Introduction to Research Ethics: Conceptual References

In terms of scientific integrity and the ethics of the researcher,

we’re actually interested in research activity, and that’s what I will address first.
Research is not at all familiar to the general public,
despite the events that began in early 2020
with Covid 19, which changed the game,
because science was put in the spotlight.
The work of scientists was highlighted,
along with their difficulties. This can be divided into 3 facets:
scientific production, information and scientific communication,
and scientific expertise.
So, I'm going to focus on these three facets
to clarify the subject a little bit.
Let’s start with scientific production.
The heart of the researcher's job is to produce knowledge.
The health crisis was accompanied by an acceleration
in terms of clinical trials, publications, scientific production.
And
these changes raise questions
which are quite legitimate.
Has clinical research always been done in conditions
that guarantee the solidity of the results?
Has the proliferation of publications, open access, etc.
been done with adequate evaluation?
The question of quality of scientific production is being raised here.
Next, information and the communication
of scientific information has increased exponentially.
This research has become
highly visible to everyone via the media.
Researchers appeared on continuous news channels.
Social media has taken over science,
scientific controversies have multiplied,
along with the dissemination of false scientific information.
And the phenomenon has reached
such a proportion that the institutions were forced to react.
So, in France, for example,
the National Academy of Medicine spoke out against the rush
in scientific communication, against premature announcements,
against discord.
In the international context,
the World Health Organization
- but this is also true of other international organizations –
the WHO has been combating the ‘epidemic’ of false information.
The issue is the fairness of scientific information,
and of the trust can be placed
in this information by the general public.
And finally, scientific expertise was mobilized at the highest level
of public decision-making. In national contexts,
each country made its own choices.
For example, in France, the Covid 19 Scientific Council
chaired by Professor Jean-François Delfraissy,
accompanied public decisions from the outset of the pandemic.
Other scientific councils
have been created, for example on vaccination.
Internationally speaking, there’s another body of experts,
the Emergency Committee chaired by Professor Didier Houssin,
who characterized the public health emergency
of international scope,
which was declared by the Director General of the WHO early in 2020.
And
the issue of the legitimacy of public action is raised here,
in a context where action is largely based on science.
The Covid 19 pandemic allows us to measure how
the acceleration of research comes with increased risk.
What are these risks?
For example: inadequate methodology,
weakness in terms of scientific integrity,
research ethics that is planned too quickly,
and possible conflicts of interest that could bias results.
These risks are all the more real
because researchers, who often work in international teams,
are often placed in contexts of international competition,
which is becoming more and more difficult.
Countries are also starting to compete
for research ratings for each country
that are based on the number of national scientific publications.
We can measure this in the context
of the pandemic and more generally.
Both researchers and institutions must pay attention to scientific integrity
and professional ethics, research ethics.
It’s a matter both of opposing principles
and to ensure they are respected within research institutions.
These will be the two parts of my lecture.
First of all, the principles.
Concerns about scientific integrity, ethics,
and even research ethics are not new.
For a long time,
breaches of scientific integrity have been identified
according to their severity.
They are classified in increasing order according to their severity.
First, a lack of methodological knowledge,
such as a lack of documentary research
before starting the project,
questionable research practices
things that are a little more serious, like erroneous references,
and then the real frauds
with for example a serious case of falsified results.
So, these shortcomings and the need to fight against them
within the institutions themselves has become clear
over the past 20 years or so.
the National Charter of Ethics
of Research Professions was adopted in 2015.
It was signed by various research organizations,
also by the Conference of University Presidents.
It sets out the rights and responsibilities of professional researchers.
Researchers are reminded of their freedom of expression
with an obligation of reserve, of confidentiality,
neutrality, and transparency in terms of their professional relationships.
Compliance with legislative provisions
and regulatory must also be ensured,
including the prohibition of moral and sexual harassment.
The Charter also specifies
relationships within research teams
and the relationship with the institution where they work.
This institution is responsible
for implementing ethics and integrity.
Relationships with the scientific community and with society,
which are reflected in the obligation to be impartial
and independent in evaluation and expertise.
The Charter was preceded by international reference documents
that aim to prevent fraud and scientific misconduct,
and that were adopted by institutions or by researchers themselves.
This refers to best practices
to promote scientific integrity and prevent scientific fraud
which were adopted by the OECD, the Organization
of Economic Cooperation and Development in 2007.
It also refers to the Singapore Declaration
on Scientific Integrity adopted by researchers in 2010,
and to the European Code of Conduct
for Integrity in Research dating from 2011.
In France, the circular on the policy of scientific integrity
concerning those who undertake scientific research,
and the handling of breaches of scientific integrity,
was adopted in 2017 and sets out a definition of scientific integrity.
It is the set of rules
and values that should govern the research activity
to guarantee its honesty
and its scientific rigour.
Integrity is a crucial prerequisite for maintaining society’s trust
in those who undertake research.
This circular was issued in the wake of the Corvol Report,
and the links between integrity and ethics are well highlighted,
including some reference texts such as the 2019 order
which defined the competencies of doctoral graduates,
and registered doctoral graduates
in the National Repertoire of Professional Certification.
Those who receive doctorates must respect the principles of deontology and ethics
as related to the integrity of their research and its potential impacts on society.
Researchers' ethics and scientific integrity
have therefore been defined by the scientific community
and formalize best practices for those who exercise this profession.
As scientific integrity is specifically linked to scientific production,
this implies a framework of self-regulation.
Even though institutions are increasingly more involved.
This is the second aspect that I want to address now.
The treatment of misconduct occurs
in national frameworks, according to the rules of whistle-blowing
and sanctions that differ from one country to another.
But we know that research is carried out
in an international context. In France a comparable model exists
for the evaluation of scientific integrity and ethics
in higher education and research.
This model is as follows: cases are processed
in the establishments, with the referent of the establishing playing an interface role,
with opinions and recommendations formulated
at the national level by a reference institution.
Each institution defines its own policy
on scientific integrity, and includes different
aspects of awareness, training, prevention, and verification.
Dealing with breaches therefore takes place within the institutions
and according to the 2017 circular, the guarantor of scientific integrity
is the executive in charge of the person who carries out the research.
Institutions differentiate between treatment and sanctions.
In research institutions,
the establishment of scientific integrity referents
allows cases to be processed
according to the principles of confidentiality
and in an independent and impartial way.
The French Office of Scientific Integrity (OFIS)
is the national reference institution
following the Corvol report in 2016.
The OFIS was founded in 2017 and is a department of the Hcéres.
The OFIS is responsible
for the activities of the Scientific Integrity Referents Network.
In the ethical domain,
it was founded by the Council of Higher Education and Research
that issued the 2018 order that implemented
the obligation for each administration to have a compliance officer,
pursuant to a 2016 law.
The treatment of ethical issues
also occurs within the institutions themselves.
The College is a national coordinating institution.
This work began a few years ago, and it highlights
the fact that ethics can be linked to integrity issues.
This is true, for example, regarding recruitment,
conflicts of interest and their prevention.
This is also true for research
of doctoral students or with regard to the exercise of academic freedom.
There can be a certain amount of porosity between these issues.
To conclude, we can see that
institutions are evolving. They deal more and more with these issues
of scientific integrity and ethics.
Beyond the treatment of cases, the challenge is to install a shared culture
and to clarify what was often taken for granted.