Professional Documents
Culture Documents
THE CULTURE OF
SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
IN THE UK
DECEMBER 2014
Contents
Foreword 2
Executive summary 3
Background 6
Project origins and activities 7
The Steering Group 12
Introduction to scientific research in HEIs in the UK 13
What we heard 18
What is high quality science? 19
Concerns about the culture of scientific research 21
Competition 21
Funding of research 23
Assessment of research 25
Research governance and integrity 29
Career progression and workload 31
Observations and suggestions for action 34
Peer review is thought to be having a positive • In some cases the culture of scientific research
effect on science but concerns were raised does not support or encourage scientists’
about unconstructive reviewer comments and goals and the activities that they believe to be
shortages of peer reviewers. The importance important for the production of high quality
of peer reviewers being given training, time and science.
recognition for their work was emphasised.
•T
here seem to be widespread misperceptions
Research integrity or mistrust among scientists about the policies
Fifty-eight per cent of survey respondents are of those responsible for the assessment of
aware of scientists feeling tempted or under research.
pressure to compromise on research integrity
and standards, although evidence was not •A
mong all the relevant stakeholders, concerns
collected on any outcomes associated with about the culture of research are often on
this. Suggested causes include high levels of matters that they think are outside their control
competition in science and the pressure to or are someone else’s responsibility.
publish. Training in good research practice is
thought to be important in creating conditions We believe there is a collective obligation for the
that support ethical research conduct. actors in the system to do everything they can
to ensure the culture of research supports good
Career progression and workload research practice and the production of high
Features of researcher careers, including high quality science. As such, we provide a number
competition for jobs and funding and heavy of suggestions for action for funding bodies,
workloads, are thought to be resulting in a research institutions, publishers and editors,
loss of creativity and innovation in science. professional bodies and individual researchers
Suggestions for improvements include: fair (see Figure 1). Key examples are:
and consistent recruitment processes, better
provision of mentoring and career advice, Funders: ensure funding strategies, policies
tackling negative attitudes towards those who and opportunities, and information about past
leave academic science, and good employment funding decisions, are communicated clearly to
practices for women. institutions and researchers; and provide training
for peer reviewers to ensure they are aware of
and follow assessment policies.
Research institutions: cultivate an environment Researchers: actively contribute to the
in which ethics is seen as a positive and integral adoption of relevant codes of ethical conduct
part of research; ensure that the track record of and standards for high quality research; use a
researchers is assessed broadly; and provide broad range of criteria when assessing the track
mentoring and career advice to researchers record of fellow researchers; and engage with
throughout their careers. funders, publishers and learned societies to
maintain a two-way dialogue and contribute to
Publishers and editors: consider ways of policy-making.
ensuring that the findings of a wider range of
research meeting standards of rigour can be earned societies and professional bodies:
L
published; consider ways of improving the peer promote widely the importance of ensuring the
review system; and consider further the role of culture of research supports good research
publishers in tackling ethical issues in publishing practice and the production of high quality
and in promoting openness among scientists. science; and take account of the findings of this
report in relation to guidelines for members on
ethical conduct and professionalism.
Figure 1. Suggestions for action to support good research practice and the production
of high quality science
DISSEMINATION
ASSESSMENT
FUNDING
Use of a broad range of criteria in research
Adoption of diverse funding approaches assessments
Adoption of appropriate ethical review Training and recognition for leaders in research
processes
The Nuffield Council on Bioethics carried The activities of the project included:
out inquiries on the ethical issues raised by
emerging biotechnologies in 2011-12, and by Online survey
novel neurotechnologies in 2012-13. These An online survey was open from March to
inquiries brought to light concerns about the July 2014 and received 970 responses. The
ethical consequences of the culture of scientific survey consisted of 26 questions that asked
research in terms of its potential to affect respondents to provide their views on various
research practices and the quality and direction aspects of the culture of scientific research.
