Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Approaches to Academic Integrity in Medical and Health Research

  • Reference work entry
  • First Online:
Handbook of Academic Integrity

Abstract

In health care and medicine, the focus on humans and their bodies and the complex and potentially conflicting web of personal, professional, and financial relationships between researchers, students, government, and industry create a quite distinctive environment for academic integrity and misconduct. Although the history of medical research and practice is obviously lengthy, descriptions of scientific misconduct and of attempts to control and regulate it are a very short and recent chapter. The backdrop to contemporary efforts to address medical misconduct is the Nuremberg Code, developed in the light of the Nazi medical atrocities during World War II. Despite the wide adoption of the Nuremberg Code and related declarations, research that contravened the code and declarations has continued to occur. Noteworthy examples include the Tuskegee Syphilis Study in the United States and Cervical Cancer Study in New Zealand. Misconduct in the generation, analysis, and dissemination of medical research findings and cases of fabrication and falsification of laboratory-based data have provided some of most egregious examples of contemporary research misconduct. Efforts to manage misconduct have focused on the development of human research ethics guidelines and committees, codes of conduct, and guidelines for publication of scholarly work in medical journals.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 549.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 799.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • A consensus statement on research misconduct in the UK. British Medical Journal. (2012). 344, e1111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhatt, A. (2010). Evolution of clinical research: A history before and beyond James Lind. Perspectives in Clinical Research, 1(1), 6–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • CBS News. (2014). AIDS researcher charged with fraud for falsifying data. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/aids-researcher-charged-with-fraud-for-falsifying-data/. Retrieved 7 July 2015.

  • Committee on Publication Ethics. (2014). What constitutes authorship? COPE Discussion Document.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coney, S. (1998). The unfortunate experiment. Auckland: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Culliton, B. (1983). Coping with fraud: The Darsee Case. Science, 220(4592), 31–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doshi, P. (2009). Neuraminidase inhibitors: The story behind the Cochrane review. BMJ, 339, b5164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, C. (1999). London professor struck off for bullying and dishonesty. BMJ, 319(7215), 938.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, C. (2007). Doctor ordered to pay £300,000 sterling in libel damages. British Medical Journal, 335(7611), 119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, C. (2009). Aubrey Blumsohn: Academic who took on industry. British Medical Journal, 339, b5293.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fanelli, D. (2009). How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS One, 4(5), e5738. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005738.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fang, F. C., Steen, R. G., & Casadevall, A. (2012). Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(42), 17028–17033. doi:10.1073/pnas.1212247109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farrell, M. (2008). Universities that turn research into revenue. http://www.forbes.com/2008/09/12/google-general-electric-ent-tech-cx_mf_0912universitypatent.html. Retrieved 11 Dec 2014.

  • General Medical Council. (2008). Fitness to practice panel hearing for Tonmoy Sharma.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerber, P. (2006). What can we learn from the Hwang and Sudbo affairs? MJA, 184(12), 632–635.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huth, E., & Case, K. (2004). The URM: Twenty-five years old. Science Editor, 27, 17–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. (2014). Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals. http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/. Retrieved 11 Dec 2014.

  • Israel, M. (2014). Fabricating and plagiarising: When researchers lie. http://theconversation.com/fabricating-and-plagiarising-when-researchers-lie-33732

  • Jonsen, A. R. (2000). A short history of medical ethics. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kampmeier, R. (1974). Final report on the “Tuskegee syphilis study”. Southern Medical Journal, 67(11), 1349–1353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kintisch, E. (2006). Poehlman sentenced to 1 year in prison. Science. http://news.sciencemag.org/2006/06/poehlman-sentenced-1-year-prison

  • Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, M. N. (2008). A review of the types of scientific misconduct in biomedical research. Journal of Academic Ethics, 6, 211–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LaFollette, M. (1992). Stealing into print: Fraud, plagiarism, and other misconduct in scientific publishing. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lefor, A. (2005). Scientific misconduct and unethical human experimentation: Historic parallels and moral implications. Nutrition, 21, 878–882.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lo, B., & Field, M. (Eds.). (2009). Conflict of interest in medical research, education, and practice. Institute of Medicine (US) committee on conflict of interest in medical research, education, and practice. Washington, DC: National Academies Press (US).

