 |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
|
|
|
|
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 14
C=P1~ 3
1~ WORE~P
Art irIvitationa1 workshop was convened to develop principles arm
pro for petit scientific red sibility and ensurir~ quality
~ health sciences r~. Held In Win D.C., In September
1988, the workshop was organized by the IBM ~mnitt~ on the P~nsible
Correct of Poseurs arm cosponsored by the CX=nittee on Science,
Engineering, and Public Policy (C06EPUP), an entity JO fatly administered
by the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of
Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine.
The workshop was a productive means for the IOM Sony committee to
gather information and perspectives about stand ares and practices that
affect the conduct of research in the health sciences. Nore than 100
clinical and academic research scientists, government and university
officials, professional society officers, journal editors, an] members
of the press attended the workshop. An agenda and list of participants
are included as appendixes to this report.
After an opening plenary session, the participants met IN SIX
panels. Each panel explored a different set of discussion topics
designed to elicit perspectives and experiences about (1) laboratory
practices and standards, (2) clinical research practices and standards,
(3) institutional oversight, (4) education and training for research,
(5) academic and career advancement, and (6) authorship, referee, and
publication standards. Summaries of the panel discussions were prepared
by panel rapp~teurs following the workshop and are irKluded In the
appendixes to this report.
Before the wor}~h~p, the participants had received discussion papers
preE~rGx1 for each parcel. They also ~ aoived two bac3cgr~ nd papers
commissioned by the committee, arising Concerns about authorship
practices and the relevance of Good laboratory Practices (GLEs)
regulations to academic research.
me panels formulated more than 60 prcpcsals suggesting various
means to improve the quality of academic health sciences research. The
workshop panels also identified several key issues for further attention
in the fine] plenary session. These iSSUC£ are described briefly below.
KEY ISSUES
The Organization of the Research Unit
There was general agreement among the workshop participants that
current practices and policies of individu~d research centers need
14
OCR for page 15
special attention. He sharing and division of investigator are
insti~ior~ responsibilities for the Angrily and quality of Card
corx~uc~ ~ these awning ~ identified as an issue retrim review
Al analysis. For exude, Chid the reach cent; fo~ate their
An professional guideline or Chid these be bevels by Be
university or Fecal center on a broader ins Lions level? Bald
server ~ or mammal oversight of laboratory hers
improve qualifier? ~t pro w~lcl improve Her review of senior arx!
junior fatty I'- work? To is r~r~s~ble for the work conduct
a laboratory or clinical Cam outer?
Data Retention and Sharing
Any participants affirmed He importer of ensure an= by
institutional officers to rearm Eta as He primary means of
verifying ff m validity of questioned ~ a ~ ~ suits. & v ~ 1 panels
made proposals ~ this area, focusing on the n ~ for institutional
policies and procedures regarding Alec to investigator data and
minimal time limits for the retention of data.
The participants suggested that research institutions need policies
to address the Arrests of different parties- the institution,
principal investigator, postdoctoral fellows, students, and
collar orators--wish respect to the sharing of research data, materials,
and methods. Although there was extensive agreement around the
principle that institutions had a right to require data retention for
Canaan periods of ti~three years was cleanly sagest as a
traditions minis that is consistent with NIH guidelines-there was
Inch 1~ agreement about the rules under which an institution Chad
retire its irwestigators to share ~ data with others;.
~ cation, Training, and ~ntor~hip
=dh attention was focus on Anise that wculd improve the
truing of yap scientists art students. Scan workshop participants
made prc~sals to clarify Be roles of laboratory chiefs arx] dent
chairs in developing the caress of young facula anger:;. others
pry curricula refortify to require formal train In research
scat are practices for all science Serbs.
Authorship Practices
The participants expressed great interest in recent guidelines
and by Harvard Medical School suggesting limits on the n ~ of
publications to be considered in appointment and promotion decisions.
Many participants suggested that this principle should be incorporat
into funding and tenure decisions at other institutions. Others
cautioned that setting limits on publications in research evaluation
15
OCR for page 16
decisions sight have little effect on authorship practices. m ere was
consensus that journals as well as research institutions need to define
more clearly the criteria governing allocation of authorship and the
responsibilities for publishing retractions of faulty research.
Institutional Oversight
. ..
The workshop panel prepceals supported the need for formal
institutional policies and procedures to handle In of alleged
m~soonduct in science. They noted the particular difficulties in
carrying cat responsible notification and disclosure if investigations
are prematurely terminated with the resignation of an accused researcher
or if a private settlement is negotiated.
A few participants suggested that institutional data aunts could
improve the quality of academic research, but most agreed that this
approach could be very costly, could lead to an undesirable degree of
standardization of research, and could damage the collegiality of the
university. Several participants requested greater institutional review
of manuscripts submitted for publication to verify the authenticity of
the reported results and the contributions of the designated authors.
These suggestions: were challenge] by others who believed that such
institutional review would impose unnecessary restrictions on
investigator a~xtonc~my arm threats academic freecic~m.
me Effects; of ~ercialism on the Integrity of Academic ~s~
Several panels void concern that Ann cc~ication of research
results and sharing of materials were increasingly inhibited by -
~ial arm competitive interests of academic resealers. mese
cor~ns were di~uss~ in a preliminary manna, but He schedule of the
workshop did rot allow time for He devel~nt of Pacific proposals in
this area.
16
Representative terms from entire chapter:
institutional policies
Items in cart [0]
