The Science and Technology Committee has today published its
report on Research Integrity.
The report looks at what is known about problems arising from
errors, questionable practices, and fraud in research, and what
can be done to ensure that problems are handled appropriately. As
part of its inquiry, the Committee wrote to 136 universities to
ask them whether they publish information on the number of
misconduct investigations undertaken each year.
The Committee’s report found that:
- Despite a commitment in the 2012 Concordat to Support
Research Integrity, a quarter of universities are not producing
an annual report on research integrity.
- This lack of consistent transparency in reporting data on the
number of misconduct investigations, and inconsistency in the way
the information is recorded, means it is difficult to calculate
the scale of research misconduct in the UK.
- While compliance with Concordat is technically a prerequisite
for receiving research and higher education council funding,
non-compliance has not led to any funding actions against
institutions.
- There has been a lack of co-ordinated leadership in
implementing the Concordat’s recommendations in universities.
Norman Lamb, Chair of the Science and Technology Committee, said:
“Research can help tackle some of the world’s great
challenges including as disease, climate change and global
inequality. The UK is a world leader in research, and our
universities are at the forefront of the many of the world’s
great scientific breakthroughs. The importance of public
confidence in research can’t be overstated.
“While most universities publish an annual report on research
integrity, six years from signing a Concordat which recommends
doing so it is not yet consistent across the sector. It’s not a
good look for the research community to be dragging its heels on
this, particularly given research fraud can quite literally
become a matter of life and death.
We need an approach to transparency which recognises that
error, poor uses of statistics and even fraud are possible in any
human endeavour, and a clear demonstration that universities look
for problems and tackle them when they arise.”
Due to the potential weaknesses in the UK’s approach to research
integrity, the Committee is recommending that:
- A tightened Concordat on Research Integrity should be
produced, with a timetabled roadmap to 100% compliance.
- The Government should establish a national Research Integrity
Committee to provide a means of verifying that university
investigations into research misconduct are handled
appropriately. The primary responsibility for investigating
misconduct should remain with the employer, but the new committee
would improve confidence in the existing system of
self-regulation and would be alert to the potential conflict of
interest of universities 'self-policing' research
misconduct.
- The new committee should publish an annual report on the
state of research integrity in the UK.
, Chair, said:
“Establishing a new national Research Integrity Committee is
crucial to championing integrity in the sector and driving the
future implementation of a tightened Research Integrity
Concordat.
“Universities should view transparency and increased
reporting of misconduct as a positive sign that wrongdoing is
being spotted and taken seriously, rather than as a threat to the
university’s reputation. Failing to address this will fuel
suspicions that allegations are swept under the carpet.
“Our evidence made clear that there is no appetite for
heavy-handed Government regulation of this. Universities are
rightly proud of their independence. There needs to be a way of
verifying that universities are following their own procedures
and investigating misconduct properly. Unless we address this
there is a risk that there could be a knee-jerk reaction towards
inappropriate regulation in response to the next big research
misconduct scandal.”
Background information
The research sector agreed a Concordat to Support Research
Integrity in 2012. A key recommendation was for universities to
publish an annual report recording the number of misconduct
investigations that year, and the actions they have taken to
support research integrity in their institution.
The Committee took evidence from researchers, academics, industry
bodies, policy makers and academics over 6 sessions. It
received 48 pieces of written evidence, and
drew on a further 82 submissions made to the
previous Committee before work was curtailed by the
General Election.
A full list of UK Universities’ approach to annual reporting can
be seen in an appendix to the Report.
