Programme Overview Note: The Conference programme is subject to revision and changes and will be updated from time to time. 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity 2010 |
|
7/21/2010 |
7/22/2010 |
7/23/2010 |
7/24/2010 |
8:00 |
Registration |
Registration |
Post-Conference workshops and training sessions: Workshop 1: Training for Misconduct Investigations Workshop 2: Next Steps in the Development of Organizational, National, and Global Codes of Conduct Workshop 4: Workshop for Editors & Publishers |
|
9:00 |
Opening by Singapore Minster for Education, |
Plenary 3: |
||
10:30 |
Arrival of Delegates |
Break |
Break |
|
11:00 |
Registration |
Plenary 1: |
Concurrent 2 |
|
12:30 |
Lunch |
Lunch |
||
2:00 |
Concurrent 1 |
Concurrent 3 |
||
4:00 |
Break |
Break |
||
4:30 |
Plenary 2: |
Closing Plenary |
||
6:15 |
Conference Welcomes |
Reception |
|
|
7:30 |
Informal Reception |
Dinner |
|
Plenary and other sessions for all participants
|
Concurrent sessions to address three or four topics at one time in smaller groups
|
Breaks and social events
|
Post-conference workshops and training sessions
II. Plenary Sessions
Opening Ceremonies and Plenary Sessions
Opening Ceremonies and Addresses | 22 July, 9:00 - 10:30 Pacific 3 |
||
Chair: | Su Guaning (Nanyang Technological University) | ||
Speaker Name | Organization | Country | Title |
Ng Eng Hen (GOH) | Ministry of Education | Singapore | Guest of Honor Talk |
Su Guaning | Nanyang Technological University | Singapore | Welcome and Session Chair |
Seeram Ramakrishna | National University of Singapore | Singapore | Welcome |
Howard Hunter | Singapore Management University | Singapore | Welcome |
Lim Chuan Poh | Agency of Science, Technology and Research | Singapore | Welcome |
David Vaux | LaTrobe University | Australia | Keynote Address |
Tony Mayer | European Science Foundation / Nanyang Technological University | Singapore-UK | Introduction of Singapore Statement |
Plenary I: Integrity Challenges for Research Leaders | 22 July, 11:00 - 12:30 Pacific 3 |
||
Chair: | Ian Halliday (European Science Foundation) | ||
Building on the Conference Background Paper, this session will identify and discuss the main challenges research leaders face in setting and maintaining high standards for integrity in research. Speakers will represent the views of research funders and regulators, universities and other research performers, publishers/editors, and research professionals.
|
|||
Speaker Name | Organization | Country/Region | Title |
Nicholas Steneck | Office of Research Integrity / University of Michigan | United States | An short history of the road to the 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity |
Lee Eng Hin | Agency for Science, Technology And Research | Singapore | Research Integrity Challenges – a Singapore Perspective |
Allison Lerner | National Science Foundation, Office of Inspector General | United States | Research Integrity Challenges: NSF OIG's Perspective |
Ke Gong | Tianjin University | China | How Do Chinese Universities Respond to Misconduct in Research? |
Howard Alper, O.C. | University of Ottawa | Canada | Stakeholder leadership in addressing research integrity challenges |
Sabine Kleinert | Committee on Pubication Ethics | United Kingdom | Challenges for editors as guardians of the research recordishers |
Plenary II: Developing National and International Research Integrity Structures | 22 July, 16:30 - 18:00 Pacific 3 |
||
Chair: | Carthage Smith (International Council for Science) | ||
This session will focus on national and international efforts to respond to misconduct and foster integrity in research, with particular attention to ways countries can work together to coordinate policies, share resources and develop global guidelines for investigations and training.
|
|||
Speaker Name | Organization | Country/Region | Title |
Christine C. Boesz | Advisor, U.S Government Accountability Expert | United States | Challenges in International Collaborations and Recommended Solutions: Prevention and Detection |
Ren Yi | University of Southern Queensland | Australia | National, institutional and international approach to research integrity: Australasian perspective |
Ian Halliday | European Science Foundation | Europe | The Activities of the European Science Foundation in Promoting Research Integrity in Europe |
Edward Kruglyakov | Russian Academy of Science | Russia | Scientific Falsifications in and out of Science |
Jose Antonio Cuellar Puente | Mexican College of Physicians / National Institutes of Health | Mexico | Research Integrity in Mexico: Shared Experience and Global Attention |
Dirk de Hen | ENRIO & LOWI (National Board for Research Integrity) | Netherlands | Acting after learning: an European approach |
Plenary III: Developing, Sharing and Promoting Best Practices | 23 July, 9:00 - 10:30 Pacific 3 |
||
Chairs: | Donald Wright (Office of Research Integrity) Wha-Chul Son (Handong University) |
||
This session will review and discuss different approaches researchers, research institutions, professional societies, editors, publishers, and others are taking to develop, share, and promote best practices in research, including editorial guidelines, codes of conduct, research integrity training, and other similar efforts.