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcovitch, H. (2006). Research misconduct: Can Australia learn from the UK's stuttering system? Medical Journal of Australia, 185(11/12), 616–618.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martinson, B., Anderson, M. A., & deVries, R. (2005). Scientists behaving badly. Nature, 435(9), 737–738.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Health and Medical Research Council, Australian Research Council, & Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee. National statement on ethical conduct in human research 2007 (updated Dec 2013). Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, P. (1997). Edinburgh doctor struck off because of clinical-trial fraud. Lancet, 350(9073), 273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1978). The Belmont report. Principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects in research (DHEW pub. no. (OS) 78–0012). Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Health and Medical Research Council, Australian Research Council, & Universities Australia. (2007). Australian code for the responsible conduct of research. Canberra: Australian Government.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nuwer, R. (2014). Lawless labs no more. New Scientist, 223(2986), 27. doi:10.1016/S0262-4079(14)61765-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Office of Science and Technology Policy, & Executive Office of the President. (2000). Federal policy on research misconduct (pp 76260–76264). Federal Register 6 Dec 2000. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2000-12-06/html/00-30852.htm. Retrieved 7 July 2015.

  • Porter, R. (1993). Disease, medicine and society in England, 1550–1860 (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Price, A. R. (2013). Research misconduct and its federal regulation: The origin and history of the office of research integrity – With personal views by ORI’s former associate director for investigative oversight. Accountability in Research, 20(5–6), 291–319. doi:10.1080/08989621.2013.822238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Psaty, B., & Kronmal, R. (2008). Reporting mortality findings in trials of Rofecoxib for Alzheimer disease or cognitive impairment: A case study based on documents from Rofecoxib litigation. JAMA, 299(15), 1813–1817. doi:10.1001/jama.299.15.1813.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Relman, A. S. (1983). Lessons from the Darsee affair. The New England Journal of Medicine, 308, 1415–1417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rennie, D., & Gunsalus, C. K. (2001). Quoting Al Gore, Chair of Fraud in Biomedical Research, 1 April 1981, Committee on Science and Technology Subcommitttee on Investigation and Oversight. p. 24 in Ch.2 Regulations on scientific misconduct: lessons from the US experience. In S. Lock, F. Wells & M. Farthing (Eds.), Fraud and misconduct in biomedical research. London: BMJ Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rey-Lefebvre, I. (2013). Condamnée pour avoir plagié le mémoire de son étudiant. Le Monde.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, J., KP, H., Egilman, D., & Krumholz, H. (2008). Guest authorship and ghostwriting in publications related to Rofecoxib: A case study of industry documents from Rofecoxib litigation. JAMA, 299(15), 1800–1812. doi:10.1001/jama.299.15.1800.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, R. (2000). What is research misconduct? In C. White (Ed.), The COPE report. London: BMJ Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, R. (2006). Research misconduct: The poisoning of the well. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 99(5), 232–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, R. (2013). http://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2013/12/09/richard-smith-should-scientific-fraud-be-a-criminal-offence/. Retrieved 7 July 2015.

  • Steneck, N. H. (1994). Research universities and scientific misconduct. History, policies, and the future. Journal of Higher Education, 65(3), 310–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Street, J. M., Rogers, W. A., Israel, M., & Braunack-Mayer, A. J. (2010). Credit where credit is due? Regulation, research integrity and the attribution of authorship in the health sciences. Social Science and Medicine, 70(9), 1458–1465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tanimoto, T., Kami, M., & Shibuya, K. (2014). Misconduct: Japan to learn from biomedical cases. Nature, 512(7515), 371. doi:10.1038/512371d.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The Office of Research Integrity. (2013). Case summary: Sudbo, Jon. http://ori.hhs.gov/content/case-summary-sudbo-jon. Retrieved 7 July 2015.

  • World Medical Association. (1948). WMA declaration of Geneva. http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/g1/. Retrieved 11 Dec 2014.

  • World Medical Association. (1964). WMA declaration of Helsinki – Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3/. Retrieved 11 Dec 2014.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Public Health, The University of Adelaide, 5005, Adelaide, SA, Australia

    Annette Braunack-Mayer & Jackie Street

Authors
  1. Annette Braunack-Mayer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jackie Street
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Annette Braunack-Mayer .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of South Australia, School of Management, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia

    Tracey Bretag

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Australia

About this entry

Cite this entry

Braunack-Mayer, A., Street, J. (2016). Approaches to Academic Integrity in Medical and Health Research. In: Bretag, T. (eds) Handbook of Academic Integrity. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-098-8_46

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation