Back to home page
Back to notes for researchers
THE EPSRC GUIDE ON
"GOOD PRACTICE IN SCIENTIFIC AND ENGINEERING RESEARCH”.
Downloaded
from the EPSRC site.
Contents
1.
Introduction
2.
Essential Steps in Handling Allegations of Scientific Misconduct
3.
Integrity and Self-Regulation in Science
Principles of Good Scientific Practice
Implementation of the Principles within
Institutions
Leadership and Organisation
Education of Young Researchers
Independent Adjudication within Institutions
The Central Role of Data
Allegations of Scientific Misconduct
Integrity in Submitting Proposals for
Research Council Support
Use of Funds Granted by Research Councils
Conduct of Referees and Panel Members
Mechanisms
4.
References and Acknowledgements
5.
Enquiries
1.
Introduction
1.1
Progress in scientific and engineering research depends on the honest reporting
of genuine results. In recent years a number of serious instances of fraud or
of other scientific misconduct have persuaded funding bodies around the world
to consider their regulations and guidance in this area.
1.2
In the UK, the Director General of the Research Councils and Chief Executives
of the Research Councils have recently issued some recommendations for the
self-regulation of scientific and engineering research. The recommendations are
intended as a kind of "highway code" for the research community as a
whole, including the bodies actually funding scientific research. The
recommendations draw substantially on a set produced by the Deutsche
Forschungsgemeinschaft in Germany following a serious and long-standing case of
scientific fraud.
1.3
The overall recommendations issued in the UK consist of an umbrella document
within which each Research Council may wish to issue further guidance
appropriate to its circumstances. This booklet sets out the way in which EPSRC
expects the recommendations to be applied.
1.4
EPSRC differs from some of the other UK Research Councils in that it does not
employ scientists and engineers carrying out research in its own Laboratories
or Institutes. All of the Council’s support is channelled through other
institutions, mainly Higher Education Institutions (HEIs), which act as the
employer of staff funded by the Council. However, the Council requires that, as
a condition of its funding, HEIs (and other recipients of EPSRC support) have
in place sound measures for avoiding scientific misconduct and for handling it
should it occur. This forms a key element in the EPSRC’s relationship with HEIs
and the Council may impose appropriate sanctions if the understandings implicit
in that relationship are breached.
1.5
Scientific misconduct is often easier to recognise than to define, but two
broad categories can be distinguished. The first involves fabrication or
falsification of research results; the second arises where there is plagiarism,
misquoting or misappropriation of the work of others. It also includes, for
example, the unethical use of material provided in a privileged way for review
or assessment.
1.6
In what follows we set out what EPSRC expects of institutions in receipt of its
funds. Before doing this, however, we set out some guidelines on the procedures
institutions should have in place for handling cases of scientific misconduct.
These draw substantially on guidelines issued by MRC for staff employed in its
own Laboratories and Institutes.
2.
Essential Steps In Handling Allegations Of Scientific Misconduct
2.1
The main requirement is that institutions have a procedure which is written,
agreed, disseminated and clearly understood by all those who may be involved.
It should be seen to be fair to both the complainant (the person(s) responsible
for making an allegation of misconduct), if one exists, and the respondent
against whom the complaint is being made. Complainants can be put under extreme
pressure and scientific misconduct will only be revealed if they can expect
reasonable protection. Equally, some complaints may be malicious and the
respondent should expect a just decision following a fair and speedy process.
The procedure should indicate the sanctions that could apply if scientific
misconduct were proven. A senior person in the institution should be clearly
identified as being responsible for overseeing and directing the process.
2.2
Even if not set out explicitly, a procedure should include some or all of the
following stages, the outcomes of which should be clearly recorded:
preliminary action, which would at least
involve the identified senior person receiving any complaint, notifying all who
need to be involved and speedily gathering evidence;
an assessment stage, which is to determine
fairly rapidly whether there is, prima facie, a case to answer. For this stage
it is common for the senior person to set up a small, independent committee to
assess the evidence;
a formal investigation if there appears to be
a case to answer. This represents the main part of any investigation. The
procedures for this formal stage, which would involve an independent person or
committee appointed to undertake a significant enquiry, need to be clearly set
down. The outcome should be written and unambiguous;
an appeals stage. A respondent should have a
right of appeal to a named individual who is demonstrably independent of the
earlier procedures if misconduct is substantiated.
