Research integrity and scientific misconduct: International guidelines, national standards and cooperative research. Ethical and legal reflections

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.33448/rsd-v10i9.18219

Keywords:

Bioethics; Biolaw; Research Integrity; Ethics in Research; Scientific Misconduct; Civil Law; Criminal Law; Comparative International Law; Forensic sciences.

Abstract

Research integrity is a subject of crucial importance when it comes to scientific investigation, and has been receiving more and more attention, both within the Academy and in society in general. In Brazil, for example, criminal legislation protects copyright, defining copyright infringement as crime. Research funding agencies, such as the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) and the São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) have drawn up guides to good practices in research. There are several forms of the so-called scientific misconduct. This may have a larger or smaller scope depending on the region or legislative delimitation considered. This work carried out a survey of international guidelines and national standards on research integrity and scientific misconduct in several countries. It found that, despite established international guidelines, it is clear that the understanding about research integrity principles and what is considered scientific misconduct differ between different (and often neighboring) countries. With research being more and more developed in international cooperation, this can generate different consequences for the same fact, or similar facts – which can be considered as scientific misconduct or disrespect for research integrity in one country and not in another. Or: the applied sanction may be more severe in one place than in another. Furthermore, some researchers, working on the same project, in international cooperation, may be punished in their countries of origin, and others do not. This is a situation of ethical, bioethical and legal questioning that needs answers.

References

Anderson, M. S. (2018) Shifting perspectives on Research Integrity. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 13(5), 459–460.

Araújo, J. (2017) Má conduta científica: dados recentes e sua relação com a credibilidade científica. In: Cassimiro M, Diós-Borges MMP (Orgs.). Integridade Científica, Saúde Pública, Bioética e Educação em Saúde no Instituto Oswaldo Cruz (pp. 139-150). Editora Fi.

Armond, A. C. V., Gordijn, B., Lewis, J., Hossein, M., Bodnár, J. K., Holm, S. & Kakuk, P. (2021). A scoping review of the literature featuring research ethics and research integrity cases. BMC Med Ethics, 22:50.

Bonn, N.A., Godecharle, S. & Dierickx K. (2017). European Universities’ Guidance on Research Integrity and Misconduct: Accessibility, Approaches, and Content. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 12(1), 33–44.

Bouter, L. (2020). What Research Institutions Can Do to Foster Research Integrity. Science and Engineering Ethics, 26, 2363–2369.

Brasil. Conselho Nacional de Saúde. (2012) Resolução n. 466, de 12 de dezembro de 2012. http://conselho.saude.gov.br/resolucoes/2012/Reso466.pdf.

Brasil. Conselho Nacional de Saúde. (2016) Resolução n. 510, de 07 de abril de 2016. http://conselho.saude.gov.br/resolucoes/2016/Reso510.pdf

Brasil. (1940) Decreto-lei n. 2.848, de 07 de dezembro de 1940. Código Penal. http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/decreto-lei/del2848compilado.htm

Brasil. (2008). Lei 11.794, de 8 de outubro de 2008. http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2007-2010/2008/lei/l11794.htm.

Bülow, W. & Helgesson, G. (2019). Criminalization of scientific misconduct. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 22:245–252.

Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico - CNpQ. Diretrizes básicas para a integridade na atividade científica. 2011. https://www.gov.br/cnpq/pt-br/composicao/comissao-de-integridade.

Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior – CAPES. (2011). Orientações Capes - Combate ao plágio. 04 de janeiro de 2011. file:///C:/Users/Monica/Downloads/Orientacao%20Capes2011.Plagio%20(1).pdf.

Davies, S. R. (2019). An Ethics of the System: Talking to Scientists About Research Integrity. Science and Engineering Ethics, 25:1235–1253.

Desmond. H. & Dierickx, K. (2021). Research integrity codes of conduct in Europe: Understanding the divergences. Bioethics, 35:414–428.

Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (2014). Código de Boas Práticas Científicas. Fapesp.

Fundação Osvaldo Cruz. (2019). Guia de Integridade em Pesquisa da Fiocruz. Fiocruz.

Godecharle, S., Nemery, B. & Dierickx, K. (2014). Heterogeneity in European Research Integrity Guidance: Relying on Values or Norms? Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 9(3), 79–90.

Hong Kong Principles. (2019). Disponível em: https://www.wcrif.org/guidance/hong-kong-principles. Acesso em 11 de julho de 2021.

Jia, H. (2018). China gets serious about research integrity. Disponível em: https://www.natureindex.com/news-blog/china-gets-serious-about-research-integrity Acesso em 21 de fevereiro de 2021.

Larigot, L. (2019). Intégrité scientifique et recherche Vers un (ré)apprentissage pour prévenir les inconduites scientifiques involontaires? Med Sci, 35(8-9), 693-696.

Li, D. & Cornelis, G. (2020) Defining and Handling Research Misconduct: A Comparison Between Chinese and European Institutional Policies. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 15(4), 302-319.

Mejlgaard, N., Bouter, L. M., Gaskell, G., Kavouras, P., Allum, N., Bendtsen, A-K., Charitidis, C. A., Claesen, N., Dierickx, K., Domaradzka, A., Elizondo, A. R., Foeger, N., Hiney, M., Kaltenbrunner, W., Labib, K., Marušić, A., Sorensen, M. P., Ravn, T., Ščepanović, R., Tijdink J. K. & Veltr, G. A. (2020). Research integrity: nine ways to move from talk to Walk. Nature, 586(7829),358-360.

Moher, D., Bouter, L., Kleinert, S., Glasziou, P., Sham, M. H., Barbour, V., Coriat, A-M., Foeger, N. & Dirnagl, U. (2020) The Hong Kong Principles for assessing researchers: Fostering research integrity. PLoS Biol, 18(7), e3000737.

Montreal Statement on Research Integrity in Cross-Boundary Research Collaborations. (2013). https://wcrif.org/documents/354-montreal-statement-english/file.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2017). Fostering Integrity in Research. The National Academies Press.

O’Gradymar, C. (2021) What is research misconduct? European countries can’t agree. Science Magazine. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/03/what-research-misconduct-european-countries-can-t-agree.

Pereira, A. S., Shitsuka, D. M., Parreira, F. J. & Shitsuka, R. (2018). Metodologia da pesquisa científica. [e-book]. Santa Maria. Ed. UAB/NTE/UFSM.

Pickett, J. T. & Roche, S. P. (2018). Questionable, objectionable or criminal? Public opinion on data fraud and selective reporting in science. Science and Engineering Ethics, 24, 151–171.

Rajkumar, S. V. & Sampathkumar, P. (2020). Leaks of Clinical Trial Data and Research Integrity. Mayo Clin Proc., 95(7), 1318-1319.

Research integrity is much more than misconduct. (2019). Nature, 570(7759), 5.

Resnik, D. B., Neal, T., Raymond, A. & Kissling, G. E. (2015). Research misconduct definitionsadopted by U.S. research institutions. Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance, 22(1), 14-21.

Resnik, D. B., Elliott, K. C., Soranno, P. A. & Smith, E. M. (2017). Data-Intensive Science and Research Integrity. Accountability in Research, 24, 344-358.

Resnik, D. B. & Elliott, K. C. (2019). Value-entanglement and the integrity of scientific research. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 75,1–11.

Revista FAPESP. Ética. Disponível em: https://revistapesquisa.fapesp.br/tag/etica/ Acesso em 20 de junho de 2021.

Shamoo, A. E. & Resnik, D. B. (2015). Responsible Conduct of Research. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Silva, A.F. & Coelho, K. (2020). Integridade académica e plágio. Como levar à mudança dentro e fora da sala de aula? In: Novo A, Nobre A, Simão J, Pereira P. (Coords.) Plágio e integridade académica na sociedade da informação. (pp. 68-77). Lisboa: Universidade Aberta.

Simões, E. (2018). A declaração de Singapura e a questão da integridade ética na pesquisa científica. Thaumazein, 11(22), 63-83.

Singapore Statement on Research Integrity. (2010). Disponível em: https://www.wcrif.org/documents/327-singapore-statement-a4size/file Acesso em: 30 de junho de 2021.

Steneck, N. H. (2007). ORI Introduction to the Responsible Conduct of Research. Rockville:US Dept. of Health and Human Services.

The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. (2017). Berlim: ALLEA - All European Academies.

Tijdink, J. K., Bouter, L. M., Veldkamp, C. L., van de Vem, P. M., Wicherts, J. M. & Smulders, Y. M. (2016). Personality Traits Are Associated with Research Misbehavior in Dutch Scientists: A Cross-Sectional Study. PLoS One, 11, e0163251.

UK Research Integrity Office. (2020). Recommended Checklist for Research Communities During the COVID-19 Pandemic for both existing and new research. UK Research Integrity Office.

UK Research Integrity Office. (2009). Code of practice for research: Promoting good practice and preventing misconduct. UK Research Integrity Office.

UK Research and Innovation. (2013). UKRI Policy and Guidelines on Governance of Good Research Conduct. https://www.ukri.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/UKRI-050321-PolicyGuidelinesGovernanceOfGoodResearchConduct.pdf

United States. (2000) Office of Science and Technology Policy. Notification of Final Policy. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2000-12-06/pdf/00-30852.pdf .

United States. (2020). The Office of Research Integrity (ORI). https://ori.hhs.gov/about-ori.

Published

31/07/2021

How to Cite

SERRA, M. da C.; PENTEADO, V. P.; BARBOSA, A. C. S.; FERNANDES, C. M. da S. Research integrity and scientific misconduct: International guidelines, national standards and cooperative research. Ethical and legal reflections. Research, Society and Development, [S. l.], v. 10, n. 9, p. e46110918219, 2021. DOI: 10.33448/rsd-v10i9.18219. Disponível em: https://rsdjournal.org/index.php/rsd/article/view/18219. Acesso em: 23 sep. 2021.

Issue

Section

Human and Social Sciences