of science. The survey included a mixture of multiple-
choice questions, some with the option to add
These concerns were shared by organisations comments, and questions that allowed free text
that work closely with the scientific community, answers. A detailed analysis of the responses
including the Royal Society, Society of Biology, was carried out by Research By Design and is
Institute of Physics, Royal Society of Chemistry available at:
and Academy of Medical Sciences. Under the www.nuffieldbioethics.org/research-culture
guidance of a Steering Group that included
members of staff from these organisations, in
October 2013 the Nuffield Council on Bioethics DEMOGRAPHICS OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS
embarked upon a series of engagement
activities that aimed:
§The percentages show the proportion of the total number of respondents who provided
an answer to the question. In the graphs on area of science and type of organisation, the
percentages do not total 100 due to respondents being able to tick more than one answer.
For all graphs, the percentages may not total 100 due to rounding of numbers.
Discussion events LOCATIONS OF DISCUSSION EVENTS
Fifteen discussion events were co-hosted with
universities between June and September
2014. The universities were chosen to ensure
a geographical spread around the UK. Most
of the events took the form of a 90-minute
lunchtime seminar that was free to attend and
open to anyone. The events involved a total of
63 speakers and chairs, and approximately 680
people registered to attend as participants. A
summary of the issues that were raised at the
events is available at:
www.nuffieldbioethics.org/research-culture
42% Bioscience
27% Medicine
24% Social sciences
12% Psychology
11% Across all sciences
7% Research support services
7% Engineering
5% Computing
5% Chemistry
5% Physics
3% Humanities and law
3% Veterinary science
2% Mathematics
1% Nursing
1% Earth sciences
17% Other
86% University
10% Research Institution
4% Charity/NGO
2% Student
2% NHS
2% Government department
1% Professional body
1% Publisher
1% Funding body
1% Contract research organisation
2% Other
± The
percentages show the proportion of the total number of participants who provided an
answer to the question on registering for an event. In the graphs on area of science and
type of organisation, the percentages do not total 100 due to participants being able to tick
more than one answer. For all graphs, the percentages may not total 100 due to rounding of
numbers.
Evidence gathering meetings
Three closed meetings were held between June
and September 2014 to engage with:
1) representatives of organisations that fund
scientific research; 2) p
ublishers and editors of
scientific research; and 3) a cademics from
the social sciences with expertise in the practice
and culture of scientific research.
MEMBERS
Scientific research has led to advances in This kind of funding is offered through a mixture
knowledge that have improved our health, of research grants, fellowships, studentships,
well-being and understanding of the world, training and other programmes, and supports a
and to innovations and technologies that have wide range of research, including basic research
had a major impact on the way we live and which aims to advance knowledge of the world,
on economic growth. The UK regularly tops and applied research which is directed towards
international lists ranking countries by research the development of particular applications or
productivity and quality when numbers of products.
researchers and levels of R&D expenditure are
taken into consideration. Funding bodies tend to provide a combination
of short and long-term grants. Some Research
Council funding is directed towards providing
FUNDING OF RESEARCH IN HEIS long-term support for large-scale projects
at institutes or research centres, such as
Annual research and development (R&D) the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences
expenditure across all sectors and disciplines in Research Council (BBSRC)-supported John
the UK has increased from around £17 billion in Innes Centre. Alongside such projects, funding
the 1980s to £27 billion in 2012, with the higher bodies may award large project grants such
education sector carrying out £7.2 billion of as the Engineering and Physical Sciences
R&D.1 Research Council’s (EPSRC) Research Capacity
grants. Other funding streams are designed to
Core (or block) funding is allocated annually support medium and short-term work, such
by the UK higher education funding bodies as the EPSRC’s Mathematical Sciences Small
to HEIs. This funding supports research Grants or the Natural Environment Research
infrastructure and gives institutions freedom to Council’s (NERC) Urgency Grants.
