The Legal Consequences of Research Misconduct: False Investigators and Grant Proposals

In a survey on research misconduct, roughly 20% of the respondents admitted that they have submitted federal grant proposals that include scholars as research participants even though those scholars were not expected to contribute to the research effort. This manuscript argues that adding such false investigators is illegal, violating multiple federal statutes including the False Statements Act (18 U.S.C. §1001), the False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. §3729), and False, Fictitious, or Fraudulent Claims (18 U.S.C. §287). Moreover, it is not only the offending academics and the false investigators that face civil and criminal penalties because administrators may also be liable if they sign off on proposals and are in a position to know that false investigators might be included. Policy recommendations that should reduce the use of false investigators include changing institutional cultures, better training and oversight of the responsible conduct of research, and, most importantly, making all grant reviews double blind.

Academic Advocacy: Opportunities to Influence Health and Science Policy Under U.S. Lobbying Law

Medical school faculty and their colleagues in schools of nursing, public health, social work, and elsewhere often research issues of critical importance to health and science policy. When academics engage with government policymakers to advocate for change based on their research, however, they may find themselves engaged in "lobbying," thereby entering a complex environment of legal requirements and institutional policies that they may not fully understand. To promote academic advocacy, this article explains what is and is not legally permitted when it comes to engaging with policymakers and encourages academic institutions to facilitate permissible advocacy activities.U.S. law permits academic researchers to conduct certain types of policy-focused advocacy without running afoul of legal restrictions on lobbying. Academics acting in their personal capacities and with their own resources may freely engage with policymakers in any branch of government to provide their expertise and advocate for desired outcomes. When acting in their professional capacities, academics are free to engage in most advocacy activities directed to the executive and judicial branches, and they also may advocate to influence legislation and legislators within certain limits that are particularly relevant to academic work. In all cases, academics must take care to not use restricted funds for lobbying.Academic researchers have an important role to play in advancing evidence-based health and science policy. They should familiarize themselves with legal restrictions and opportunities to influence policy based on their research, and their institutions should actively support them in doing so.

How do Chinese universities address research integrity and misconduct? A review of university documents

BACKGROUND

Scientific researchers are expected to follow the professional norms in their own domain. With a growing number of scientific publications retracted and research misconduct cases revealed in recent years, Chinese biomedical research integrity is questioned. As institutions educating and training future researchers, universities and the guidance they provide are important for the research quality and integrity of the country. Therefore, through a review of the guidance and policy documents on research integrity in Chinese universities, this work aims to investigate how the professional norms are specified in these documents.

METHODS

After a stratified sampling, 53 universities were selected. Their guidance and policy documents on research integrity were collected via a web search of their official websites. The search was confirmed by these universities. Then the content of all the collected documents were analyzed using inductive content analysis.

RESULTS

118 active university documents were collected and analyzed. Most of the Chinese universities we investigated had their own guidance or policy on research integrity. They listed principles or examples of desired and undesired academic practices, investigation procedures and punishments of academic misconduct, and put forward measures to promote research integrity. Differences on specific practices and principles were observed between university groups and with European university documents.

CONCLUSION

Despite the discrepancy they have, all these documents were designed to promote research integrity and cultivate a good research environment in Chinese biomedical domain. Nevertheless, there is still room for improvement, for example, through more consultation of international guidance.

Research ethics oversight in Norway: structure, function, and challenges

BACKGROUND

While the development and evaluation of clinical ethics services in Norway has been recognized internationally, the country's research ethics infrastructure at times may have been less well developed. In 2016, media interest in the controversial nature of some health services research and pilot studies highlighted gaps in the system with certain types of research having no clear mechanisms through which they may be given due independent consideration. It is not clear that new legislation, implemented in 2017, will address this problem. We explore relevant law, committee scope, and the function of the system. We show that 1) Norwegian law provides for ethics assessment for all forms of health research; 2) regional RECs in Norway might not have always enforced this provision, considering some interventional health services research to be outside their remit; and 3) Norwegian law does not explicity provide for local/university RECs, meaning that, in practice, there may be no readily accessible mechanisms for the assessment of research that is excluded by regional RECs. This may include health services research, pilot studies, and undergraduate research. New 2017 legislation has no effect on this specifically but focuses on institutions regulating researcher activity. This may place researchers in the difficult situation of on one hand, needing to hold to recognized ethical standards, while on the other, not readily having access to independent committee scrutiny to facilitate consistent operation with these standards.

