Integrity in Scientific Research: Creating an Environment That Promotes Responsible Conduct

Integrity in Scientific Research: Creating an Environment That Promotes Responsible Conduct Arthur H. Rubenstein et al: Committee on Assessing Integrity in Research Environments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2002. ISBN 0-309-08523-3. 202 pp. , 34. 95. There have been multiple recent episodes of research misconduct sufficiently egregious to provoke continuing attention from the scientific and popular press (1, 2). Simultaneously, it is a rare research-intensive institution that has not been forced to deal with less colorful, but no less nettlesome, instances of research misconduct. With these concerns in mind, I had hoped that this recent monograph from the Committee on Assessing Integrity in Research Environments of the National Research Council would offer overburdened research administrators and Institutional Review Board members time-tested suggestions for promoting integrity in science. Regrettably, my hopes immediately were dashed. The main conclusions reached in this work were the following: 1) attention to research integrity is important; 2) there is no established way to assess integrity (isn’t this one purpose of peer review? ) ; 3) policies and procedures are important but will not ensure integrity (and the occasional robbery or murder continue to occur despite there being long-standing laws prohibiting such behavior) ; 4) there is no valid method for promoting or evaluating integrity; 5) “…education…is critical, but if not done appropriately…may be ineffective” (who would have thought that education would be done other than appropriately? ) ; and 6) “ … Institutional self-assessment is one promising approach to assessing and continually improving integrity in research. ” (apparently an approach can be promising even when it lacks evidence for validity or efficacy) (3). The monograph also defines integrity. The definition of integrity for an individual is well cast: “…integrity embodies, above all, the individual’s commitment to intellectual honesty and personal responsibility. It is an aspect of moral character and experience. ” On the other hand, the authors clothe their definition of institutional integrity in a burkha of social science. “It is a commitment to creating an environment that promotes responsible conduct by embracing standards of excellence, trustworthiness, and lawfulness and then assessing whether researchers and administrators perceive that an environment with high levels of integrity has been cre-ated…” (3). In other words, we cannot have institutional integrity unless the survey data support us. Must we put the issue to a vote, perhaps every 4 years? In summary, this volume bears the multiple stigmata of a committee-led birthing. The most useful information it provides is its repeated acknowledgment that there is no evidence that any of the proposed strategies for promoting research integrity will work. Given that willingness to falsify data or disobey the rules is a sentinel sign of sociopathy, an untreatable personality disorder, my concern about “integrity” education is that it may only result in more skillful, better-educated sociopaths. Must we educate researchers that falsifying data or inappropriately taking credit for another’s work is wrong?