1 General Structure of a System Dealing with Research Misconduct - General Remarks on its diversity - Makoto Misono National Institute of Technology and Evaluation (nite), Tokyo, Japan OECD GSF Workshop on Best Practices for Ensuring Scientific Integrity and Preventing Misconduct February, 2007, Tokyo

2 Purposes of a system dealing with misconduct Code of conduct and system handling misconduct are indispensable for the sound development of sciences and for the scientific community to be trusted by the society and hence given the freedom and financial supports. The system must be clear and widely disseminated and ensure Fair and transparent treatment of misconduct. Then, its presence can prevent misconduct.

3 Scientific Ethics General ethics and professional ethics Ethics of scientists (a professional ethics) Are research subjects sound? (nuclear and chemical weapons, life science studies, etc.) Scientific misconducts (FFP, etc.) General ethics (usage of research fund, human rights, academic harassment)

4 Recent activities of Science Council of Japan 2003, 2005: Reports on scientific misconduct and proposals to scientific community 2006: Official Statement a code of conduct and appeals to scientific community with a survey: from 541 universities and 600 learned societies plus some other institutions. code of conduct: 13% system dealing with misconduct: 13%

5 Diversity (1): Place of investigation Missions and roles are different among the organizations, while all are concerned with research integrity. Scientific community Research Institutions (Universities, etc.) Funding agencies Academic (learned) societies Governments Society Autonomy by code of conduct and policies Laws, regulations, and policies

6 Diversity (2) Range of misconduct to cover: Misconducts in publication of results (FFP, authorship, etc.), research (records, safety, etc.), and usage of research fund Structure of investigation body: - Standing or ad-hoc or both? Inside or outside? Composition of members - Hierarchical structure - Who should be the principal investigator? - Roles of governments, funding bodies, and scientific community

7 Diversity (3) Procedure of investigation: From reception of allegation to adjudication of penalty and handling of appeals Extent of transparency Penalty Rights of defendants (respondents) Involvement of governments? Superior court handling the decision of local institution or academic society?

8 Case 1 Roles of academic society and university 1. An academic (learned) society that defendants (respondents) belong to requested a faculty of a university where the defendants work the investigation of the case with some information. 2. After long discussion, the faculty started the investigation. Ad-hoc committees (in the faculty) for investigation and to recommend the penalty: Hearing from the defendants and specialists, as well as several experiments by the defendants. Preliminary actions were taken. Report (almost guilty and highest level of penalty) to university. (1 year) 3. Reexamination, hearing and decision of penalty by the university. The defendants (both leader and researcher) were adjudicated dismissal. (8 months) 4. The academic society has not acted yet. Another academic society sent out an official warning and an appeal to its members. 5. A national research institute (investigation committee) where one of the defendant was running a project concluded the case is very gray, but the project continued until the termination of contract. 6. No legal appeals so forth from the defendants.

9 Case 2 Reliability of data and misuse of research fund 1. Scoop by a newspaper followed by repeated reports in mass media 2. Investigation by the university (mainly on research fund): University found inappropriate use, but unable to identify the amount. The university returned a large amount of money including those unidentified to funding agencies. It is said experiments are underway for reproducibility. The professor was suspended from the position, and then resigned. 3. Investigations by academic societies are underway on FF. A conclusion will be; there was no FF and the finding is meaningful, although acquisition and treatment of data were not very prudent. Academic society must accuse inappropriate behavior of its members, but it must also protect their rights at the same time.

10 Case 3; Schoen at Bell A very well known event and many lessons Investigation committee comprising scientists outside confirmed FF. A lack of fundamental research integrity, that is, Findings should be discussed in front of primary data and equipments by the major research members, particularly with the leader. - The institution dismissed Schoen but nothing more.

11 A recommended system of investigation for research institutions and academic societies 1.Reception desk of allegation (very confidential) 2.A standing committee for research integrity (oversight of the report from the investigation committee and proposing penalty) 3.An ad-hoc investigation committee (specialists and some from the standing committee); examination of documents, hearings and judgment 4.Executive directors (responsible for final decision of the organization) 5.Superior court representing scientific community, if necessary, in collaboration of the government.

12 A recommended procedure of investigation for research institutions and academic societies 1.Reception of written allegation (confidentiality) 2.Preliminary assessment by a very limited members including the chairman of the standing committee (to start investigation); 3.Investigation by ad-hoc committee nominated by the chairman; hearing from both sides and examination of facts and the conclusion to the standing committee 4.The standing committee oversees the conclusion and send its conclusion including penalty to top executives that make the final decision. 5.Informing the conclusion to complainants and defendants 6.Appeal will be accepted and handled by the standing committee. 7.Whole process should appropriately be publicized.

13 Appendix Is a superior court necessary? Yes. Institutions and academic societies tend to defend their own interests and sometimes unfair and not sufficiently transparent. Roles of governments Key element of the research integrity is a high ethical standard and autonomy of science communities. Governments (and funding agencies in part) handle illegal actions such as misuse of research fund and, if necessary, provide basic guidelines.