Research Ethics and Commercial Drug Development: When Integrity Threatens Profitability

Étude de cas / Case study

A case study approach to estimating the burden of research misconduct in publicly funded medical research

The economic impact of research misconduct in medical research has been unexplored. While research misconduct in publicly funded medical research has increasingly been the object of discussion, public policy debate, government and institutional action, and scientific research, the costs of research misconduct have been unexamined. The author develops a model to estimate the per case cost of research misconduct, specifically the costs of fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism, in publicly funded medical research. Using the database of Research Misconduct Findings maintained by the Office of Research Integrity, Department of Health and Human Services, the model is used to estimate costs of research misconduct in public funded medical research among faculty during the period 2000-2005.^

Access to essential medicines: Public health and international law

Historically, there have been intense conflicts over the ownership and exploitation of pharmaceutical drugs and diagnostic tests dealing with infectious diseases. Throughout the 1980’s, there was much scientific, legal, and ethical debate about which scientific group should be credited with the discovery of the human immunodeficiency virus, and the invention of the blood test devised to detect antibodies to the virus. In May 1983, Luc Montagnier, Françoise Barré-Sinoussi, and other French scientists from the Pasteur Institute in Paris, published a paper in Science, detailing the discovery of a virus called lymphadenopathy (LAV). A scientific rival, Robert Gallo of the National Cancer Institute, identified the AIDS virus and published his findings in the May 1984 issue of Science. In May 1985, the United States Patent and Trademark Office awarded the American patent for the AIDS blood test to Gallo and the Department of Health and Human Services. In December 1985, the Institut Pasteur sued the Department of Health and Human Services, contending that the French were the first to identify the AIDS virus and to invent the antibody test, and that the American test was dependent upon the French research. In March 1987, an agreement was brokered by President Ronald Reagan and French Prime Minister Jacques Chirac, which resulted in the Department of Health and Human Services and the Institut Pasteur sharing the patent rights to the blood test for AIDS. In 1992, the Federal Office of Research Integrity found that Gallo had committed scientific misconduct, by falsely reporting facts in his 1984 scientific paper. A subsequent investigation by the National Institutes of Health, the United States Congress, and the US attorney-general cleared Gallo of any wrongdoing. In 1994, the United States government and French government renegotiated their agreement regarding the AIDS blood test patent, in order to make the distribution of royalties more equitable... The dispute between Luc Montagnier and Robert Gallo was not an isolated case of scientific rivalry and patent races. It foreshadowed further patent conflicts over research in respect of HIV/AIDS. Michael Kirby, former Justice of the High Court of Australia diagnosed a clash between two distinct schools of philosophy - ‘scientists of the old school... working by serendipity with free sharing of knowledge and research’, and ‘those of the new school who saw the hope of progress as lying in huge investments in scientific experimentation.’ Indeed, the patent race between Robert Gallo and Luc Montagnier has been a precursor to broader trade disputes over access to essential medicines in the 1990s and 2000s. The dispute between Robert Gallo and Luc Montagnier captures in microcosm a number of themes of this book: the fierce competition for intellectual property rights; the clash between sovereign states over access to medicines; the pressing need to defend human rights, particularly the right to health; and the need for new incentives for research and development to combat infectious diseases as both an international and domestic issue.

La distribution ‘juste’ de la signature savante dans les collaborations de recherche multidisciplinaire en sciences de la santé