undertake research in keeping with their own
objectives. The amount of funding awarded to Some funding bodies have introduced initiatives
each institution is determined by the number to support ‘high risk’ science. For example, the
of researchers, the costs of different types of EPSRC has a number of grant programmes
research and an assessment of the quality of that aim to stimulate creativity, adventure
research carried out every five or six years. and lateral thinking in research, and NERC’s
Discovery Science funding stream aims to
In addition to core funding, grants for specific support curiosity-led science and encourages
research projects or programmes are awarded adventurous research.
by a wide range of bodies, including the seven
Research Councils, government departments, Most funders have schemes targeted at
businesses, charities, foundations, and overseas supporting early career researchers. The
sources such as the European Commission. Medical Research Council’s (MRC) New
1 Office for National Statistics (2014) UK Gross Domestic Expenditure on Research and
Development, 2012, available at: www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_355583.pdf. Prices have
been adjusted for inflation.
2 Higher Education Funding Council for England (2014) A briefing on: Staff employed at HEFCE-funded
HEIs: Trends and profiles, available at: www.hefce.ac.uk/whatwedo/lgm/workforce/staff/overall/
3 The Royal Society (2010) The Scientific Century: securing our future prosperity, available at:
https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2010/4294970126.pdf
PhD
(3-4 years)
POST-DOCTORAL RESEARCHER
(typically two or more fixed-term contracts)
RESEARCH FELLOW
(typically a 5-year contract)
RESEARCHER / LECTURER
(typically an open-ended contract)
READER
(typically an open-ended contract)
PROFESSOR / CHAIR
(typically an open-
ended contract)
37% Biosciences
14% Physics
12% Chemistry
12% Electrical, electronic and computer engineering
10% Earth, marine and environmental sciences
5% Pharmacy and pharmacology
4% Anatomy and physiology
4% Mineral, metallurgy and materials engineering
3% Chemical engineering
4 Data supplied by HESA Services Ltd. The percentages do not total 100 due to rounding of
numbers
RESEARCH GOVERNANCE
AND ETHICS
Research in HEIs is not overseen by a dedicated This section has provided an introduction
regulatory body, but most institutions have to the wide range of factors that influences
their own policies on good research practice, the culture of research in the UK, including
systems for the ethical approval of projects, and what kind of funding is available and how
procedures for handling misconduct.5 Certain it is allocated, the governance of research,
types of research have additional oversight the way in which research is disseminated,
processes that are governed by bodies outside the composition of the workforce, and how
the HEI system, such as animal research, clinical researchers progress in their careers. The
trials and research involving genetically modified next section presents evidence collected
organisms. during this project about how scientists
and other key stakeholders experience
There is a wide range of activities that could be the culture of research and the factors that
considered to constitute research misconduct they believe are having positive or negative
or poor quality research practice. This includes effects on science.
data fraud, poor experimental design, corner-
cutting in research methods, inadequate
replication of research, ‘cherry picking’ results,
inappropriately slicing up data to create several
papers, authorship issues, plagiarism, over-
claiming the significance of work in grant
proposals and papers, and carrying out poor
quality peer review, for example by failing to
declare a conflict of interest. The scale of
research misconduct or poor quality research
practice is hard to assess since it is likely that
much goes on undetected. The Committee on
Publication Ethics (COPE) identifies authorship
issues as one of the most common concerns
raised by its journal members.
