Relationships between the Survey of Organizational Research Climate (SORC) and self-reported research practices

The Survey of Organizational Research Climate (SORC) is a validated tool to facilitate promotion of research integrity and research best practices. This work uses the SORC to assess shared and individual perceptions of the research climate in universities and academic departments and relate these perceptions to desirable and undesirable research practices. An anonymous web- and mail-based survey was administered to randomly selected biomedical and social science faculty and postdoctoral fellows in the United States. Respondents reported their perceptions of the research climates at their universities and primary departments, and the frequency with which they engaged in desirable and undesirable research practices. More positive individual perceptions of the research climate in one's university or department were associated with higher likelihoods of desirable, and lower likelihoods of undesirable, research practices. Shared perceptions of the research climate tended to be similarly predictive of both desirable and undesirable research practices as individuals' deviations from these shared perceptions. Study results supported the central prediction that more positive SORC-measured perceptions of the research climate were associated with more positive reports of research practices. There were differences with respect to whether shared or individual climate perceptions were related to desirable or undesirable practices but the general pattern of results provide empirical evidence that the SORC is predictive of self-reported research behavior.

Development and validation of the Survey of Organizational Research Climate (SORC)

Development and targeting efforts by academic organizations to effectively promote research integrity can be enhanced if they are able to collect reliable data to benchmark baseline conditions, to assess areas needing improvement, and to subsequently assess the impact of specific initiatives. To date, no standardized and validated tool has existed to serve this need. A web- and mail-based survey was administered in the second half of 2009 to 2,837 randomly selected biomedical and social science faculty and postdoctoral fellows at 40 academic health centers in top-tier research universities in the United States. Measures included the Survey of Organizational Research Climate (SORC) as well as measures of perceptions of organizational justice. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses yielded seven subscales of organizational research climate, all of which demonstrated acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach's α ranging from 0.81 to 0.87) and adequate test-retest reliability (Pearson r ranging from 0.72 to 0.83). A broad range of correlations between the seven subscales and five measures of organizational justice (unadjusted regression coefficients ranging from 0.13 to 0.95) document both construct and discriminant validity of the instrument. The SORC demonstrates good internal (alpha) and external reliability (test-retest) as well as both construct and discriminant validity.

Innovation incentives or corrupt conflicts of interest? Moving beyond Jekyll and Hyde in regulating biomedical academic-industry relationships

The most contentious, unresolved issue in biomedicine in the last twenty-five years has been how to best address compensated partnerships between academic researchers and the pharmaceutical industry. Law and policy deliberately promote these partnerships through intellectual property law, research funding programs, and drug and device approval pathways while simultaneously condemning them through conflict-of-interest (COI) regulations. These regulations have not been subjected to the close scrutiny that is typically utilized in administrative law to evaluate and improve regulatory systems. This Article suggests that the solution to this standoff in biomedical law and policy lies in an informed, empirical approach. Such an approach must both recognize such partnerships' legal and practical variations, as well as classify them based on their benefit to innovation and their harm to research biases. Ultimately, this approach must facilitate administrative reforms that would convert what is now an inherently arbitrary, yet widespread, regulatory regime into an epistemically rich mechanism for distinguishing between harmful and beneficial partnerships.

Academic freedom and global health

There is a tension between the preservation of academic freedom and the economic context in which the university currently finds itself. This tension embodies serious threats to global health as a result of three overlapping phenomena which impede the production and diffusion of valuable knowledge about health. These phenomena, the privatisation, commercialisation and instrumentalisation of knowledge are identified and examined in this paper in relation to human rights and international morality.

Swabbing students: should universities be allowed to facilitate educational DNA testing?

Recognizing the profound need for greater patient and provider familiarity with personalized genomic medicine, many university instructors are including personalized genotyping as part of their curricula. During seminars and lectures students run polymerase chain reactions on their own DNA or evaluate their experiences using direct-to-consumer genetic testing services subsidized by the university. By testing for genes that may influence behavioral or health-related traits, however, such as alcohol tolerance and cancer susceptibility, certain universities have stirred debate on the ethical concerns raised by educational genotyping. Considering the potential for psychosocial harm and medically relevant outcomes, how far should university-facilitated DNA testing be permitted to go? The analysis here distinguishes among these learning initiatives and critiques their approaches to the ethical concerns raised by educational genotyping.

The university and the responsible conduct of research: who is responsible for what?