L’auteur qui appose son nom à une publication universitaire sera reconnu pour sa contribution à la recherche et devra également en assumer la responsabilité. Il existe divers types d’agencements pouvant être utilisés afin de nommer les auteurs et souligner l’ampleur de leur contribution à ladite recherche. Par exemple, les auteurs peuvent être nommés en ordre décroissant selon l’importance de leurs contributions, ce qui permet d’allouer davantage de mérite et de responsabilité aux premiers auteurs (à l’instar des sciences de la santé) ou bien les individus peuvent être nommés en ordre alphabétique, donnant une reconnaissance égale à tous (tel qu’on le note dans certains domaines des sciences sociales). On observe aussi des pratiques émergeant de certaines disciplines ou des champs de recherche (tel que la notion d’auteur correspondant, ou directeur de recherche nommé à la fin de la liste d’auteurs). En science de la santé, lorsque la recherche est de nature multidisciplinaire, il existe différentes normes et pratiques concernant la distribution et l’ordre de la signature savante, ce qui peut donner lieu à des désaccords, voire à des conflits au sein des équipes de recherche. Même si les chercheurs s’entendent pour dire que la signature savante devrait être distribué de façon ‘juste’, il n’y a pas de consensus sur ce que l’on qualifie de ‘juste’ dans le contexte des équipes de recherche multidisciplinaire. Dans cette thèse, nous proposons un cadre éthique pour la distribution juste de la signature savante dans les équipes multidisciplinaires en sciences de la santé. Nous présentons une critique de la documentation sur la distribution de la signature savante en recherche. Nous analysons les enjeux qui peuvent entraver ou compliquer une distribution juste de la signature savante tels que les déséquilibres de pouvoir, les conflits d’intérêts et la diversité de cultures disciplinaires. Nous constatons que les normes internationales sont trop vagues; par conséquent, elles n’aident pas les chercheurs à gérer la complexité des enjeux concernant la distribution de la signature savante. Cette limitation devient particulièrement importante en santé mondiale lorsque les chercheurs provenant de pays développés collaborent avec des chercheurs provenant de pays en voie de développement. Afin de créer un cadre conceptuel flexible en mesure de s’adapter à la diversité des types de recherche multidisciplinaire, nous proposons une approche influencée par le Contractualisme de T.M. Scanlon. Cette approche utilise le respect mutuel et la force normative de la raison comme fondation, afin de justifier l’application de principes éthiques. Nous avons ainsi développé quatre principes pour la distribution juste de la signature savante en recherche: le mérite, la juste reconnaissance, la transparence et la collégialité. Enfin, nous proposons un processus qui intègre une taxonomie basée sur la contribution, afin de délimiter les rôles de chacun dans le projet de recherche. Les contributions peuvent alors être mieux comparées et évaluées pour déterminer l’ordre de la signature savante dans les équipes de recherche multidisciplinaire en science de la santé.

La distribution ‘juste’ de la signature savante dans les collaborations de recherche multidisciplinaire en sciences de la santé

L’auteur qui appose son nom à une publication universitaire sera reconnu pour sa contribution à la recherche et devra également en assumer la responsabilité. Il existe divers types d’agencements pouvant être utilisés afin de nommer les auteurs et souligner l’ampleur de leur contribution à ladite recherche. Par exemple, les auteurs peuvent être nommés en ordre décroissant selon l’importance de leurs contributions, ce qui permet d’allouer davantage de mérite et de responsabilité aux premiers auteurs (à l’instar des sciences de la santé) ou bien les individus peuvent être nommés en ordre alphabétique, donnant une reconnaissance égale à tous (tel qu’on le note dans certains domaines des sciences sociales). On observe aussi des pratiques émergeant de certaines disciplines ou des champs de recherche (tel que la notion d’auteur correspondant, ou directeur de recherche nommé à la fin de la liste d’auteurs). En science de la santé, lorsque la recherche est de nature multidisciplinaire, il existe différentes normes et pratiques concernant la distribution et l’ordre de la signature savante, ce qui peut donner lieu à des désaccords, voire à des conflits au sein des équipes de recherche. Même si les chercheurs s’entendent pour dire que la signature savante devrait être distribué de façon ‘juste’, il n’y a pas de consensus sur ce que l’on qualifie de ‘juste’ dans le contexte des équipes de recherche multidisciplinaire. Dans cette thèse, nous proposons un cadre éthique pour la distribution juste de la signature savante dans les équipes multidisciplinaires en sciences de la santé. Nous présentons une critique de la documentation sur la distribution de la signature savante en recherche. Nous analysons les enjeux qui peuvent entraver ou compliquer une distribution juste de la signature savante tels que les déséquilibres de pouvoir, les conflits d’intérêts et la diversité de cultures disciplinaires. Nous constatons que les normes internationales sont trop vagues; par conséquent, elles n’aident pas les chercheurs à gérer la complexité des enjeux concernant la distribution de la signature savante. Cette limitation devient particulièrement importante en santé mondiale lorsque les chercheurs provenant de pays développés collaborent avec des chercheurs provenant de pays en voie de développement. Afin de créer un cadre conceptuel flexible en mesure de s’adapter à la diversité des types de recherche multidisciplinaire, nous proposons une approche influencée par le Contractualisme de T.M. Scanlon. Cette approche utilise le respect mutuel et la force normative de la raison comme fondation, afin de justifier l’application de principes éthiques. Nous avons ainsi développé quatre principes pour la distribution juste de la signature savante en recherche: le mérite, la juste reconnaissance, la transparence et la collégialité. Enfin, nous proposons un processus qui intègre une taxonomie basée sur la contribution, afin de délimiter les rôles de chacun dans le projet de recherche. Les contributions peuvent alors être mieux comparées et évaluées pour déterminer l’ordre de la signature savante dans les équipes de recherche multidisciplinaire en science de la santé.

