European code on science misconduct to be updated

Research Commissioner Carlos Moedas this week told EU research ministers that the Commission will update the code of conduct for researchers, so as to better discourage fraud and other misconduct and reflect the fact that an increasing amount of publicly-funded research is carried out beyond the walls of the university lab.

At the same time, rules on ethics in Horizon 2020 will be “beefed up”, though no timetable was given for either change.

The continent’s most widely recognised standard on research integrity¸ the European Code of Conduct on Research Integrity, dating back to 2011, was drawn up by The European Science Foundation together with the European Federation of National Academies of Sciences and Humanities (ALLEA).

Now times have changed.  “In a world of more open data and open access, research integrity is crucial. We need more responsibility – individual but also from the institutions,” Moedas said.  

Science misconduct comes in many forms and can involve inventing data, intentionally misrepresenting results, copying texts or ideas without referring to the original source, or the pursuit of a compelling story that ignores contradictory evidence. 

The existing rules were written mostly with academics in mind, said Maura Hiney, head of research policy and evaluation at the Irish Health Research Board. “I can see where the Commission would like to expand on today’s codes,” she said. Competitive grants these days mostly involve multiple partners, are cross-sector and often involve industry.

Hiney is also chair of the Science Europe working group on research integrity, which this week published a report on research misconduct in Europe to coincide with the ministerial meeting.

The report weighs up the available data on the frequency of research misconduct and the possible reasons for it. It also looks at the potential costs of misconduct, how organisations promote research integrity, and how allegations of misconduct are handled. It provides an evidence base that can underpin action taken to address research integrity issues.

“The evidence gathered in the report shows the complexity of this issue and the multiple actors who need to be involved in tackling it,” Hiney said. “Providing training in research integrity, not just at post-graduate level but throughout researcher’s career, as well as training-the-trainers initiatives, are definitely important steps in promoting good practices and preventing misconduct.

Research integrity is vital because it creates trust, and trust is at the heart of the research process, the Science Europe report says. Researchers must be able to trust each other’s work, and they must also be trusted by society, since they provide scientific expertise that may impact people’s lives.

The existing ALLEA code says it “is not a body of law, but rather a canon for self-regulation” and “is not intended to replace existing national or academic guidelines, but to represent a Europe-wide agreement on a set of principles and priorities for the research community.”

But the problem with this is that apart from Denmark and Norway, no two countries in Europe share the same definition of scientific misconduct.

Some reports say the incidence of fraud in science appears to be getting worse. One paper finds the percentage of articles retracted from scientific journals because of fraud has increased ten-fold since 1975.

Countries blow hot and cold on misconduct, Hiney says. The impetus to strengthen rules usually peaks following high-profile cheating cases, such as the uncovering of Tilburg University’s Diederik Stapel, a social psychology researcher found to have falsified data on a huge scale.

European countries have various research watchdogs but none have teeth like the US National Science Foundation which, along with other federal agencies, has statutory powers to investigate allegations of fraud, including power to subpoena evidence.

Researcher relocation

Separately, Moedas reported on the progress of the Commission’s EU-wide RESAVER pension scheme which aims to make it easier for researchers to relocate from one country to another. The scheme is expected to go into operation next spring, and to date 280 institutions from nine EU member states have signed up for it, Moedas ssaid.

The voluntary scheme will not substitute for state-run pension systems, also known as first pillar pensions, but will provide supplementary benefits financed through employer contributions and private pension plans for individuals, so-called second and third pillar pensions.

Moedas also announced that the Commission’s Science4Refugees initiative, announced in the beginning of October with the aim of pointing refugees towards job or training opportunities in universities and labs across Europe, has to date resulted in 18 registrations.

Academic institutions have posted 219 vacancies on EURAXESS, the EU jobsite for research positions, using Science4Refugees branding, he said.