5 For instance, see the University of Birmingham’s Code of Practice for Research 2013-14, available at:
www.birmingham.ac.uk/Documents/university/legal/research.pdf
6 Universities UK (2012) The Concordat to Support Research Integrity, available at:
www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/highereducation/Pages/Theconcordattosupportresearchintegrity.aspx
When survey respondents were asked to select were asked what feature of the UK research
five words from a list that best describe their environment is having the most positive effect
understanding of high quality research, the five on science. The respondents (a quarter) who Collaborations –
most frequently selected words were: raise this think collaboration is leading to an open, friendly
better communication between researchers, environment
1. Rigorous greater sharing of data and methodologies, where people
2. Accurate less competition between different research work together to
achieve things
3. Original teams, and reduced feelings of isolation among
faster rather
4. Honest researchers. This, respondents perceive, results
than competing
5. Transparent in an “explosion of ideas” and more innovation in needlessly.
research. Additionally I
‘Rigorous’ was the top choice across all think that the
disciplines. Respondents working in medicine, Multidisciplinarity emerging inter-
engineering, psychology, social science and The potential for multidisciplinary research to disciplinary
computing included ‘ethical’ in their top five, and address some of the major questions facing (e.g. bio-maths
‘beneficial to society’ was the third most popular society was highlighted at several of the department split
selection by social scientists. ‘Justified’, ‘open’, discussion events. Researchers who have PhD programmes)
‘legal’ and ‘respectful’ were the least frequently trained in completely different ways need to efforts though
chosen words. work together, it was suggested, and the wide facing teething
problems now will
gaps between disciplines that existed in the past
be very valuable
During the project activities it emerged that are now becoming much narrower.
in the future.
several other components are thought to be
particularly important in the production of high Openness Survey respondent
quality science: collaboration, multidisciplinarity, Sixty-one per cent of survey respondents think (PhD Student, female,
aged 18-25)
openness and creativity. that the move towards open access publishing is
having a positive or very positive effect overall on
Collaboration scientists in terms of encouraging the production
Increased collaboration was the most common of high quality research. Researchers in the
answer given when survey respondents field of computing were particularly positive.
61%
of survey respondents think open access publishing is having a
positive or very positive effect on scientists
94%
of survey respondents think applying for funding is very competitive
7
s described in Alberts B, Kirschner MW, Tilghman S, and Varmus H (2014) Rescuing US
A
biomedical research from its systemic flaws Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
111(16): 5773–7.
Survey respondent
(Senior Researcher/
Lecturer, female,
over 45)
71%
of survey respondents believe the peer review system in the
UK is having a positive or very positive effect on scientists
58%
of survey respondents are aware of scientists feeling tempted or
under pressure to compromise on research integrity and standards
Survey respondent
(Reader, female, aged
56-65)
CAREER PROGRESSION In terms of how issues relating to careers and
AND WORKLOAD workloads affect the production of high quality
science, survey respondents believe that they
Concerns about the challenges of career contribute to a culture of short-termism, high
progression and heavy workloads for levels of stress, a lack of time to think and the
researchers on the production of high quality loss of talented individuals from academia,
science were raised frequently during the which in turn results in a loss of creativity
project. For example, when asked if there is and innovation. Respondents also raise the
anything they would like to change about the possibility that high levels of competition for jobs
UK research environment, more than a third of may encourage poor quality research practices.
survey respondents cite issues related to career
structure and progression. Suggestions for ways of addressing some
of these concerns were raised during our
The following concerns were frequently discussions:
mentioned by survey respondents and event
participants: Promote the best scientists
Fifty-four per cent of respondents think the
•S hort-term contracts and job insecurity for way scientists are assessed for promotion
post-doctoral researchers during their career is having a negative or very
The Post-
•R eliance on external funding for job retention, negative effect overall on scientists in terms Doc structure
which drives the ‘pressure to publish’ of encouraging the production of high quality disadvantages
•P ressure to progress but high competition for science, compared to 22 per cent who think those who cannot
jobs and funding it is having a positive or very positive effect. keep moving for
•T he need to keep relocating in order to take Respondents commenting on this issue believe family reasons,
up the next position that promotion criteria have changed, mainly which particularly
•L imited opportunities for women in particular due to the REF, and that science is assessed affects women.
