Promoting and protecting the integrity of academic research is a central concern of CAUT. We have long been critical of current measures used to assure research integrity and we have been vocal in calling for national standards. A review of research integrity in Canada, by a panel convened by the Council of Canadian Academies, supports our views and provides a vision for moving forward. The state of the “system” and how to foster a positive environment for research integrity were two questions animating the review.

The emergence of this issue involves a number of related factors, most notably the increased mobility of researchers, more multinational and interdisciplinary research, and vastly more complex funding environments in cross-sector col­la­borations of public and private research partners. The push for new integrity standards arises from heightened public awareness of the importance of reliable research and of the potential harm of wrong­doing.

A spectacular recent example is the case of now disgraced British doctor and medical researcher Andrew Wakefield, whose 1998 Lancet article linked the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine to autism. He was found guilty of professional misconduct by the British General Medical Council for failing to reveal material conflicts of interest (he stood to gain financially from the sale of an alternate vaccine and diagnostic tests), altering data, dishonest reporting and breach of ethical standards.

His “research” had a disastrous impact on vaccination rates in the UK and a corresponding rise in measles cases.

But Wakefield’s individual case only hints at the larger challenges to integrity that arise through the increasing commercialization of research. In Canada, the stories of physicians Nancy Olivieri and David Healy illustrate the kind of syste­mic pressures that result from com­mercialization, including sponsor demands for delay in the publication of findings, for the selective release of data, for industry oversight of academic findings prior to publication and insistence on inappropriate confidentiality of results or even non-disclosure.

A 2009 New York Times article revealed that a pharmaceutical company paid a medical communications firm to draft academic articles which would then be “authored” by physicians, many of whom had little involvement in the research process. Since then, further revelations of ghostwriting — where the financial and sponsoring role of the pharmaceutical company is purposely unacknowledged — have shown the practice to be widespread.

At the same time as funding opportunities, international research and industry partnerships have become more important to post-secondary institutions and research cultures of all disciplines have become more individualistic and entrepreneurial. In this competitive environment the pressure to publish is constant, and it is accompanied by new standards for tenure and promotion that would have been unthinkable a decade ago. The rate at which published articles are retracted has also increased over time, suggesting rising academic dishonesty is related to the high-pressure research environment.

How does Canadian research oversight rank against other countries? A study by the Canadian Research Integrity Committee, a broad alliance of 17 government and NGOs that includes CAUT, suggests some serious shortcomings. Its 2009 report, entitled The State of Research Integrity and Misconduct Policies in Canada, found a patchwork system of individual institutional policies, coordinated by the granting agencies’ (NSERC, SSHRC and CIHR, otherwise known as the Tri-Council) blanket integrity policy.

Notably, there is no national integrity standard. The policies of indi­vidual institutions differ considerably. With no consensus definition of research integrity or misconduct, the system is not transparent. Institutions depend on individual complaints to trigger action on misconduct and there is little evidence of proactive education. Whistleblower protection also varied greatly from institution to institution. Moreover, Tri-Council oversight is restricted to academic and medical research institutions with council-funded research and provides no ability for the granting agencies to verify the findings of institutional investigations. The private sector and other public sector bodies are outside the existing network of regulation.

The Council of Canadian Aca­demies’ panel reached much the same conclusions in its 132-page report. Its proposed solution is to establish a new independent entity, the Canada Council for Research Integrity. Envisioned as a coordinating body, the council would offer confidential advice to individuals and institutions, collect and disseminate information and promote best practices and standards.

“The involvement of the broader research community would be key to the credibility and legitimacy of the CCRI,” the report said. It said the council would “be in a position to encourage researchers and orga­nizations outside the scope of Tri-Council funding to participate in a Canada-wide system of research integrity.” It adds, however, that “issues of sanctioning would continue to rest with Canada’s major federal public research funders.”

CAUT has long maintained that “a single national standard should reflect the best international research integrity practices; cover all research in Canada, including that conducted in the private sector; mandate education and training programs to prevent misconduct; and contain a positive duty on organizations conducting research to provide for the defense of researchers who draw attention to or challenge the misconduct of other researchers or funders.”

CAUT also wants to ensure that all institutions’ investigations into alleged research misconduct follow strict rules of procedural fairness. The exhaustive reviews by the Canadian Research Integrity Committee and the Council of Canadian Academies are significant steps toward achieving this.