2.3
EPSRC requires that institutions in receipt of its funding have in place a
procedure which adheres to the main principles set out above. It would be a
serious matter were such arrangements not to be in place, particularly in the
event of allegations of malpractice, whatever the eventual outcome. In cases of
exceptional gravity, e.g. of proven fraud involving EPSRC funds, the Council
reserves the right to apply sanctions to institutions. Those sanctions could
include refusing further funding of the institutions concerned.
3.
Integrity And Self-Regulation In Science
Principles
of Good Scientific Practice
3.1
Good scientific practice includes the following aspects:
fundamentals of scientific work such as:
maintaining professional standards; documenting results; questioning one’s own
findings; attributing honestly the contribution of others;
leadership and cooperation in research
groups;
taking special account of the needs of young
researchers; and
securing and storing primary data.
3.2
For EPSRC-funded research and training these principles apply. EPSRC expects
that institutions will have in place policies to ensure sound codes of practice
are respected for work they undertake. Adherence to the Council’s guidance set
out in the following sections, and to the guidelines for handling cases of
scientific misconduct set out in chapter 2 will ensure that this is so.
Implementation
of the Principles within Institutions
3.3
Institutions should formulate and disseminate codes of good scientific practice
for their own use. As far as possible such codes should be acceptable to, and
binding on, all the staff in those institutions, and should be a key element in
training schemes and curricula; they should also be succinct and easy to
comprehend.
3.4
The EPSRC recommends that HEIs’ (and other institutions’) procedures should be
based as far as possible on consensus. It is important that a culture of
honesty and integrity in research should be fostered and maintained and that
young researchers and students should be inculcated in this culture. As with
the procedures for handling cases of scientific misconduct (chapter 2) it is
important that institutions’ procedures are widely disseminated and understood.
Leadership
and Organisation
3.5
It is the responsibility of leaders of Institutions, their senior colleagues
and Department Heads or group leaders at the level of research groups, to
ensure that a climate is created that allows research to be conducted within
the principles of good scientific practice. Responsibilities should be clearly
allocated.
3.6
EPSRC commends what are, essentially, sound management practices to ensure that
the honesty and integrity of scientific work can exist. The recommendation
requires that scientific ideas can be challenged and tested without loss of
face. Equally, it implies, for example, that researchers or research groups
should not become subject to such commercial pressures that the normal
processes of scientific inquiry cannot be enforced. And it places a
responsibility on supervisors, particularly supervisors of postgraduate
students, to ensure that good practices are learned and followed. The EPSRC
requires institutions it funds to ensure such sound management is practised.
Education
of Young Researchers
3.7
The education and development of young scientists and engineers is a matter of
particular concern. Institutions should ensure responsibilities for, and
standards of, "mentoring" young workers exist within their codes of
good practice
3.8
EPSRC particularly requires that postgraduate students in receipt of its
studentships should receive good supervision. The requirements are set out in
detail elsewhere and are implicit in, for example, the Council’s monitoring of
submission rates for PhD theses, and successful completion of advanced course
training. HEIs will be particularly alert to various cases of plagiarism which
have occurred in the past in degree theses (in whole or in part) and will have
clear and rigorous procedures in place to deter and sanction those found to
have indulged in misconduct. There is also a broader requirement of
institutions and supervisors to ensure that students are not put under
unwarranted or unsupervised pressure to produce results at any cost. EPSRC
considers it a key element of its relationship with HEIs providing training of
postgraduates supported by the Council that good arrangements are in place.
Independent
Adjudication within Institutions
3.9
Institutions’ procedures should include the provision to appoint an independent
body (eg, an ad-hoc body of scientific expertise) to act in cases of suspected
scientific misconduct. There should be a demonstrable separation from the
normal line management chain where the alleged incident has arisen.
3.10
The EPSRC’s guidelines for handling cases of scientific misconduct set out in
chapter 2 make clear the key role the Council expects for an independent
authority (either an individual or a small committee) in such cases. There is,
however, a case for HEIs (and other institutions) to identify a senior,
independent individual or small committee to assist in lesser cases. The
Council commends such a step as part of the good practice it requires
EPSRC-funded HEIs to follow. The existence of such an independent authority
reinforces the seriousness with which scientific integrity is to be taken.
The
Central Role of Data
3.11
Primary data as the basis for publications should be securely stored for an
appropriate time in a durable form under the control of the institution of
their origin.
