Best behaviour
(The Guardian Oct 3,2006)
Scandals such as the one at Alder Hey hospital in 1999, where the organs of dead children were harvested for research without consent, and the faking of results by the South Korean stem cell scientist Dr Hwang Woo-suk last year, have kept the ethics of research in the spotlight.
Now universities and funding bodies have been forced to take a closer look at the guidance they have in place to ensure research is carried out lawfully and respectfully. A flurry of activity is under way to tighten up scrutiny and provide clear advice. Experts say the research community needs to do more, or it could find regulation imposed from the top.
The eight research councils are taking the lead in efforts to draw up overarching guidance, touching on such issues as plagiarism and informed consent. The councils will be making public how their existing policies match up to the Universal Ethical Code for Scientists, produced at the beginning of the year by the Council for Science and Technology (CST), a government advisory body.
The CST code sets out broad principles across all disciplines for good research practice: rigour, respect, and responsibility.
While all the councils support the CST code, some have more established ethical policies than others. The Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) published a framework last year that deals in detail with the principles set out in the CST code.
Questions are increasingly being asked by the councils about how they can be sure that misconduct is not taking place on the grants they provide. Glyn Davies, director of policies and resources at the ESRC, is heading a cross-council initiative on research misconduct.
A key issue is consent. But the nature of consent and how it is obtained can vary between disciplines. “If someone taking part in a study has to read and sign 20 pages, no one will want to take part. But you have to provide them with enough information so they know what they are getting into,” Davies explains.
Davies says guidance must strike a balance between being flexible enough to take account of the differences between disciplines and providing enough detail to be of use. “We need to have a situation where we allow research to be done, but ensure the public knows it is properly managed. This must be done by the research community,” he says.
Universities are beginning to wake up to their responsibilities, but there is more to do, says Professor Tony Fell, chair of the University of Bradford’s research ethics committee. “Awareness of the true implications and responsibilities of research ethics is patchy in the university system.
Overarching guidance from the research councils will help ensure ethical problems are avoided—or, if they do crop up, are dealt with fairly. They will also provide a clear statement from the UK research community on the importance it attaches to ethics and conduct.
But, says Hughes: “There is a danger of focusing too much on guidelines, so researchers don’t think beyond them, and don’t use their experience to look out for potential harm or problems that a piece of research might raise.”
