Archive for June, 2008

Nature on Misconduct

June 19, 2008 at 11:00 am · Filed under Biomedical Research Ethics, Research News

Update: As noted below in Brendan’s comment , open discussion of this issue continues at Nature Network. Please join in there! The Chronicle is also having a lively discussion of “the oath” … and JAMA has a nice summary of why even well-intentioned folks cannot overcome unconscious bias caused by conflicts of interest, and The Lancet notes this commentary in covering a plagiarism case in the UK. Links to The Gallup Organization report on which this commentary is based can be found at ORI and below.

Update II: Nature has published letters from Bosch (exemplary standards in Croatia); Feder & Stewart (calculated dishonesty among senior researchers); Nussenzveig & Funchal (need for international ORI); Swazey (questions methodology); and the study authors (response to Swazey).

Nature reports a survey conducted by the Office of Research Integrity that, not surprisingly, finds that most misconduct goes unreported. Sandra Titus et al. found that the “2,212 researchers we surveyed observed 201 instances of likely misconduct over a three-year period. That’s 3 incidents per 100 researchers per year.” (an average of only 24 institutional investigation reports are submitted to ORI each year).
Read the rest of this entry »

Comments (12)

Reportable Conditions & Disease Craziness (RCDC)

June 9, 2008 at 12:35 am · Filed under NIH Advice

As noted here previously, the NIH is developing a new electronic reporting tool called Research, Condition, and Disease Categorization (RCDC). NIAID has a nice summary, as usual. The basic idea is to consistently categorize NIH-funded work according to “nearly” 360 predetermined research areas, conditions, and diseases. Except, that is, projects in such minor areas as women’s health, minority health, AIDS, biodefense, climate change, nanotechnology, and “Networking IT Research and Development.” Hmmm.

To prepare for the February 2009 launch, NIH is hosting a webinar on Wednesday, June 11 at 2 p.m. to introduce the RCDC system. Get the popcorn ready …

Leave a Comment

Peer Review Enhanced!

June 6, 2008 at 10:41 pm · Filed under Grantsmanship, NIH Advice

Update: The timeline for implementing specific policies is discussed here.

Update: Nature provides its brief take on the reforms, as does Science.

Update: In addition, NIAID reports that “This month, NIH will launch some pilots and try some changes, such as shortening the length of R01 and some other applications, developing a new scoring system, and giving applicants more useful feedback.” This month? June??? Yes! in the form of Transformative R01s …

Today the Great Zerhouni announced “Enhancements to Peer Review” of the sort that would not wind up in your spam folder. The Advisory Council to the Director met today, and Larry Tabak’s presentation to the same about Enhancing Peer Review actually has some meat to it.
Read the rest of this entry »

Comments (4)

VCU-Philip Morris Agreement Researched

June 1, 2008 at 1:44 pm · Filed under Biomedical Research Ethics, Research News, Tobacco "Research"

Although the NYT has not printed a correction, clarification, editor’s note, retraction, or any other indication that the veracity of Mr. Finder’s reporting has been called into question, they did offer, rightly, the opportunity for VCU to respond in the form of a letter to the editor from President Trani. This letter, although more thoughtfully articulated than his prior memo, continues to downplay the real problems of any university engaging in research service agreements and the even greater ethical problems with this particular research service agreement, setting aside the sponsor for now.

As part of my commentary on this, I disclose that I have been sent a copy of the agreement obtained by a third party through a Va FOIA request (details and downloadable PDF below) and will quote verbatim a few critical points omitted by Trani in his letter and overall response to this story.

For example, secrecy (from the agreement itself):

”19. Neither party shall, without the prior written approval of the other party, (i) advertise or otherwise publicize in a written manner the existence or terms of this AGREEMENT or any TASK ORDER or any other aspect of the relationship between SPONSOR and VCU … If at any time a third party, including without limitation any news organization, contacts VCU concerning SPONSOR, VCU shall make no comment and shall notify promptly SPONSOR of the third party.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Comments (15)