Mining universities : can we count on the integrity of research coming out of today's mining-funded tertiary sector?

Australia's economic growth and national identity have been widely celebrated as being founded on the nation's natural resources. With the golden era of pastoralism fading into the distance, a renewed love affair with primary industries has been much lauded, particularly by purveyors of neoliberal ideology. The considerable wealth generated by resource extraction has, despite its environmental and social record, proved seductive to the university sector. The mining industry is one of a number of industries and sectors (alongside pharmaceutical, chemical and biotechnological) that is increasingly courting Australian universities. These new public-private alliances are often viewed as the much-needed cash cow to bridge the public funding shortfall in the tertiary sector. However, this trend also raises profound questions about the capacity of public good institutions, as universities were once assumed to be, to maintain institutional independence and academic freedoms.

Contextualising merit and integrity within human research

The first consideration of any Australian Human Research Ethics Committee should be to satisfy itself that the project before them is worth undertaking. If the project does not add to the body of knowledge, if it does not improve social welfare or individual wellbeing then the use of human participants, their tissue or their data must be questioned. Sometimes, however, committees are criticised for appearing to adopt the role of scientific review committees. The intent of this paper is to provide researchers with an understanding of the ethical importance of demonstrating the merit of their research project and to help them develop protocols that show ethics committees that adequate attention has been paid to this central tenet in dealing ethically with human research participants. Any person proposing human research must be prepared to show that it is worthwhile. This paper will clarify the relationship between research merit and integrity, research ethics and the responsibilities of human research ethics committees.

Bringing practice closer to research - seeking integrity, sincerity and authenticity

This article tackles the abundance of inconsistent terminologies that surround the discourse on practice and research. The text builds on recent debates on creative practice and education, sparked through the EU funded project SHARE. I argue that a shift in contemporary continental philosophy in the 1970s, which nudged the body into a more central position, allowed for creative practice and with it ‘embodied knowing’ to slowly push open the doors of the academies. I will show that practice today is already well embedded in some UK institutions, and I put forward that rather than thinking of an apologetic Practice as..., Performance as .., we should refer more resolutely to what I here term ‘Practice Research’. I demystify notions of validation of creative practice by re-emphasising the artistic qualities of ‘integrity, sincerity and authenticity’, borrowed from the 2013 BBC Reith lecturer and artist/potter Grayson Perry.

DRHA 2015: Bringing practice closer to research - seeking integrity, sincerity and authenticity

A paper on 'practice as research' (or as I emphasise in this presentation as "Practice Research") debating current dialogue around the issue of practice and research.

Towards (more) integrity in academia: transcending neo-liberal assumption of research and knowledge creation and the “rules” supressing academic freedom

European researchers across heterogeneous disciplines voice concerns and argue for new paths towards a brighter future regarding scientific and knowledge creation and communication. Recently, in biological and natural sciences concerns have been expressed that major threats are intentionally ignored. These threats are challenging Europe’s future sustainability towards creating knowledge that effectively deals with emerging social, environmental, health, and economic problems of a planetary scope. Within social science circles however, the root cause regarding the above challenges, have been linked with macro level forces of neo-liberal ways of valuing and relevant rules in academia and beyond which we take for granted. These concerns raised by heterogeneous scholars in natural and the applied social sciences concern the ethics of today’s research and academic integrity. Applying Bourdieu’s sociology may not allow an optimistic lens if change is possible. Rather than attributing the replication of neo-liberal habitus in intentional agent and institutional choices, Bourdieu’s work raises the importance of thoughtlessly internalised habits in human and social action. Accordingly, most action within a given paradigm (in this case, neo-liberalism) is understood as habituated, i.e. unconsciously reproducing external social fields, even ill-defined ways of valuing. This essay analyses these and how they may help critically analyse the current habitus surrounding research and knowledge production, evaluation, and communication and related aspects of academic freedom. Although it is acknowledged that transformation is not easy, the essay presents arguments and recent theory paths to suggest that change nevertheless may be a realistic hope once certain action logics are encouraged.

Missing Data - implications for outcomes research and strategies to maximise data integrity

he workshop will firstly provide an overview of the problems associated with missing data within the context of clinical trials and how to minimise these. Missing data will be explored by modeling the impact on a number of datasets. This approach will be invaluable in highlighting how alternative methods for controlling for missing data impact differentially on the interpretation of study findings. Popular strategies involve options based on an assessment of the percentage of missing data. More innovative approaches to the management of missing data (e.g. based upon reliability analyses) will be explored and evaluated and the role of the most popular methods of data management explored in several study designs beyond those of the classic randomised controlled trial. Participants will have the opportunity to appraise and debate existing methods of missing data handling.