{"id":27300,"date":"2021-07-28T11:31:02","date_gmt":"2021-07-28T11:31:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/news.cancerresearchuk.org\/?p=23362"},"modified":"2024-11-03T15:14:33","modified_gmt":"2024-11-03T15:14:33","slug":"embedding-research-integrity-at-the-core-of-our-science","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ogkologos.com\/en\/embedding-research-integrity-at-the-core-of-our-science\/","title":{"rendered":"Embedding research integrity at the core of our science"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Cancer Research UK has deepened its commitment to good research practice by becoming a signatory of the Concordat to Support Research Integrity. Here we speak with two Research Integrity Advisers at our institutes to find out why supporting scientists to be the best they can be is the only way to ensure quality research\u2026<\/strong>  <\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n

Research integrity is the cornerstone of good science. For the cancer research community this is important, not just because conducting research according to the highest standards is the \u2018right\u2019 thing to do, but because it is the most effective way to bring forward the day when all cancers are cured.<\/p>\n

Cancer Research UK (CRUK) wants to support the most impactful science, and how that science is carried out is a vital part of this. To be impactful, research needs first to be reliable, repeatable and trustworthy. This is why our grants carry specific research integrity conditions, it is also why we have signed the Concordat to Support Research Integrity<\/a> \u2013 a commitment to the highest standards of rigor and integrity in all aspects of research.<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cOur roles aren\u2019t about policing \u2013 they really are about supporting and being advocates for good research practice.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Two CRUK institutes have gone further still in their commitment to this and have appointed dedicated research integrity advisers to not only uphold standards, but also facilitate training and guidance. It\u2019s a wide remit, and to understand their roles it\u2019s probably easier to define what they\u2019re not says Dr Catherine Winchester, Senior Research Adviser at the CRUK Beatson Institute in Glasgow. \u201cOur roles aren\u2019t about policing,\u201d she says. \u201cIt\u2019s not about having a little black book and noting everything down \u2013 it\u2019s about supporting and being advocates for good research practice.\u201d<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Dr Catherine Winchester is Senior Research Adviser- Grants and Research Integrity at the Cancer Research Beatson Institute in Glasgow.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Something of a veteran in the relatively new field of research integrity, Winchester has been in the role for eight years \u2013 long enough to get a handle on the underlying issues that can give rise to integrity problems.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe majority of scientists I meet and interact with are absolutely not falsifying their data, a lot of the issues arise from simple mistakes,\u201d she points out. \u201cAnd that\u2019s what I\u2019m trying to target by making sure people are trained properly.\u201d<\/p>\n

It\u2019s a sentiment shared by Dr Andrew Porter, Research Integrity and Training Adviser at the CRUK Manchester Institute. Whilst relatively new to the role, it didn\u2019t take long for him to notice the root cause of integrity issues are rarely nefarious.<\/p>\n

\u201cI think people hear \u2018research integrity\u2019 and in their minds they go straight to research misconduct. So that\u2019s the bad practices of research \u2013 fabrication, falsification, plagiarism\u2026 and there\u2019s lots written in the research integrity field about why people do that, and how we can prevent it,\u201d he says. \u201cBut actually, scientists often just need support to do what they want to do well. Most researchers want to operate in a way which is ethical and fits their own moral code and their own sense of who they want to be in science.\u201d<\/p>\n

The need for principles<\/h2>\n

This does raise the question; why, exactly, is there a need for research integrity advisers? Do dedicated, talented scientists really need this kind of help?<\/p>\n

It\u2019s a point which Porter is quick to pick-up on. \u201cHistorically there has always been the feeling that science is self-correcting. The idea that it\u2019s all right if mistakes happen, because other people will find out if something was done in a way that wasn\u2019t quite right, and the next person who tries to do it will correct for that. But I think that link is broken, because there isn\u2019t enough time for people to repeat other people\u2019s experiments.\u201d<\/p>\n

This touches on a vital aspect of research integrity \u2013 pressure. The modern research environment, especially for early-career researchers, can be competitive, and acknowledging that is very much part of ensuring research integrity. This means roles like Porter\u2019s and Winchester\u2019s along with CRUKs other commitments to integrity have a real part to play not only in making research more trustworthy but in making life better for researchers.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Dr Andrew Porter is Research Integrity and Training Adviser at Cancer Research UK Manchester Institute.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\u201cThings like short-term contracts and the academic publishing environment they can create an environment which is not necessarily geared towards doing things reproducibly. It becomes about getting out there fast before your competitors,\u201d says Porter.<\/p>\n