3.12
EPSRC strongly recommends this action. Published reports of cases of scientific
misconduct are full of accounts of original data which have disappeared and of
the circumstances under which they have allegedly been lost. For that reason
alone, the recommendation should form part of EPSRC-funded institutions’
procedures to avoid scientific fraud. Additionally, and elsewhere, the Council
has endorsed the keeping and maintenance of laboratory notebooks, and other
data sources, to ensure that IPR can be protected. The appropriate period for
retaining data depends on circumstances (e.g. in some fields, the importance
and relevance of data can be superseded very rapidly). Equally the means of
data storage (paper, diskette, CD-ROM, etc) should be appropriate to the task.
Even if the individuals responsible for generating the data relocate, a set
should be maintained in the institution of origin.
Allegations
of Scientific Misconduct
3.13
Institutions should establish clear procedures for dealing with allegations of
scientific misconduct and should ensure that they are widely disseminated and
understood within the institutions. The procedures should allow for even-handed
treatment of both the complainant (the person making an allegation of
scientific misconduct) and the respondent (the person against whom an
allegation is made); the public presumption of innocence should be maintained
until the investigation process is complete.
3.14
EPSRC requires institutions to have such procedures adhering to the main principles
set out in chapter 2 and indicated above. It should be reiterated that Council
itself may impose sanctions where institutions do not have adequate procedures;
these could include refusing further Council funding.
Integrity
in Submitting Proposals for Research Council Support
3.15
Principal Investigators, Institutions and Research Councils should take all
reasonable measures to ensure the accuracy of information which is contained in
applications for funding. Appropriately severe penalties should be applied in
cases where inaccurate or even fraudulent information is submitted..
3.16
EPSRC reiterates that it is the responsibility of institutions submitting
funding proposals to have proper procedures for ensuring that fraud is not
perpetrated on EPSRC and for handling cases of scientific misconduct if that
occurs. It should be understood that EPSRC reserves the right to impose
sanctions, including a refusal to accept further funding proposals, where
proper procedures do not exist or have not been applied. The Council’s booklets
on the research grant and studentship schemes set out the information required
of those submitting funding applications.
Use
of Funds Granted by Research Councils
3.17
The Research Councils require institutions and principal investigators in
receipt of funding to adhere to the codes of practice which have been
promulgated.
3.18
The EPSRC’s position has already been clarified. Although, ultimately, it is
for the Institutions concerned to draw up the procedures applicable to their
own circumstances and to principal investigators working in those institutions,
the EPSRC requires that procedures exist and reserves the right to apply
sanctions in cases where it deems that institutions have been negligent or fraudulent
in meeting this requirement.
Conduct
of Referees and Panel Members
3.19
Research Councils should ensure that referees, panel and committee members
acting on their behalf in the assessment of applications for funding understand
clearly the responsibilities placed on them to treat proposals confidentially
3.20
EPSRC issues members of its colleges and panel members with clear guidance on
their duties of confidentiality and particularly, in the light of the Nolan
recommendations, on the avoidance of conflicts of interest. The Council will
review these procedures again to assess whether or not they fully cover all
circumstances, including those where there could be a risk of scientific
misconduct arising from, for example, plagiarism.
3.21
Research Councils should appoint Committees or independent persons to oversee,
monitor and audit the efficacy of their policies to ensure good scientific
practice.
3.22
EPSRC has asked its Resource Audit Committee (RAC), which is a Standing
Committee chaired by a member of Council, to undertake this important function.
4.
References And Acknowledgments
The
guidance issued here is structured around the overall principles issued by the
DGRC and Chief Executives of the Research Councils ("Safeguarding Good
Scientific Practice", December 1998), which in turn are based in part on
the recommendations of a Commission set up by the DFG in Germany
("Proposals for Safeguarding Good Scientific Practice", January
1998). The principles of a procedure for handling cases of scientific
misconduct set out in chapter 2 are based on the procedures issued by the
Medical Research Council ("MRC Policy and Procedure for Inquiring into
Allegations of Scientific Misconduct", December 1997).
5.
Enquiries
Enquiries
should be directed to Karen Morris, Research Grant Services. Tel: 01793 444248,
e-mail: karen.morris@epsrc.ac.uk. Copies of "Safeguarding Good Scientific
Practice" are available from the Office of Science and Technology. Please
contact Pete Owen. Tel: 0171 271 2065, e-mail: Peter.Owen@OSCT.dti.gov.uk.