Research misconduct has been thoroughly discussed in the literature, but mainly in terms of definitions and prescriptions for proper conduct. Even when case studies are cited, they are generally used as a repository of "lessons learned." What has been lacking from this conversation is how the lessons of responsible conduct of research are imparted in the first place to graduate students, especially those in technical fields such as engineering. Nor has there been much conversation about who is responsible for what in training students in Responsible Conduct of Research or in allocating blame in cases of misconduct. This paper explores three seemingly disparate cases of misconduct-the 2004 plagiarism scandal at Ohio University; the famous Robert Millikan article of 1913, in which his reported data selection did not match his notebooks; and the 1990 fabrication scandal in Dr. Leroy Hood's research lab. Comparing these cases provides a way to look at the relationship between the graduate student (or trainee) and his/her advisor (a relationship that has been shown to be the most influential one for the student) as well as at possibly differential treatment for established researchers and researchers-in-training, in cases of misconduct. This paper reflects on the rights and responsibilities of research advisers and their students and offers suggestions for clarifying both those responsibilities and the particularly murky areas of research-conduct guidelines.

Patenting and licensing of university research: promoting innovation or undermining academic values?

Since the 1980s in the US and the 1990s in Europe, patenting and licensing activities by universities have massively increased. This is strongly encouraged by governments throughout the Western world. Many regard academic patenting as essential to achieve 'knowledge transfer' from academia to industry. This trend has far-reaching consequences for access to the fruits of academic research and so the question arises whether the current policies are indeed promoting innovation or whether they are instead a symptom of a pro-intellectual property (IP) culture which is blind to adverse effects. Addressing this question requires both empirical analysis (how real is the link between academic patenting and licensing and 'development' of academic research by industry?) and normative assessment (which justifications are given for the current policies and to what extent do they threaten important academic values?). After illustrating the major rise of academic patenting and licensing in the US and Europe and commenting on the increasing trend of 'upstream' patenting and the focus on exclusive as opposed to non-exclusive licences, this paper will discuss five negative effects of these trends. Subsequently, the question as to why policymakers seem to ignore these adverse effects will be addressed. Finally, a number of proposals for improving university policies will be made.

Institutional Academic Industry Relationship: Results of Interviews with University Leaders

The purpose of this study was to explore qualitatively the nature, consequences and management of institutional academic industry relationships (IAIRs) in the life and health sciences. The results of our interviews suggest that in the institutions we visited IAIRs are common and deeply embedded in the academic enterprise both among institutional officials and the organization itself. Many believe these relationships have potential benefits for the research and education mission while creating the potential for conflicts of interest. Further tracking and study of the IAIRs is required to understand and anticipate the full effects of these relationships on the scientific enterprise in the United States.

Profits and plagiarism: the case of medical ghostwriting

This paper focuses on medical ghostwriting in the United States. I argue that medical ghostwriting often involves plagiarism and, in those cases, can be treated as an act of research misconduct by both the federal government and research institutions. I also propose several anti-ghostwriting measures, including: 1) journals should implement guarantor policies so that researchers may be better held accountable for their work; 2) research institutions and the federal government should explicitly prohibit medical ghostwriting and outline appropriate penalties; and 3) a publicly available database should be created to record researchers' ethics violations.

The social construction of copyright ethics and values

This study is based on analysis of copyright policies and 26 interviews with science and engineering faculty at three research universities on the topic of copyright beliefs, values, and practices, with emphasis on copyright of instructional materials, courseware, tools, and texts. Given that research universities now emphasize increasing external revenue flows through marketing of intellectual property, we expected copyright to follow the path of patents and lead to institutional emphasis of policies and practices that enhanced universities' intellectual property portfolios, accompanied by an increase in copyrighting by professors. Although this pattern occurred with regard to institutions, professors offered a more varied pattern, with some fully participating in commercialization of copyright and embracing entrepreneurial values, while others resisted or subverted commercial activity in favor of traditional science and engineering values.

The ESRC research ethics framework and research ethics review at UK universities: rebuilding the Tower of Babel REC by REC

The history of the National Health Service research ethics system in the UK and some of the key drivers for its change into the present system are described. It is suggested that the key drivers were the unnecessary delay of research, the complexity of the array of processes and contradictions between research ethics committee (REC) decisions. It is then argued that the primary drivers for this change are and will be replicated by the systems of research ethics review being put in place at UK universities in response to the Economic and Social Research Council research ethics framework. It is argued that this is particularly problematic for multi-centre review and for researchers who switch institutions. Finally, some potential solutions to this problem and their feasibility are discussed.

Who is buying bioethics research?

Growing ties to private industry have prompted many to question the impartiality of academic bioethicists who receive financial support from for-profit corporations in exchange for ethics-related services and research. To the extent that corporate sponsors may view bioethics as little more than a way to strengthen public relations or avoid potential controversy, close ties to industry may pose serious threats to professional independence. New sources of support from private industry may also divert bioethicists from pursuing topics of greater social importance, such as the needs of medically underserved communities. To inform ongoing debates about the financing of bioethics and its transparency to those concerned about potential sources of bias, we examined funding disclosures appearing in original research reports in major bioethics journals. Reviewing research published over a 15-year period, we found little evidence that for-profit corporations are influencing bioethics research directly. Instead, we found evidence that a great number of organizations, both public and private, support bioethics research. These findings suggest that worries about the cooption of bioethics research by a few interested stakeholders are greatly overstated and undersupported by available data.