CONCLUSION

To support researchers in Norway and to protect the public, it may be necessary either to widen the regional RECs' remit or to make legislative alterations that permit and do not discourage the existence of local RECs.

Research Information for Reasonable People

In 2017, federal officials issued a revised version of the Common Rule, the federal regulations that govern much of the human subject research conducted in the United States. Two provisions on information disclosure have reportedly provoked confusion among researchers and people responsible for research oversight. These provisions incorporate the familiar and foundational legal concept known as the reasonable person standard, applying this to research disclosure. Although other, long-standing Common Rule provisions require reasonableness judgments, the new provisions differ in that they require reasonableness to be judged from the ordinary person's perspective instead of the perspective of scientists, clinicians, and other experts generally involved in designing and reviewing human studies.

Rethinking 3R strategies: Digging deeper into AnimalTestInfo promotes transparency in in vivo biomedical research

In the European Union (EU), animal welfare is seen as a matter of great importance. However, with respect to animal experimentation, European citizens feel quite uninformed. The European Directive 2010/63/EU for the protection of laboratory animals aims for greater transparency and requires that a comprehensible, nontechnical summary (NTS) of each authorised research project involving animals is published by the respective Member State. However, the NTSs remain sleeping beauties if their contents are not easily and systematically accessible. The German web-based NTS database AnimalTestInfo is a unique channel for scientists to communicate their work, and provides the opportunity for large-scale analyses of planned animal studies to inform researchers and the public. For an in-depth meta-analysis, we classified the duly completed NTSs submitted to AnimalTestInfo in 2014 and 2015 according to the International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD) system. Indexing the NTSs with ICD codes provided a fine-grained overview of the prospective uses of experimental animals. Using this approach, transparency, especially for highly controversial animal research involving, for example, nonhuman primates, is fostered, as it enables pinpointing the envisaged beneficiary down to the level of the addressed disease. Moreover, research areas with many planned projects involving animals can be specified in detail. The development of 3R (replacement, reduction, and refinement) measures in these research areas may be most efficient, as a large number of experimental animals would benefit from it. Indexing NTSs with ICD codes can support governments and funding agencies in advancing target-oriented funding of 3R research. Data drawn from NTSs can provide a basis for the development, validation, and implementation of directed 3R strategies as well as guidance for rethinking the role of animal research models.

The Role of the Virtuous Investigator in Protecting Human Research Subjects

In his famous 1966 New England Journal of Medicine article, Henry Beecher concluded that a critical safeguard for protecting human participants, more reliable than informed consent, was the "presence of an intelligent, informed, conscientious, compassionate, responsible investigator." This article examines Beecher's appeal to reliance on the "virtuous" investigator in light of the critical role that investigators play in research ethics and the systems of research protections that have been developed since Beecher's writing. It addresses the extent to which research ethics rely on virtuous investigators; the meaning of virtuous, as distinct from compliance with the rules and regulations that guide ethical research; the particular virtues that it might be important for investigators to have; and the impact of the existing system of human subjects protections on the virtuous investigator. The virtuous investigator who is motivated to take ethical responsibilities seriously is an essential safeguard for the protection of human research participants and an important complement to the system of oversight protections. However, since the current human subjects protection system does not promote virtue or ethical resourcefulness by investigators, attention to enhancing a culture of professional responsibility might serve to forge a synergy between the protections afforded by the current oversight system and those provided by the virtuous investigator.

What should be disclosed to research participants?