|
|||
Speaker Name | Organization | Country/Region | Title |
Ovid Tzeng | Academia Sinica & National Yang Ming University | Chinese Taipei | The Threat of Research Integrity in the Net-Blowsing Generation: When There is Nothing left to Plagiarise |
Makoto Asashima | Tokyo University | Japan | Promoting best practices for scientists and post-doctoral fellows |
John Galland | Office of Research Integrity | United States | Developing, Sharing and Promoting Best Practices |
Catherine Quinn | Wellcome Trust | United Kingdom | A sponsor's views |
Elizabeth Wager | Committee on Publication Ethics | United Kingdom | Developing, sharing and promoting best practices |
Closing Plenary: Formulating a World Statement on the Fundamental Principles of Professionally Responsible Research | 23 July, 16:30 - 18:00 Pacific 3 |
||
Chairs: | Bertil Andersson (Nanyang Technological University) Nicholas Steneck (ORI and University of Michigan) Tony Mayer (Nanyang Technological University / European Science Foundation) |
||
During this session, rapporteurs from the plenaries and four concurrent sessions will present brief summaries of the major challenges and recommendations that emerged from each setting. Discussion will follow with the goal of reaching consensus on global statement on the fundamental principles of professionally responsible research.
|
|||
Speaker Name | Organization | Country/Region | Title |
Tony Mayer | European Science Foundation / Nanyang Technological University | Singapore-UK | |
Nicholas Steneck | Office of Research Integrity | United States | |
Bertil Andersson | Nanyang Technological University | Singapore |
III. Concurrent Sessions
Concurrent Sessions 1 & 3 (Working Groups)
Track 1: National and International Research Integrity Structures | |||
This track will provide an opportunity for participants to discuss the development of national and international policies to promote integrity and respond to misconduct in research.
|
|||
Track 1a: Developing National Research Integrity Structures: Challenges and Opportunities | 22 July, 14:00 - 16:00 Pacific 1 |
||
Chair: | Ren Yi (University of Southern Queensland) | ||
Should nations have policies on fostering integrity and responding to misconduct in research? If so, what should the policies cover, how should they be developed, and what are the obstacles to the development of effective policies? This session will explore these questions from the perspective of different countries that have developed or are actively in the process of developing research integrity policies.
|
|||
Speaker Name | Organization | Country | Title |
Peggy Fischer | National Science Foundation, Office of Inspector General | United States | US Experiences in Developing Research Integrity Structures |
Sylvia Rumball | Massey University, New Zealand | New Zealand | Research Integrity in New Zealand: Current system, Challenges and Recommendations |
Daham I. Alani | King Abdullah University of Science & Technology | Saudi Arabia | [Research Integrity Structures in Saudi Arabia] |
Soh Osuka | RIKEN | Japan | Effort to Achieve Research Integrity Through Dialogue with Researchers |
Boris Yudin | Russian Academy of Science | Russia | Research Community and State Authorities as Distinct Evaluators of Research Conduct/Misconduct |
Jean-Pierre Alix | The National Center for Scientific Research | France | How to Improve a Decentralized, Ambiguous National Integrity System? |
Eero Vuorio | University of Turku | Finland | How to Revise National Research Guidelines in the Changing International Landscape? |
Track 1b: Harmonizing Policies and Promoting International Collaboration | 23 July, 14:00 - 16:00 Pacific 1 |
||
Chairs: | Allison Lerner (National Science Foundation, Office of Inspector General) Tae Woong Yoon (Korea University) |
||
With researchers collaborating with colleagues in different countries and countries collaborating on projects, is there a need for greater harmonization of research integrity and research misconduct policies. Focusing first on the definition of misconduct, this session will explore what can be done to harmonize policies and the obstacles to harmonization.
|
|||
Speaker Name | Organization | Country | Title |
Daniele Fanelli | University of Edinburgh | United Kingdom | The Black, the White and the Gray Areas: Towards an International and Interdisciplinary Definition of Scientific Misconduct |
Glyndwr Davies | Research Councils UK (RCUK) | United Kingdom | Different Approaches to What Constitutes Research Integrity, and How Different National Systems Address These |
Emilio Bossi | Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences | Switzerland | Challenges Encountered by the Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences When Introducing Concepts for Promoting Scientific Integrity, and Attempts of Responses to these Challenges |
Ronald Heslegrave | Toronto General Research Institute, University Health Network and Council of Canadian Academies | Canada | Research Integrity in the Canadian Context |
Hung-Duen Yang | National Sun Yat-Sen University | Chinese Taipei | Research Integrity in Taiwan |
Tohru Masui | National Institute of Biomedical Innovation | Japan | Researcher’s Integrity: Acquiring Reactivity and Losing Responsibility |
Track 2: Codes of Conduct | |||
Some governments, organizations, and research institutions have developed codes of conduct to help researchers understand their responsibilities. These codes and other similar documents, such as best practices and guidelines, differ significantly in purpose, content and authority. The sessions in this Track will provide participants with an opportunity to learn more about codes of conduct, their usefulness and their limitations.
