U.S. agency drops controversial changes to misconduct rules

Jeffrey Mervis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adt2251

IF: 56.9

2024-09-21

Science

Abstract:In first regulatory overhaul in 20 years, Office of Research Integrity takes modest steps toward greater transparency

multidisciplinary sciences

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Rooting out scientific misconduct

Ivan Oransky,Barbara Redman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adn9352

IF: 56.9

2024-01-12

Science

Abstract:Scientific misconduct is an issue rife with controversy, from its forms and definitions to the policies that guide how allegations are handled. A survey published nearly 15 years ago reported that 2% of researchers said they had fabricated or falsified data in their published work. This is not just an academic issue. Fake data promote ineffective or even dangerous treatments, for example, and thwart the discovery of real solutions for society. In the United States, the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) is tasked with rooting out misconduct in research funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Last October, ORI proposed changes to how it functions. The agency's recommendations—the first since 2005—have evoked mixed reactions, but the real problem is that ORI is underfunded and lacks the resources and authority needed to make a difference. Unless its charter is revised by Congress, the ORI can sadly do little more than tinker at the edges of scientific fraud.

multidisciplinary sciences
Factors related to the severity of research misconduct administrative actions: An analysis of office of research integrity case summaries from 1993 to 2023

Brandon Long,Savannah Laux,Benjamin Lemon,Alexa Guarente,Mark Davis,Arturo Casadevall,Ferric Fang,Min Shi,David B Resnik

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2023.2287046

2023-11-27

Abstract:We extracted, coded, and analyzed data from 343 Office of Research Integrity (ORI) case summaries published in the Federal Register and other venues from May 1993 to July 2023 to test hypotheses concerning the relationship between the severity of ORI administrative actions and various demographic and institutional factors. We found that factors indicative of the severity of the respondent's misconduct or a pattern of misbehavior were associated with the severity of ORI administrative actions. Being required by ORI to retract or correct publications and aggravating factors, such as interfering with an investigation, were both positively associated with receiving a funding debarment and with receiving an administrative action longer than three years. Admitting one's guilt and being found to have committed plagiarism (only) were negatively associated with receiving a funding debarment but were neither positively nor negatively associated with receiving an administrative action longer than three years. Other factors, such as the respondent's race/ethnicity, gender, academic position, administrative position, or their institution's NIH funding level or extramural vs. intramural or foreign vs. US status, were neither positively nor negatively associated with the severity of administrative actions. Overall, our findings suggest that ORI has acted fairly when imposing administrative actions on respondents and has followed DHHS guidelines.
Is it time to revise the definition of research misconduct?

David B. Resnik

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2019.1570156

2019-02-01

Accountability in Research

Abstract:U.S. federal policy defines research misconduct as fabrication of data, falsification of data, or plagiarism (FFP). In recent years, some have argued or suggested that the definition of research misconduct should also include sexual harassment, sabotage, deceptive use of statistics, and failure to disclose a significant conflict of interest (COI). While the arguments for revising the definition of misconduct used by federal agencies to include misbehaviors other than FFP are not convincing at this point in time, the arguments for revising definitions used by other organizations, such as professional societies, universities, or journals, may be. Since these other organizations play an important role in promoting integrity in science and deterring unethical behavior, they may consider adopting definitions of misconduct that extend beyond FFP. Debates about the definition of research misconduct are a normal and healthy part of broader discussions about integrity in science and how best to promote it. These debates should continue even if the federal definition of misconduct remains unchanged.
Major biomedical funder NIH poised for massive reform under Trump 2.0

Max Kozlov

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-03736-0

IF: 64.8

2024-11-18

Nature

Abstract:Sweeping changes and more research scrutiny could be on the way for the US National Institutes of Health. Sweeping changes and more research scrutiny could be on the way for the US National Institutes of Health.

multidisciplinary sciences
Improving Systems to Promote Research Integrity

Leilani B Mercado-Asis,Ma. Lourdes D Maglinao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.35460/2546-1621.2022-sp05

2022-12-07

Abstract:Research integrity is manifested thru the use of honest and verifiable research methods with adherence to accepted professional codes. Recently, trustworthiness in research has been challenged by various forms of research misconduct, such as analytical flexibility, data dredging, HARKing (hypothesis after research knowledge), plagiarism, and selective and distorted reporting. Drivers of research misconduct have been identified as institutional--publication incentives to pursue a career, researcher--metric of success is publication volume, and the journal-- more likely to accept papers with positive. The open-access mode propelling the proliferation of predatory journals is causing a dilemma to sound research reporting. Measures were established to curtail research integrity challenges, such as study registration, open data, common reporting standards, a team of rivals, and blind analysis. This report will elaborate and provide insight into what influenced research misconduct, how it can be mitigated, and how to maintain a credible research environment.
Review of the Latest Revision of Common Rule in the United States

Hai-hong ZHANG,Ya-li CONG

DOI: https://doi.org/10.12014/j.issn.1002-0772.2017.11a.03

2017-01-01

Abstract:Common Rule,as the most important regulatory framework for human subject protection in the United States,initiated its first massive update since 2009.The Final Rule came out in January 2017 after the release of ANPRM and NPRM for public comments in 2011 and 2015 respectively.The Final Rule adopted new provisions and requirements on informed consent process,broad consent,single IRB review of cooperative research,exemption categories and continuing review.This article began with the background analysis of Common Rule updating,introduced the revision process and main updates adopted in the Final Rule.Interpretation and comments were elaborated for the discussion of both positive impacts and remaining challenges.To sum up,it is important for us to learn and bring in international experiences of human subject protection into Chinese contest in a timely manner,as well as more creative problem-oriented research exploration and policy innovation in the future.
Unease as US drug agency weighs its use of independent scientists

Max Kozlov

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-02020-5

IF: 64.8

2024-06-16

Nature

Abstract:After several controversial drug approvals, the US Food and Drug Administration is mulling changes to its advisory panels, which include researchers and others. After several controversial drug approvals, the US Food and Drug Administration is mulling changes to its advisory panels, which include researchers and others.

multidisciplinary sciences
A tale of two perspectives: regulation versus self-regulation. A financial reporting approach (from Sarbanes-Oxley) for research ethics

Vincent Richman,Alex Richman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-011-9260-8

Abstract:Reports of research fraud have raised concerns about research integrity similar to concerns raised about financial accounting fraud. We propose a departure from self-regulation in that researchers adopt the financial accounting approach in establishing trust through an external validation process, in addition to the reporting entities and the regulatory agencies. The general conceptual framework for reviewing financial reports, utilizes external auditors who are certified and objective in using established standards to provide an opinion on the financial reports. These standards have become both broader in scope and increasingly specific as to what information is reported and the methodologies to be employed. We believe that the financial reporting overhaul encompassed in the US Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which aims at preventing accounting fraud, can be applied to scientific research in 4 ways. First, Sarbanes-Oxley requires corporations to have a complete set of internal accounting controls. Research organizations should use appropriate sampling techniques and audit research projects for conformity with the initial research protocols. Second, corporations are required to have the chief financial officer certify the accuracy of their financial statements. In a similar way, each research organization should have their vice-president of research (or equivalent) certify the research integrity of their research activities. In contrast, the primary responsibility of the existing Research Integrity Officers is to handle allegations of research misconduct, an after-the-fact activity. Third, generally accepted auditing standards specify the appropriate procedures for external review of a corporation's financial statements. For similar reasons, the research review process would also require corresponding external auditing standards. Finally, these new requirements would be implemented in stages, with the largest 14 research organizations that receive 25% of the total National Institutes of Health funding, adopting these research oversight enhancements first.
Oversight of Human Participants Research: Identifying Problems To Evaluate Reform Proposals

Ezekiel J. Emanuel,Anne Wood,Alan Fleischman,Angela Bowen,Kenneth A. Getz,Christine Grady,Carol Levine,Dale E. Hammerschmidt,Ruth Faden,Lisa Eckenwiler,Carianne Tucker Muse,Jeremy Sugarman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-141-4-200408170-00008