As well as the pressure of simply trying to get their work out into the world, this rush to publish can also be tied in with the need to secure funding. Researchers know the amount they have published can be influential when funders make the tough decisions around what projects get the go-ahead.<\/p>\n

\u201cUnfortunately, that can mean there\u2019s a tension between doing things well, and actually progressing in science,\u201d adds Porter. \u201cIt\u2019s my job to bridge that gap \u2013 to enable science that\u2019s at a really high standard, but in a way which is reproducible, transparent, open and that meets the highest standards that we, and the scientists themselves, want to meet.\u201d<\/p>\n

What help is available?<\/h2>\n

As a signatory to the Concordat, CRUK\u2019s science is conducted according to five integrity commitments. Respect for those conducting and participating in research is a huge part of this. It\u2019s clear that a research culture where critique of research practices is healthy and encouraged, and in which people can raise issues without fear of repercussion is needed to achieve the highest standards of research.<\/p>\n

\u201cResearch integrity training is important, but I really feel that that should just be the starting point \u2013 training has to be more than just dialogue, it\u2019s got to be carried on into the lab.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

For Winchester, another vital aspect is to make these principles work in the real world. \u201cRather than just having a policy as a static document sitting somewhere that nobody looks at, to really help researchers we\u2019ve worked to make the policies live,\u201d she says. As part of this effort, she doesn\u2019t just offer training. The Beatson has also introduced research integrity champions \u2013 scientists from each research group who offer a direct route for the latest thinking on good research practice into the lab.<\/p>\n

\u201cResearch integrity training is important, but I really feel that that should just be the starting point,\u201d says Winchester. \u201cSo, each research group now has a research integrity champion. They\u2019re people on the ground who are advocates for research integrity and can easily communicate any advances back to other front-line researchers. And that\u2019s really important because training has to be more than just dialogue, it\u2019s got to be carried on into the lab.\u201d<\/p>\n

In her training she covers reproducibility and questionable research practices, and, importantly, the lines to be drawn between integrity and misconduct. She is keen to emphasise that honest mistakes and errors are not classed as misconduct, and that they\u2019re treated differently. \u201cIt\u2019s about trying to make it better and easier for researchers to do good science, and to let them know that they have this support,\u201d she says.<\/p>\n

So how, exactly, can research integrity professionals help researchers be better scientists? Both Porter and Winchester know their approach won\u2019t work unless they encourage an integrity mindset from the get-go. \u201cI try to instil integrity principles throughout the whole research cycle,\u201d says Winchester. \u201cIt comes into everything. At the Beatson we help researchers really think about designing experiments, how they\u2019re going to organise and curate data right through to pre-submission manuscript review.\u201d<\/p>\n

And it\u2019s this checking of manuscripts that both agree is an incredibly useful way to ensure research meets standards. Data is checked, graphs are pored over, and figures scrutinised says Winchester. \u201cI read manuscripts for clarity, and I\u2019m very picky about people\u2019s descriptions in figure legends. I really encourage people to go beyond basic data information and try to drill down into what those data are,\u201d she says.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s something that Porter, too, is keen to help people improve. \u201cI look at the figures and I try to ask, as somebody who\u2019s got a science background, but maybe not in the specific area the paper is about, are these communicating clearly to me?\u201d he says.<\/p>\n

No surprise, perhaps, that both have such a strong focus on data. How it is generated, collected, analysed and even stored is an essential component of research integrity. Indeed, the Beatson has developed a policy to ensure researchers archive the data they use in their publications \u2013 including documentation describing the context in which the data were generated. That way, Winchester says, if mistakes are made, there is a clear trail.<\/p>\n

\u201cIf we ever have any allegations or concerns over figures or data in publications, we can immediately access that data and work to resolve anything. So, the policy is telling people what they\u2019ve got to do but it\u2019s there for their benefit.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cDon\u2019t just think about the scientist who pulls your paper off the shelf and cites it. Think about the new postdoc who\u2019s about to start a new investigation, who\u2019d love a detailed list of all the experiments and the methods that you\u2019ve used in your lab\u2026\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Another area where a little help is often useful for researchers is in the recording of materials and methods. The detailed listing of reagents, batch numbers and equipment types may seem like unnecessary details to some when prepping a paper, but the thing to remember says Porter, is that papers are working documents not just a record of results.<\/p>\n