to have career breaks much more on metrics, such as journal impact
Survey respondent
• Heavy workloads and long hours factors and citations. (Researcher/Lecturer,
• High ‘drop out’ rates female, aged 46-55)
The Concordat to Support the Career
Almost twice as many female survey Development of Researchers8 was highlighted
respondents as male respondents raise issues during the project as a positive development
related to career progression and the short- in the improvement of the way in which
term culture within UK research when asked researchers are promoted and recruited.
which features of the research environment are It commits its signatories – the main UK
having the most negative effect on scientists. funders and employers of researchers – to
This mirrors responses to the survey about the fair, consistent selection processes where
perceived level of competition involved in gaining researchers are chosen primarily for their ability
funding and jobs (see Competition, p21). to advance research at an institution.
54%
of survey respondents think the way scientists are assessed for
promotion during their career is having a negative or very negative
effect on scientists
•A
mong all the relevant stakeholders, concerns •C
ommunicate clearly to research institutions
about the culture of research are often on and researchers about funding strategies,
matters that they think are outside their control policies and opportunities, and information
or are someone else’s responsibility. about past funding decisions, particularly
in areas where there are common
misconceptions.
•T
ackle biases in research publishing by
RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS considering ways of ensuring that the
findings of a wider range of research meeting
•E
nsure that the track record of researchers is standards of rigour can be published.
assessed broadly, without undue reliance on
journal impact factors, in processes for making •C
onsider ways of adapting to the increasing
appointments, conducting staff appraisals and multidisciplinarity of research.
awarding promotions.
•C
onsider further ways of improving the peer
•C
ultivate an environment in which ethics review system, for example by experimenting
is seen as a positive and integral part of with new models.
performing research. Ensure researchers,
particularly early career researchers, have •E
nsure peer reviewers receive appropriate
a thorough grounding in research ethics training and/or guidance and recognition for
and access to information and training their work.
throughout their careers. Be open about the
consequences of research misconduct. •C
onsider further the role of publishers in tackling
ethical issues in publishing such as those related
•R
ecognise and reward high quality peer review to authorship and retractions, and in promoting
and committee service. openness and data sharing among scientists.
•P
rovide mentoring and career advice to
researchers throughout their careers. RESEARCHERS
Encourage them to plan their future and
expand their skills and experience outside of •B
e familiar with and actively contribute to the
the research environment, and tackle negative adoption of relevant codes of ethical conduct
attitudes towards those leaving academia. and standards for high quality research, treat
colleagues fairly and equally, and try to instil
•E
nsure institutional ethical review processes good values in students and staff.
are flexible, appropriate and interactive,
and that ethics committee members have •W
hen assessing the track record of fellow
appropriate guidance, training and knowledge. researchers, for example as a grant reviewer
or appointments panel member, use a broad
•S
upport leaders in research by providing range of criteria, without undue reliance on
appropriate training, resources and recognition journal impact factors.
for their diverse activities.
•C
onsider ways of sharing work with others
•S
ign up to the principles of the Athena wherever possible, for example, by choosing
SWAN Charter and adopt other employment accessible journals, making published work
practices that support diversity and inclusion. available in public repositories and sharing
datasets.
•E
ngage with funders, publishers and learned
societies to maintain a two-way dialogue and
to contribute to policy-making, for example by
responding to consultations, attending events
or sitting on committees.
•S
eek out a mentor and/or be a mentor to
someone else.
•F
requently assess your career options
and consider opportunities to widen your
experience.
•P
romote widely the importance of ensuring
that the culture of research supports good
research practice and the production of high
quality science.
•T
ake account of the findings of this report in
relation to guidelines for members on ethical
conduct and professionalism.
•E
ncourage and support funding bodies,
research institutions, publishers and editors
and researchers to recognise and fulfil their
roles in shaping the culture of research.
CONTACT US
Nuffield Council on Bioethics, 28 Bedford Square, London WC1B 3JS
+44 (0)20 7681 9619
bioethics@nuffieldbioethics.org