IF: 39.2

2004-08-17

Annals of Internal Medicine

Abstract:The oversight of research involving human participants is widely believed to be inadequate. The U.S. Congress, national commissions, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Institute of Medicine, numerous professional societies, and others are proposing remedies based on the assumption that the main problems are researchers' conflict of interest, lack of institutional review board (IRB) resources, and the volume and complexity of clinical research. Developing appropriate reform proposals requires carefully delineating the problems of the current system to know what reforms are needed. To stimulate a more informed and meaningful debate, we delineate 15 current problems into 3 broad categories. First, structural problems encompass 8 specific problems related to the way the research oversight system is organized. Second, procedural problems constitute 5 specific problems related to the operations of IRB review. Finally, performance assessment problems include 2 problems related to absence of systematic assessment of the outcomes of the oversight system. We critically assess proposed reforms, such as accreditation and central IRBs, according to how well they address these 15 problems. None of the reforms addresses all 15 problems. Indeed, most focus on the procedural problems, failing to address either the structure or the performance assessment problems. Finally, on the basis of the delineation of problems, we outline components of a more effective reform proposal, including bringing all research under federal oversight, a permanent advisory committee to address recurrent ethical issues in clinical research, mandatory single-time review for multicenter research protocols, additional financial support for IRB functions, and a standardized system for collecting and disseminating data on both adverse events and the performance assessment of IRBs.

medicine, general & internal
FDA's proposed regulations to expand access to investigational drugs for treatment use: the status quo in the guise of reform

Benjamin R Rossen

Abstract:On December 14, 2006, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) proposed two new regulations in the Federal Register amending current regulations governing expanded access to investigational drugs for treatment use and charging for investigational drugs. The proposals come at a time when FDA has found itself under new pressure to provide seriously ill patients with early access to investigational drugs outside the framework of clinical trials. In recent years, patient advocacy groups have filed citizen petitions with FDA asking the agency to provide specific criteria to patients and sponsors seeking expanded access or to create an early approval mechanism to permit easier access to investigational therapies. Further, FDA has seen proposed federal legislation intended to ensure early patient access to investigational treatments and nearly lost a lawsuit in federal court in which terminally ill patients sought a fundamental right of access to investigational therapies under the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. The proposed rules seek to assuage patient activists, physicians, drug sponsors and other critics who contend that FDA must strike an appropriate balance between allowing patient access to promising treatments while protecting against undue risk and safeguarding the clinical trials process. Although FDA heralded the announcement of the rules as a key step forward to improving patient access, the proposal does not expand access beyond measures currently available under longstanding agency practice and, in fact, creates new regulatory barriers and disincentives to industry participation in expanded access programs. This article examines the proposal in light of historical agency regulation and recent pressures to expand access. Section II describes the historical development of FDA's statutory authority to regulate drugs and the traditional new drug approval process. Section III describes the various methods through which FDA has allowed expanded access to investigational treatments since 1962. Section IV recounts various recent pressures on FDA to reform its expanded access procedures and describes the context in which FDA's recent proposal arises. Section V examines the changes proposed in both the proposed rules to expand access to investigational treatment and charging for investigational drugs. Section VI evaluates the rules and argues that the proposal will fail to expand access for patients because new restrictions on charging provide no incentive for industry participation and the proposed regulations create increased regulatory barriers to access inconsistent with FDA's statutory mandate
The role of data audits in detecting scientific misconduct. Results of the FDA program

M F Shapiro,R P Charrow

IF: 11.816

1989-05-05

JAMA

Abstract:To evaluate the extent of the problem of scientific misconduct in investigational drug trials, we reviewed data from 1955 routine audits conducted by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from June 1977 to April 1988. Serious deficiencies were detected in 12% of audits prior to October 1985, but in only 7% since that date. At the same time, there was no evidence of a decline over time in the rate of detection of many categories of deficiencies, and some investigators were able to continue to participate in drug trials after flagrant violations of recognized norms of research. The data auditing program should be continued, but additional measures are needed to regulate misconduct. These must be tailored to the variety of causes of misconduct, ranging from negligence to fraud. Possible additional approaches could include certifying the competence of potential investigators; peer-reviewed, competitive application for the opportunity to conduct FDA-authorized clinical trials; limiting an investigator's level of participation in clinical trials; penalizing manufacturers who fail to detect their investigators' misconduct; and permitting the FDA to suspend investigators prior to a hearing. Measures taken should maximize public utility at the least economic cost to society and should be evaluated thoroughly.
Preventing bad behavior in academia

Rayane da Cruz Albino,Mark Allen Brimble,Christina Zdenek,Katrien Vandenbroeck,Sarah Masud,Xuan Zhang,Mel Cosentino,Ankita Gupta,Rashad Abdul-Ghani,Casimiro Gerarduzzi,Pamela Jackson,Rebekah Oomen,Bram Servais,Akshatha Manjunatha,Nick Bulthuis,Carmen Romero-Molina,Dequn Teng,Aleksandra Kosanic,Daniela de Angeli Dutra,Demos Alekkou,Andressa M Venturini,Edgar Virguez,Adetayo Emmanuel Obasa

