access to adequate tools to document and archive their research. Responsibility for upholding good scientific practice follows research ethics guidelines and documents of a primarily moral, rather than legal, nature. For public higher education institutions, the provisions in the Higher Eduction Act also apply, whereby scientific credibility and good scientific practice are to be upheld and activities are to be set at such a level as to ensure high quality. How is alleged research misconduct handled in and internationally? Under the legal regulations, public higher education institutions are to investigate alleged research misconduct internally. During an ongoing investigation they are permitted, and sometimes obliged, to obtain an opinion from the expert group for misconduct in research at the Board. There are no provisions regulating how other RPOs should investigate alleged research misconduct. The majority of higher education institutions have adopted procedures to be followed when allegations of research misconduct arise, but only half of them have actually handled any such suspected cases. In the course of our investigation, many people have stated that the current system does not create sufficient uniformity at national level in terms of both handling alleged misconduct and the consequences when misconduct is established. There is no national definition of research misconduct, no dedicated rules for how investigations should be con- ducted, and no guidelines for the consequences that misconduct should lead to. The expert group for misconduct in research at the Board has not had a sufficiently normative role, in part because it has been asked for an opinion in so few cases (until 2016) and because it has a different definition of misconduct to many higher education institutions. Whether higher education institutions can really be truly impartial when investigating research misconduct internally has also been called into question. Our survey of how research misconduct is handled in other countries shows that systems vary widely. Nonetheless, in the majority of countries the primary responsibility for investigating alleged misconduct lies with the research institutions, and most have some kind of central body that plays a role in the investigation process. The central body for investigations of alleged misconduct can be a central government authority, a private body or a research financier. In some countries, the central body has a mandate to handle specific cases, while in others its role is merely advisory. Proposal for a new government agency to investigate alleged research misconduct Based on our review of the current procedures for the investigation of alleged research misconduct and the problems raised, the In- quiry has concluded that a change of procedures for investigations of alleged misconduct is needed to ensure a system that is more reliable and legally certain. We have considered whether the current system, in which higher education institutions are responsible for conducting investigations, should be maintained but augmented with detailed regulations for investigation procedures, or whether a possibility of appealing decisions to a central body should be introduced instead, or whether an independent body should be tasked with investigating all cases of alleged research misconduct. We have concluded that a system in which an independent body investigates all alleged cases of misconduct is best placed to ensure that investigations are handled impartially, uniformly and reliably. We therefore propose that such investigations be handled by an independent agency, . The board should consist of a chair, who is or has been a permanent judge, and up to ten members with scientific expertise in different areas. There should be documented experience among the members of working with issues of good scientific practice. Breaches of good scientific practice other than those that constitute misconduct should be handled internally by RPOs. The report proposes that these procedures be established in a new act on investigations of research misconduct. Proposal for a definition in law of research misconduct The Inquiry considers that the proposed act on investigations of research misconduct should contain a definition of research misconduct that clarifies what is to be investigated by . We have thus considered which phenomena should be classified as research misconduct, whether the definition should be narrow and only refer to a small number of phenomena, or broad and include a large number of phenomena, and whether it should be closed, i.e. list all phenomena that are to be classified as misconduct, or open, i.e. leave scope for more phenomena to be included. We came down on the side of proposing a narrow, closed definition of research misconduct as follows: Serious breaches of good scientific practice in the form of fabrication, falsification or plagiarism that are committed intentionally or with gross negligence in the planning, performance or reporting of research. We consider that this definition offers the greatest clarity and legal certainty, and we believe that it will attract broad support from the research community that the areas outlined in this definition indisputably constitute research misconduct. It is also similar to the definitions established in the laws of other countries. In the view of the Inquiry, a narrow definition of this kind will also allow a clear and reasonable line to be drawn between cases of breaches of good scientific practice that should be investigated at national level and cases that should continue to be handled internally by RPOs. Proposals concerning the RPOs that should be included in the system and the research that can be investigated The regulations concerning investigations of alleged research misconduct currently only apply to public higher education institutions. The Inquiry has aspired for all RPOs to be treated equally in the new system, as far as this is possible. We propose that the Re- search should investigate alleged research misconduct at all public higher education institutions, at other government and municipal agencies and bodies that can be equated to government or municipal agencies, and at private education providers that are authorised to award higher education qualifications. Public higher education institutions account for the vast majority of the total research output of these RPOs. In , a considerable amount of research and development is also carried out in the private sector. The Inquiry has considered whether alleged research misconduct at private companies, organisations and foundations should be investigated by . We draw the conclusion that an obligation for such organisations to report alleged misconduct to a central government body and an obligation to provide research data would constitute an excessive intrusion into freedom to conduct a business, and we therefore propose that they be excluded from the system. It should also be possible to investigate research abroad that is part of a research partnership, if the research has been carried out by an RPO that is covered by the legal provisions. We also propose that should not investigate misconduct based on circumstances that are more than ten years old, unless there are special grounds to do so. Proposals for the various phases of investigation The Inquiry proposes that the RPOs that are covered by the system should be obliged to report all allegations of research misconduct within their own research activities that have come to their attention to . Individuals should also have the opportunity to report alleged research misconduct to the Board, and the Board should also be able to start investigations at its own initiative. For investigations to be possible, must be able to obtain the information it requires. We therefore propose that a legislative provision be introduced whereby RPOs must, upon request, provide with all assistance and all data, information and documents concerning the research in question that is needed for the investigation, as well as access to the premises used for the research. should also be entitled to issue orders if data, information or documents are not provided or access or assistance is denied. It should be possible to combine an order of this kind with a conditional financial penalty. Sensitive data in the materials should be subject to secrecy. ’s decisions should state whether research has involved fabrication, falsification or plagiarism, and whether one or more researchers have committed research misconduct. It is conceivable that the Board may, in the course of its investigations, uncover failings in the RPOs with respect to i.e. training, supervision or the research environment. should also be permitted to issue a statement in connection with a decision, expressing its views on failings in the RPO that the Board considers should be remedied. However, we do not propose that the Board have any supervisory responsibility over RPOs. do we consider that should take decisions on any labour law or other consequences for the researchers who have committed misconduct, or that it should give recommendations for such consequences. This should remain the responsibility of the employer. If research misconduct has been established, we propose that the RPO in whose activities the misconduct has taken place should inform the relevant research financiers, government agencies, scientific journals and others affected by the Board’s decision. RPOs should report back to measures that have been taken as a result of the Board’s decisions. We also propose that the public research financiers be instructed to develop joint guidelines for how they should act when research misconduct or other breaches of good scientific practice are alleged or established. Proposals concerning legal rights for those reporting and being reported The Inquiry has considered how legal rights can be guaranteed for anyone reporting allegations of misconduct and for those being reported, and how investigations can be carried out while upholding both public scrutiny and individual privacy. We consider that there are insufficient grounds to justify any far-reaching deviations from the fundamental principle of public access. Nonetheless, it should be possible to protect personal and financial circumstances with secrecy. The Inquiry’s proposal (see below) whereby public higher education institutions should promote opportunities for employees to receive advice and support on matters of good scientific practice and breaches thereof aims in part to ensure that anyone who suspects misconduct receives support so that they dare to report it. is there any impediment to reporting misconduct anonymously. To further strengthen legal rights when assessing research misconduct, we also propose that it be possible to appeal the Re- search ’s decision to a general administrative court. Proposal on how to uphold good scientific practice In the Inquiry’s view, the respective responsibilities of researchers and RPOs for ensuring that research is conducted in accordance with good scientific practice should be made clearer by being outlined in law. We therefore propose the introduction of a provision whereby the individual researcher is responsible for ensuring that their own planning, performance and reporting of research is done in accordance with good scientific practice, and a provision whereby the RPO in whose activities the research is conducted has the overall responsibility for ensuring that 1. research is performed in accordance with good scientific practice; 2. researchers, teaching staff and technical and administrative staff are continuously informed of the applicable regulations for research activities; and 3. researchers taking part in research have sufficient knowledge of good scientific practice. The provisions should apply to all RPOs whose research is subject to investigation by and all researchers who work for such organisations. To create consensus on what constitutes good scientific practice, we propose that the , the Re- search and the Swedish research community collaborate to produce a Swedish national code of conduct on good scientific practice. Both public and private RPOs can be involved in producing the code of conduct, and subscribe to it. As such, the code of conduct can good practice among all RPOs. In the Inquiry’s view, good scientific practice must be an issue that engages everyone at higher education institutions, from individual researchers to groups of researchers, heads of department, deans and rectors. Responsibilities and tasks need to be clear. Alongside the responsibilities outlined above, which apply to all research organisations, we propose that public higher education institutions be subject to clarifying regulations whereby they must address all cases of alleged breaches of good scientific practice other than those examined by , establish guidelines for handling alleged breaches of good scientific practice, and promote opportunities for employees to receive advice and support on matters of good scientific practice and breaches thereof. Other countries have introduced ombudsmen at higher education institutions to whom employees can turn with questions concerning good scientific practice. The Inquiry considers that this could also be a useful solution at Swedish higher education institutions. We also propose that public higher education institutions report to all cases of breaches of good scientific practice that they have addressed and how they work to promote good practice and prevent research misconduct. To ensure that knowledge is spread, the Board should collate, analyse and evaluate information from RPOs and its own activities in an annual report, and be responsible for monitoring international developments and spreading knowledge concerning good scientific practice. Research into research misconduct and good scientific practice is limited.