Institutional structure to ensure research integrity

Abstract

The single most important component in an institutional culture of research integrity is institutional leadership committed to ethical conduct. If the institution's leaders are committed to integrity in research and act on that commitment, the campus will follow that lead; conversely, if the perception develops that the leaders pay only lip service to ethical conduct, the campus will adopt the same attitude. An institution must pay attention to both prevention and education, and many are developing codes of conduct. Further, institutions must establish a misconduct review process that can render objective, fact-based decisions untainted by personal bias and conflicts of interest. In developing such a process, leaders must be aware of probable pitfalls, create an accessible structure, and provide for consistent assessment of allegations and complaints, focusing on facts, not personalities. Increased demands for accountability and a heightened public interest in ethical issues portend increasing pressures on institutions to monitor the conduct of their members. The institution that builds effective, credible structures for preventing and resolving ethical issues will be well equipped to cope with these external pressures. Ultimately, however, institutional structures for such monitoring accomplish far more than preserving institutional autonomy: they protect the principle of scholarly and scientific inquiry that is at the core of the institution's mission.

The Absent Professor: Why We Don't Teach Research Ethics and What to Do about It

“…They will need opportunities to develop subject-matter expertise and pedagogical competence in different methods of instruction, such as case studies and problembased learning, to observe colleagues who already employ these approaches, to work together with faculty from other departments to offer interdisciplinary instruction, and to discuss with peers ideas for making real their commitment to ethics as a central component of research education. As with all things in scienti c research, signi cant support at the institutional and departmental levels will be essential (Piper, Gentile, and Parks 1993;Gunsalus 1993). On this point, we note that North Carolina State University (1998) has developed an ambitious plan that serves as an effective model for research institutions seeking to integrate research ethics education into graduate curricula.…”

A Theoretical Comparison of the Models of Prevention of Research Misconduct

“…Since the research is not published yet, there may be no external pressures on the research oversight authorities and the quality of response to misconduct allegations depends on the perceptions and values of authorities. Attitude of institutional leader is said to be the most important factor governing the culture of scientific integrity that prevails in the universities (Gunsalus, 1993). In the absence of "conscience-keeping" leadership there is a tendency of faculty disowning their own failures.…”

Getting from A to IRB: Developing an Institutional Review Board at a Historically Black University

“…According to Gunsalus (1993), “The single most influential component in an institutional culture of research integrity is institutional leadership committed to ethical conduct.” She also asserts that the most effective plan is to create policy that fits the institution in question. This institutional support or leadership should be apparent by its commitment to (1) creating an ethics infrastructure, (2) assuring adequate resources, (3) supporting IRB members, and (4) educating all involved (Sugarman, 2000).…”