|
|||
Track 2a: The Organization and Purpose of Codes of Conduct | 22 July, 14:00 - 16:00 Pacific 2 |
||
Chair: | Makoto Asashima (Tokyo University) | ||
Throughout the world, research is both regulated and self-regulating. Codes of conduct and other similar documents, such as best practices and guidelines, are usually intended to aid self-regulation, although they can also sometime be part of regulations. This session will explore the different types of codes of conduct, their purpose, and the way they are used.
|
|||
Speaker Name | Organization | Country | Title |
Melissa Anderson | University of Minnesota | United States | A Framework for Examining Codes of Conduct on Research Integrity |
Peter Mahaffy | The International Council of Science | Canada | A Code of Conduct for Chemists |
Matthias Kaiser | National Committee for Research Ethics in Science and Technology | Norway | Dilemmas for Ethical Guidelines of Science |
Carthage Smith | International Council of Science | France | Freedom and Responsibility in the Conduct of Science -- Principles and Practices |
Lida Anestidou | National Academy of Science | United States | Codes or Guidelines? A Working Model of Integrity and Compliance in Laboratory Animal Research |
John Sulston | Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute | United Kingdom | Levels of Responsibility in the Conduct of Science |
Track 2b: A Look at Current Codes | 23 July, 14:00 - 16:00 Pacific 2 |
||
Chair: | Jan Taplick (European Molecular Biology Organization) | ||
One way to learn what works and does not work is to study examples. The presentations in this session will briefly summarize one or more codes of conduct and the experience implementing them.
|
|||
Speaker Name | Organization | Country | Title |
Pieter J.D. Drenth | All European Academies | Netherlands | A European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity |
Timothy Dyke | National Health & Medical Research Council | Australia | The Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research and Related Standards |
Ping Sun | ORI, Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) | China | How Many Codes of Conduct Do We Need? Perspectives from China |
Frank Wells | European Forum for Good Clinical Practice | United Kingdom | A Way Forward? A report from the European Forum for Good Clinical Practice |
Ashima Anand | Delhi University | India | Society for Scientific Values- A movement to promote Ethics in the conduct of Science |
John O'Neill | Massey University | New Zealand | The Past, Present and Future of One University's Code of Research Ethics |
Track 3: Training for Responsible Research | |||
Over the last twenty years, interest in responsible conduct of research (RCR) training has grown throughout the world. However, the quality of this training varies considerably and is it still not widely available in most countries. The sessions in this Track will explore challenges faced in developing RCR education, with particular attention to goals, approaches to training, essential topics, outcomes, and assessment. Speakers from four global regions will discuss current developments and future plans in their areas.
|
|||
Track 3a: United States and Asia | 22 July, 14:00 - 16:00 Ocean 1&2 |
||
Chairs: | Mary Ritter (Imperial College / EUA) Ames Dhai (South Africa) |
||
Speakers will discuss different aspects of the development of RCR training in the United States and Asia.