Debate surrounding the SUPPORT study highlights the absence of consensus regarding what information should be disclosed to potential research participants. Some commentators endorse the view that clinical research should be subject to high disclosure standards, even when it is testing standard-of-care interventions. Others argue that trials assessing standard-of-care interventions need to disclose only the information that is disclosed in the clinical care setting. To resolve this debate, it is important to identify the ethical concerns raised by clinical research and determine what consent process is needed to address them.

Curbing misconduct in the pharmaceutical industry: insights from behavioral ethics and the behavioral approach to law

Two insights of psychology on which we would like to draw are that people react to law in more complex ways than rational-choice models assume and that good people sometimes do bad things. With that starting point, this article provides a behavioral perspective on some of the factors that policymakers seeking to reduce the level of misconduct in the pharmaceutical industry should consider. Effective regulation and enforcement need to address the following questions: Who are the regulation's targeted actors - researchers or executives? Are the regulations directed toward research or marketing activities? Is the misconduct a product of explicit rational choice or implicit processes of which the actor is unaware? Is it reasonable to address all types of misconduct using the same approach? Certain misconduct - particularly by researchers - is due to automatic, intuitive, and unconscious decisions and needs to be addressed through different means than those used to address misconduct due to controlled, deliberate decisions. This article therefore recommends using different sorts of regulation depending on the context. It suggests more tailored enforcement mechanisms that will be sensitive to the pharmaceutical researchers' unique work motivations and to their awareness or lack of awareness of their own misconduct.

The future of conflicts of interest: a call for professional standards

Stricter policies regarding conflicts of interest policies will increase transparency but have limitations and unintended adverse consequences. Physicians and the medical profession should take the lead in developing policies, rather than responding to external regulations. The goal is to reduce significant risks of undue influence, while keeping the burdens and opportunity costs of policies acceptable.

Accountability and pediatric physician-researchers: are theoretical models compatible with Canadian lived experience?

Physician-researchers are bound by professional obligations stemming from both the role of the physician and the role of the researcher. Currently, the dominant models for understanding the relationship between physician-researchers' clinical duties and research duties fit into three categories: the similarity position, the difference position and the middle ground. The law may be said to offer a fourth "model" that is independent from these three categories.These models frame the expectations placed upon physician-researchers by colleagues, regulators, patients and research participants. This paper examines the extent to which the data from semi-structured interviews with 30 physician-researchers at three major pediatric hospitals in Canada reflect these traditional models. It seeks to determine the extent to which existing models align with the described lived experience of the pediatric physician-researchers interviewed.Ultimately, we find that although some physician-researchers make references to something like the weak version of the similarity position, the pediatric-researchers interviewed in this study did not describe their dual roles in a way that tightly mirrors any of the existing theoretical frameworks. We thus conclude that either physician-researchers are in need of better training regarding the nature of the accountability relationships that flow from their dual roles or that models setting out these roles and relationships must be altered to better reflect what we can reasonably expect of physician-researchers in a real-world environment.

Incidental findings in data-intensive postgenomics science and legal liability of clinician-researchers: ready for vaccinomics?

Vaccinomics encompasses a host of multiomics approaches to characterize variability in host-environment (including pathogens) interactions, with a view to a more directed or personalized use of vaccine-based health interventions. Although vaccinomics has the potential to reduce adverse effects and increase efficacy of vaccines, the use of high-throughput, data-intensive technologies may also lead to unanticipated discoveries beyond the initial aims of a vaccinomics study--discoveries that could be highly significant to the health of the research participants. How do clinician-researchers faced with such information have to act? What are the attendant legal duties in such circumstances and how do they differ from the duties of non-clinician researchers? Together with a critical analysis of the international laws and policies framing researchers' duties with regard to incidental findings, this article also draws from Quebec's civil law--with its rich jurisprudence on clinician and researcher liability--as a case study to evaluate the potential legal implications associated with vaccinomics investigations. Given previous lessons learned from other data-intensive sciences, the education of clinician-researchers with regard to their roles, limitations, and legal obligations remains an important strategy to prevent potential legal complications and civil liability in vaccinomics research in the postgenomics era.