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adr0734

IF: 56.9

2024-07-05

Science

Abstract:We gave young scientists this prompt: Describe one change to scientific policy or culture that would substantially decrease incidents of scientific misconduct or other unethical behavior.
Witnesses to research wrongdoing

Joan E Sieber

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/jer.2012.7.5.3

Abstract:Research wrongdoing undermines scientific integrity, occurs widely, and takes many forms. We interviewed 135 NIH principal investigators who reported witnessing and responding to research wrongdoing. They reported taking a variety of actions, including formal notification of institutional officials, peer shaming, and one-on-one discussions with their peers to address wrongdoing that ranged from improper attribution of authorship to falsification, fabrication, and plagiarism. Unexpectedly, administrative mismanagement in handling allegations appeared more prevalent than any of the other forms of wrongdoing reported. Institutions may lack effective or efficient processes for managing even the most egregious cases of research wrongdoing. To assist institutions in designing effective, nimble programs, we suggest resources from which institutional officials may draw.
Research Misconduct Investigations in China's Science Funding System

Li Tang,Linan Wang,Guangyuan Hu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-023-00459-9

2023-11-22

Abstract:As stewards of public money, government funding agencies have the obligation and responsibility to uphold the integrity of funded research. Despite an increasing amount of empirical studies examining research-related misconduct, a majority of these studies focus on retracted publications. How agencies spot funding-relevant wrongdoing and what sanctions the offenders face remain largely unexplored. This is particularly true for public funding agencies in emerging science powers. To amend this oversight, we retrieved and analyzed all publicized investigation results from China's largest basic research funding agency over the period from 2005 to 2021. Our findings reveal that both the "police patrol" and "fire alarm" approaches are used to identify misconduct and deter funding-related fraud in China. The principal triggers for investigations are journal article retractions, whistleblowing, and plagiarism detection software. Among the six funding-related misconduct types publicized and punished, the top three are: (1) fraudulent papers, (2) information fabrication and/or falsification in the research proposal, and (3) proposal plagiarism. The most common administrative sanctions are debarment and reclamation of grants. This article argues that more systematic research and cooperation among stakeholders is needed to cultivate research integrity in emerging science powers like China. Specific training and education should be provided for young scientists to help them avoid the pitfall of academic misconduct.
On the Institutionalization of Research Integrity——ORI and Its Revelation.

CAO Nan-yan,WU Shou-qian

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1000-8934.2006.10.017

2006-01-01

Abstract:The misconduct in scientific research has aroused great attention.In this background,the institutionalization of research integrity becomes more important.In this paper,we discuss the Office of Research Integrity,as a professional institute of managing this problem,the establishment background,initial stages development and main work,which have great significance for our country.Moreover, we reveal the institutionalization of research integrity and research ethics.
Status of retraction notices for biomedical publications associated with research misconduct

Daniel Drimer-Batca,Jonathan M Iaccarino,Alan Fine

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016118820496

2019-01-02

Research Ethics

Abstract:In order to assess the status of retraction notices for publications involving research misconduct, we collected and analyzed information from the Office of Research Integrity website. This site lists confirmed instances of misconduct in research supported by the National Institutes of Health. Over a 10-year period, 200 publications derived from misconduct were identified. For 20.5% of those papers, no retraction notice was published. We found that the majority of these cases were from investigations concluded at least two years before our analysis, and thus are unlikely to be explainable by timing considerations. These findings demonstrate that retraction notices for papers associated with misconduct are often not published and suggest that clear, adherent policies are needed in this circumstance to correct the scientific record.
Encouraging and Rewarding the Whistleblower in Research Misconduct Cases