\u201cDon\u2019t just think about the scientist who pulls your paper off the shelf and cites it. Think about the new postdoc who\u2019s about to start a new investigation, who\u2019d love a detailed list of all the experiments and the methods that you\u2019ve used in your lab,\u201d he says. \u201cAnd actually, think about yourself in a year\u2019s time when you go and start up your lab and you have to order a whole lot of chemicals to begin the start-up process.\u201d<\/p>\n

Again, this is not about policing. This is about ensuring a process of constant improvement. A good example lay in the minutiae of how reagent batch numbers are recorded. It was standard practice for Porter to check the authors of a paper including any cell culture work had included the product code of the serum used. Then the guidance coming through from academic publishers changed \u2013 they now regularly require the specific batch number, because batch to batch variation of serum can make a huge difference to the outcome of the experiment. \u201cBut when I was telling this to researchers, they often found that, going back to their lab books, the PhD student who started the work three years ago wasn\u2019t required to record that information,\u201d he says. \u201cSo, one thing I\u2019m very conscious of, is not telling people to do things that they can\u2019t do.\u201d<\/p>\n

That is isn\u2019t to say that previous work was sub-standard, says Porter, but it does highlight how research integrity guidelines evolve over time. When it comes to good practice it is crucial to be open to changing how researchers do things. \u201cI think people are just waking up to a number of things that just haven\u2019t really been widely recognised before,\u201d he says.<\/p>\n

Positive reception<\/h2>\n

Given their roles are, currently at least, relatively rare in the research landscape, how have they found the reception from researchers in their institutes?<\/p>\n

\u201cI think initially people were concerned that I had been brought in to police them. But they were pretty quickly reassured that\u2019s not true. I really am here to support them,\u201d says Winchester.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s a message that has clearly landed. Nearly a decade into her role, she has helped a huge number of researchers improve their science. In Manchester too, Porter has found a very positive reaction to his appointment. \u201cEspecially amongst early career researchers,\u201d he says. \u201cOne PhD student told me that my feedback on a paper has been one of the most helpful pieces of input on their work along the way.\u201d<\/p>\n

It\u2019s this kind of acceptance of guidance and support that reflects what, after all, is the ultimate aim of efforts to improve integrity \u2013 better science. Researchers recognise they have a responsibility to produce the best research they can, but says Porter, as CRUK funded scientists that responsibility is even greater.<\/p>\n

\u201cWhen I speak to researchers at the Institute, it genuinely comes across they are mindful that being scientists funded by charitable donations brings home to them how important it is that their research is reliable. And I think that is really positive.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n

As a signatory to the Concordat to support research integrity, CRUK is committed to:<\/strong>
1.<\/strong> Upholding the highest standards of rigour and integrity in all aspects of research; both the research itself and any resulting publications.
2.<\/strong> Ensuring that research is conducted according to appropriate ethical, legal and professional frameworks, obligations and standards.
3.<\/strong> Supporting a research environment that is underpinned by a culture of integrity and based on good governance, best practice and support for the development of researchers.
4.<\/strong> Using transparent, timely, robust and fair processes to deal with allegations of research misconduct should they arise.
5.<\/strong> Working together to strengthen the integrity of research and to review progress regularly and openly.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Find out more:<\/strong><\/p>\n

More on this topic<\/h3>\n<\/p>\n

Source<\/a><\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Cancer Research UK has deepened its commitment to good research practice by becoming a signatory of the Concordat to Support Research Integrity. Here we speak with two Research Integrity Advisers at our institutes to find out why supporting scientists to be the best they can be is the only way to ensure quality research\u2026   […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5137],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-27300","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-world-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ogkologos.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27300","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ogkologos.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ogkologos.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ogkologos.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ogkologos.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=27300"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/ogkologos.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27300\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":45233,"href":"https:\/\/ogkologos.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27300\/revisions\/45233"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ogkologos.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=27300"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ogkologos.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=27300"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ogkologos.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=27300"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}