PROMOTING and maintaining high standards of responsible conduct of research is important in all areas of research. The menace of research misconduct can damage not only the reputation of individuals and institutions, but also cause unnecessary risk to the public.
Violations of scientific integrity may be both intrinsically and extrinsically unethical. It can be intrinsically unethical because it may involve unsavoury activities such as deception, misrepresentation and falsification. It can also be extrinsically unethical because unethical activities may generate research results which may be harmful.
Although to many people, ethics, integrity and responsible conduct of research are used interchangeably, on closer look there are clear differences between them. While research ethics look mainly at the interests of research subjects, responsible conduct of research codes are focused on the actions of researchers.
In many organisations, codes, regulations or guidelines of ethics normally apply only to situations when a particular research project touches on human or animal subjects, while responsible conduct of research and integrity codes cut across the board. In other words, all kinds of research activities are subject to responsible conduct of research codes while the code of ethics only deals with research associated with animate subjects.
In a narrow sense, the guidelines for scientific integrity can be seen as a set of formal rules, conditions or requirements to be met. In a wider view, scientific integrity should be viewed as part of a larger ethical and moral values outlook of individuals and the development of good and responsible characters.
Ethical values drive individuals to adhere to certain sets of standards and principles which come from within themselves. While external rules and codes can be broken under certain circumstances, internally generated guides determine continued adherence.
This is the reason why in science, integrity is a basic moral attitude. It presupposes ethical reflection, self-criticism and self-discipline.
Discussions of responsible conduct of research will definitely touch on scientific misconduct. The table shows categorisation of the various misconducts.
Misconduct constitutes purposeful deception such as when data is contrived or results are falsified, and this may lead to misrepresentation of scientific knowledge, and may put the public at risk. Other types of unacceptable behaviour such as plagiarisms and free-riding authorships may not necessarily distort knowledge but mislead the scientific community. Questionable research practices cast doubts on the veracity and rigour of the research itself.
The movement towards responsible conduct of research has been spearheaded by research organisations in developed countries, particularly members of the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD).
In February 2007, the OECD Global Science Forum held the Workshop on Best Practices for Ensuring Scientific Integrity and Preventing Misconduct in Tokyo, Japan. The workshop came up with a number of conclusions.
First, it was acknowledged that cases of misconduct have occurred. An optimal strategy to actively promote integrity and responsible conduct of research recommends the involvement of all stakeholders.
The workshop further concluded that there is no universal optimal system for dealing with misconduct and therefore each country should develop their own and publicise it widely.
A system for handling complaints or reports of misconduct was also proposed, taking into consideration the sensitivities of the issues and the vulnerabilities of the accused and the accusers. One important recommendation is with regards to the importance of educating young researchers.
Forty-seven countries were involved in the 1st World Conference on Research Integrity held in Lisbon, Portugal in 2007. The conference recommended the need for clear, consistent institutional and national policies as well as the urgency to establish a global clearing house for research integrity.
The 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity was held in Singapore in July 2010. The resolutions of the conference were declared as the Singapore Statement on Research Integrity. The statement represents “ ... the first international effort to encourage the development of unified policies, guidelines and codes of conduct, with the long-range goal of fostering greater integrity in research worldwide”.
Various countries have established their responsible conduct of research codes. Examples include the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research and United Kingdom Code of Practice for Research. The US Office for Research Integrity (ORI) has published ORI Introduction to the Responsible Conduct of Research.
The Malaysian academia is not free from misconduct and the issues of integrity and responsible conduct of research need to be addressed properly.
According to the Research University (RU) concept paper, RUs should provide guidelines or policies to establish appropriate norms to ensure the existence of an open academic environment, with freedom to publish. Also there must be a code of conduct and code of ethics for each faculty member.
Accordingly, the RUs developed the associated policies, codes and guidelines.
Universiti Sains Malaysia has published its Research Ethics and Policy, which spells out broad policy statements regarding research activities in the institution. It touches on ethics of research on human subjects and proper management of research projects but has cursory mention of responsible conduct of research issues.
The University of Malaya (UM) Code of Ethics was developed in 1997 and revised in 2010. It consists of three parts — General Code of Ethics, Code of Ethics in Academia and the Professions, and Code of Ethics in Management and Administration. An important part of the code is a section titled Research Ethics, which describe the code of conduct (particularly research management and publications aspects) for researchers. It covers parts of the responsible conduct of research mentioned earlier, though not comprehensively.
An important document related to responsible conduct of research is the UM Policy On Authorship, a five-page comprehensive document. In fact, UM is the only Malaysian university that has put such a policy in place.
In addition to these broad policy guidelines on research policy and code of ethics which contain elements of responsible conduct of research, some universities have code of research ethics and ethics committees.
However, these are solely related to ethics, particularly in terms of research management and issues related to human subjects. An example of such code is Code of Research Ethics in UM, where research involving animals has to be reviewed by the Animal Care Committee, whereas research involving humans requires clearance by the Medical Ethics Committee (MEC). The MEC's aim is to safeguard the rights, safety and well-being of human research volunteers, review the ethics of proposed studies and ensure that there is due regard for laws and regulations.
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia also has a research ethics committee, comprising 15 members. Any research involving humnas requires the approval of the ethics committee.
This requirement has been in force since 2008, although initially confined to research on humans in the medical field alone.
It can be concluded that the Malaysian universities have not embraced responsible conduct of research.
Except for cursory mentions of certain aspects of responsible conduct of research issues, most policies, guidelines and codes do not cover the important aspects of responsible conduct of research being developed at the international level. UM is slightly ahead, with a well-defined responsible conduct of research document and authorship policy.
Having understood the global development of knowledge, responsible conduct of research and integrity, and in view of a large gap in the local scene, urgent actions need to be taken.
There is a need to establish a national office or agency to oversee responsible conduct of research in Malaysia. In line with the country’s effort to expand research and development activities, the need for a one-stop centre to monitor and regulate research integrity issues becomes more pertinent. The office can be modelled after the UK or the US ORI.
In tandem with the office, there is strong need to develop the Malaysian Code for Responsible Conduct of Research.
As noted in many documents such as the Singapore Declaration on Research Integrity, the national codes and standards should contain similar major themes but may differ from others by nature of local customs and culture.
The local universities, especially Research Universities, must immediately start work on the development of a comprehensive code for responsible conduct of research. This will ensure that research activities in the universities are properly carried out with due regards to internationally recognised standards of responsible conduct of research. This must be accompanied by a communication and implementation process.
Finally, new researchers must be trained in responsible conduct of research early in their career. The postgraduate curriculum in tertiary institutions must be revamped to incorporate learning outcomes related to responsible conduct of research and integrity.
The writer is a professor in marine technology at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia and an associate of Akademi Sains Malaysia