Expanding responsible conduct of research instruction across the university

During the past two decades, serious intellectual effort by governmental agencies, research institutions, professional societies, and educators has promoted education in the responsible conduct of research (RCR), defined present standards of RCR, and shaped the debate on how best to promote research integrity in the biomedical sciences. However, revisions to the Federal Policy on Research Misconduct in 2000 specifically expanded the policy's scope to include disciplines outside the biomedical and behavioral sciences, thus creating a need for RCR education in such fields as economics, education, mathematics, and linguistics. Even as some institutions have applied the Office of Research Integrity's (ORI) framework for RCR instruction university-wide, academic administrators and faculty from fields beyond the biomedical sciences have rightly noted that several of ORI's nine core instructional areas are tangential or irrelevant to the many disciplines whose research practices differ substantially from those of the biomedical sciences. These disciplines can benefit from the rich history of discourse, policy making, and education in RCR in the biomedical sciences, but they must not simply apply the standards of biomedical and behavioral science to their own, quite different research. Creative leadership from these newly included disciplines is needed to define standards of ethical research in their areas, prepare relevant educational materials, and promote a multidisciplinary perspective on research integrity across the university. The authors suggest that the scope of RCR education for federally funded research in other areas be addressed on two levels: (1) the content of generally applicable RCR education, and (2) the special, discipline-specific content.

AGOG Committee Opinion No. 370: Institutional Responsibility to Provide Legal Representation

Hospitals, academic institutions, professional corporations, and other health care organizations should have policies and procedures by which alleged violations of professional behavior can be reported and investigated. These institutions should adopt policies on legal representation and indemnification to protect those whose responsibilities in managing such investigations may expose them to potentially costly legal actions. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' Committee on Ethics supports the position of the American Association of University Professors regarding institutional responsibility for legal demands on faculty.

Virtue blindness and hegemony: qualitative evidence of negotiated ethical frameworks in the social language of university research administration

The study used critical discourse analysis (CDA) to elucidate normative structures of ethical behavior in university research administration which may be useful for knowledge transference to future studies of research integrity. Research administration appears to support integrity in the research environment through four very strong normative domains: (1) respect for authority structures; (2) respect for institutional boundaries; (3) professionalism; and (4) a strong sense of virtue. The strong norm structure of research administration, however, appears to be threatened by the fifth domain, (5) political power, which is inhabited by prestigious faculty with tenure, top-down authority misalignment, and the power for some institutional members to circumvent the system. The strong normative structure also appears threatened by the overall consequentiality of the regulatory environment, and shifting contexts that threaten personal virtue. In the end, the normative structure is fluid, politically acquiescent to power, and ambiguous. Although the professional core of the norm structure is strong, the strengths and weaknesses in the overall system can be connected to poorly constructed elements of the institutional environment.

Teaching Spiritual Care in a Public Institution: Legal Implications, Standards of Practice, and Ethical Obligations

This article reviews the status of teaching spiritual care in a public institution of higher education. The resurgence of interest in spiritual care across the United States has spurred interest and expanded theories of spirituality within the nursing profession. Nursing education rose to the challenge of teaching spiritual care theories and interventions to students, despite the absence of policy to guide educators. However, differences between public and private educational institutions have led to variations in the teaching of spiritual care. In addition to the legal implications stemming from the need for separation of church and state, nurses must also be aware of their ethical obligations in order to teach spiritual care concepts appropriately. The accrediting agencies for nursing education programs and hospitals, as well as state licensure boards, foster high expectations for nurses to provide spiritual care. A call for research and policy development to guide nurse educators is also addressed in this article.

"It's like Tuskegee in reverse": a case study of ethical tensions in institutional review board review of community-based participatory research

Community-based participatory research (CBPR) addresses the social justice dimensions of health disparities by engaging marginalized communities, building capacity for action, and encouraging more egalitarian relationships between researchers and communities. CBPR may challenge institutionalized academic practices and the understandings that inform institutional review board deliberations and, indirectly, prioritize particular kinds of research. We present our attempt to study, as part of a CBPR partnership, cigarette sales practices in an inner-city community. We use critical and communitarian perspectives to examine the implications of the refusal of the university institutional review board (in this case, the University of California, San Francisco) to approve the study. CBPR requires expanding ethical discourse beyond the procedural, principle-based approaches common in biomedical research settings. The current ethics culture of academia may sometimes serve to protect institutional power at the expense of community empowerment.