Expert panel says new centre for research integrity would improve Canadian system

An expert panel charged with assessing the best approaches, mechanisms and practices for ensuring research integrity within universities says the formation of a Canadian Council for Research Integrity (CCRI) is Canada's best option for addressing gaps in the current system. The Expert Panel on Research Integrity, struck by the Council of Canadian Academies (CCA) on behalf of Industry Canada, concludes that such an office would complement the responsibility for enforcement and sanctions currently wielded by the granting councils and universities themselves.

The CCRI would round out a system-wide approach by providing services and information in the areas of promotion (definitions, values, principles) and prevention (best practices and mentoring) — increasingly critical functions in an era of enhanced privacy legislation. The CCRI option was favoured over two other approaches considered by the panel: a legislative approach currently in use in the US and assignment of all responsibilities regarding research integrity to the granting councils.

"We imagined that an ideal system for Canada would be the CCRI, responsible for the provision of confidential advice, advice on education best practices (and) gathering information from universities on the understanding that it would be distributed in national form without references to individuals or institutions," says Dr Paul Davenport, chair of the 14-member expert panel and president emeritus, Univ of Waterloo. "The American approach is legislation which is just not in our Canadian tradition. It's very bulky and awkward."

"Given the limited availability of data, it is difficult to accurately estimate the frequency of research misconduct in Canada and to know whether it is increasing or decreasing."

— CCA Expert Panel Report

As for increasing the tri-council's educational and advisory role, Davenport says, "it's hard to go to the body that's in charge of punishment in order to ask advice."

unveiled at CSPC

Entitled Honesty, Accountability and Trust: Fostering Research Integrity in Canada, the report was unveiled at the Canadian Science Policy Conference in Montreal last week. It envisions a new degree of cooperation among all actors in the publicly funded research enterprise and addresses four key gaps in the current system: lack of a systems-wide approach; no centralized function of information management and research; absence of an independent source of advice; and, no centralized approach to issues related to conflict of interest, incentives and privacy/transparency.

The expert panel report stems from a 2008 review of the existing policy framework and closely follows a 2009 report from Hickling Arthurs Low (HAL) which also included the CCRI among its list of options. The HAL Report was commissioned by the Canadian Research Integrity Committee representing 16 research and academic institutions including the three granting councils.

It noted, however, that of the options it considered — an evolving current system, office of an ombudsperson and CCRI — none adequately address the fact that neither government nor private sector fall within the jurisdiction of the main system.

It adds that an ombudsperson or a CCRI "would be a logical focal point for fielding calls from, and disseminating information to, both government and private sector researchers".

The granting councils will use both reports and other inputs to craft a definitive approach to research integrity that fuses the societal expectations of zero tolerance and privacy. What remains to be seen is whether the CCRI proposal will be embraced and implemented.

"The suggestion of the creation of any new body is always something you don't want to jump into ... We feel in many cases that the horizontal connecting of bodies is often a good approach and to minimize as much as possible the creation of new bodies," says Dr Chad Gaffield, president of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. "What we need help in — and the report emphasized that — is the two societal expectations of zero tolerance and privacy ... That is a much larger issue. We need to get around how we can respond to legitimate demands that we certainly share as councils."

R$