Ian Freckelton

Abstract:There are many pressures that militate against work colleagues "blowing the whistle" or "ringing the bell" on each other in respect of research misconduct. These pressures result in a significant proportion of such conduct not coming to light at all or coming to light later or less straightforwardly than is desirable. There need to be meaningful incentives for colleagues to draw to the attention of authorities concerns that they have about adherence by others to their obligations in relation to research integrity. The United States has a distinctive process under the False Claims Act which provides significant financial encouragement to such persons, known as "relators" under the qui tam scheme, including in the context of proven research misconduct. This editorial reviews prominent occasions on which qui tam actions have been taken and considers the ramifications of a US$112.5 million settlement arrived at in 2019 involving research misconduct at Duke University. It discusses the advantages and disadvantages of the incentives that lie at the heart of the United States False Claims Act and canvasses whether it should be emulated in other countries.
Fostering Responsible Conduct of Research for Early-Stage Investigators: Challenges and Opportunities

Laura Sinko,Laura A Baehr,Elizabeth Heller Murray,Julia Kobulsky,Gabriella M Mcloughlin,Krista Schroeder,Leah M Schumacher

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/15248399241278966

2024-09-10

Abstract:The rise of academic misconduct poses significant challenges to the integrity and credibility of scholarly research. Early-stage investigators (ESIs), particularly those representing marginalized groups, face unique pressures in navigating the "publish or perish" paradigm while establishing their careers. This commentary articulates strategies for cultivating research environments conducive to the responsible conduct of research (RCR) for ESIs. By establishing shared values, planning research meticulously, conducting research collaboratively, and reporting findings transparently, ESIs can foster a culture of prevention and accountability in research. Ultimately, navigating beyond traditional methodologies to support RCR necessitates a fundamental reimagining of academic culture, reconceptualizing productivity to prioritize quality over quantity, and to encompass "invisible" work often shouldered by investigators with marginalized identities. Addressing scientific misconduct challenges requires a whole-system approach, encompassing individual leadership, policy changes, and institutional accountability. By implementing concrete strategies and systemic reforms, academia can reaffirm its commitment to responsible research conduct and safeguard the integrity of scholarly endeavors.
Protection of health research participants in the United States: a review of two cases

Alison Douglass,Peter Crampton

Abstract:Two research-related deaths and controversies in the United States during recent years have raised public concern over the safety of research participants. This paper explores the reasons why, in two studies, there was a failure of ethical oversight. The issues exposed by these failures have international relevance as they could possibly occur anywhere where human health research is carried out. Five factors that contributed to these failures are highlighted: 1. failure to support and resource research ethics committees; 2. failure of the research oversight process to adequately assess the risks and benefits of research, while giving undue emphasis to informed consent; 3. conflicts of interest arising from financial relationships and research ethics committee membership; 4. lack of consistent oversight of privately funded research; and 5. incompetent or intentional failure to adhere by ethical guidelines. There is considerable headway to be made in the United States, as in other countries, in the fostering and maintenance of robust systems of human research oversight.
'Doing good science is hard': retraction of high-profile reproducibility study prompts soul-searching

Holly Else

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-03178-8

IF: 64.8

2024-10-15

Nature

Abstract:A paper by some of the biggest names in scientific integrity is retracted for issues including misstatements about the research plan. A paper by some of the biggest names in scientific integrity is retracted for issues including misstatements about the research plan.

multidisciplinary sciences

U.S. agency drops controversial changes to misconduct rules

Rooting out scientific misconduct

Factors related to the severity of research misconduct administrative actions: An analysis of office of research integrity case summaries from 1993 to 2023

Is it time to revise the definition of research misconduct?

Major biomedical funder NIH poised for massive reform under Trump 2.0

Improving Systems to Promote Research Integrity

Review of the Latest Revision of Common Rule in the United States

Unease as US drug agency weighs its use of independent scientists

A tale of two perspectives: regulation versus self-regulation. A financial reporting approach (from Sarbanes-Oxley) for research ethics

Oversight of Human Participants Research: Identifying Problems To Evaluate Reform Proposals

FDA's proposed regulations to expand access to investigational drugs for treatment use: the status quo in the guise of reform

The role of data audits in detecting scientific misconduct. Results of the FDA program

Preventing bad behavior in academia

Witnesses to research wrongdoing

Research Misconduct Investigations in China's Science Funding System

On the Institutionalization of Research Integrity——ORI and Its Revelation.

Status of retraction notices for biomedical publications associated with research misconduct

Encouraging and Rewarding the Whistleblower in Research Misconduct Cases

Fostering Responsible Conduct of Research for Early-Stage Investigators: Challenges and Opportunities

Protection of health research participants in the United States: a review of two cases

'Doing good science is hard': retraction of high-profile reproducibility study prompts soul-searching