|
|||
Speaker Name | Organization | Country | Title |
Session 1: Developments in the US | |||
Michael Kalichman | University of California, San Diego, CA | United States | Why, What, and How We Should Be Teaching About Research Integrity |
Jean Feldman | US National Science Foundation | United States | NSF Implementation of Required RCR Training: Background, Strategy and Status |
Daniel Denecke | Council of Graduate Schools | United States | An Institutional Approach to Embedding Research Integrity and the Responsible Conduct of Research in Graduate Education: The US Project for Scholarly Integrity |
Philip J. Langlais | Old Dominion University | United States | Challenges and Solutions to Establishing An Institutional Culture of Research Integrity |
Daniel Vasgird | West Virginia University | United States | Online RCR Training and the Use of Case Study Videos |
Session 2: Developments in Asia | |||
Wei Yang | Zhejiang University | China | Fighting Research Misconduct by Integrated Tactics: Case Studies from China |
Sang Wook Yi | Hanyang University | Korea | Nurturing Good Research Practice Through Web-based Activities Korean Experience |
Bruce McKellar | University of Melbourne | Australia | Use of Case Studies in Training Students and Practitioners in Responsible Research Practice |
Tetsuji Iseda | Kyoto Universityy | Japan | How to Teach Research Integrity Without Using the Notion: Attempts in Japan |
Tomoaki Tsuchida | Waseda University | Japan | Research Ethics across Disciplines: An Educational Program at a Large-scale Research University |
Track 3b: Europe, Africa, Latin America, and Global Programmes | 23 July, 14:00 - 16:00 Ocean 1&2 |
||
Chair: | David Engelke (United States) | ||
Speakers will discuss different aspects of the development of RCR training in the Europe, other countries, and global programmes
|
|||
Speaker Name | Organization | Country | Title |
Session 1: Developments in Europe | |||
Nils Axelsen | Statens Serum Institut | Denmark | Statens Serum Institut's Course on Good Research Practice |
Gerlinde Sponholz | Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft | Germany | A Curriculum for RCR-Training in Germany |
David Babington-Smith | Epigeum | United Kingdom | Delivering Online Ethics Training in the UK and Ireland Using Enhanced Multi-media (Video, Simulations) Online Training |
Ragnvald Kalleberg | University of Oslo | Norway | The Norwegian Model for Promoting RCT in Graduate Studies |
Maria Leptin | European Molecular Biology Organization | Europe | Time to Act on a Pan-European Policy on Research Integrity Training: How Can EMBO Contribute? |
Session 2: Global developments | |||
Sonia Maria Ramos Vasconcelos | Federal University of Rio de Janeiro | Brazil | Developing Policies for RCR Training in Brazilian Graduate Programs: Current Challenges |
Anthony Mullings | University of the West Indies | Jamaica | Advancing Research Ethics Training in the Caribbean - Challenges and Success |
Ames Dhai | Biko Centre for Bioethics | South Africa | Preventing Research Misconduct : Some Programs in Africa |
Paul Braunschweiger | University of Miami & CITI Program | United States | The CITI Program: A Web-based Research Ethics Education Paradigm for the International Research Community |
Iekuni Ichikawa | Vanderbilt University & Tokai University of Medicine | Japan | Creating CITI Japan Program for Web-Based Training, Where Ethicis, Law and Science Experts Meet |
Track 4: Research Integrity Issues for Authors and Editors | |||
The sessions in this track will discuss research integrity issues relating to authorsip and editing with the goal of developing global guidance for both areas of research. Draft guidelines for authors and editors will be prepared and circulated in advance of the Conference and form the basis of the concurrent sessions and post-conference workshop.
|
|||
Track 4a: International Standards/Best Practices for Authors | 22 July, 14:00 - 16:00 Ocean 4&5 |
||
Chairs: | Sabine Kleinert (Committee on Publication Ethics) Linda Miller (Nature) |
||
Publication is the final stage of research, so the role of researcher as author is an important one. Research integrity should cover the entire process from planning to publication. Individual journals, and groups of editors working in particular fields, have issued guidance for authors, but there are no universal standards. This session will explore good practice for authors, how guidance may prevent various types of misconduct, and set the stage for developing global policies during the post-Conference workshop.
|
|||
Speaker Name | Organization | Country | Title |
Ana Marusic | Council of Science Editors | Croatia | Report on Findings on Authorship Review |
David Moher | Ottawa Hospital Research Institute / EQUATOR | Canada | The EQUATOR Network: A Global Initiative to Improve the Quality of Reporting Research |
Vasiliy Vlassov | Moscow Medical Academy | Russia | Plagiarism in Russia and East Europe |
Track 4b: International Standards/Best Practices for Editors | 23 July, 14:00 - 16:00 Ocean 4&5 |
||
Chairs: | Elizabeth Wager (Committee on Publication Ethics) Diane Sullenberger (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences) |
||
Editors are the gatekeepers for research publications. As such, they play an important role in preserving and promoting research integrity. And they bear some responsibility for publications and publication pratices that undermine the integrity of the research literature. This session will explore problems that arise in the publication process , discuss steps that have been taken to address these problems, and set the stage for developing more global guidelines for editors during the post-Conference workshop.
|
|||
Speaker Name | Organization | Country | Title |
Douglas N. Arnold | University of Minnesota / Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics News | United States | Challenges to Research Integrity and the Response of the Mathematics Research Community |
Ben Martin | University of Sussex | United Kingdom | [How Editors and Universities Can Work Together] |
Bernd Pulverer | European Molecular Biology Organization | Germany | How Biological Science Journals Can Contribute to Research Integrity |
Hongwei Zhang | China National Knowledge Infrastructure | China | CNKI's Exploration and Practice in Improving Digital Publishing and Resisting Academic Misconduct |
Note: Titles in "[]" are tentative and may be changed. |
Concurrent Sessions 2 (Research Integrity in the News)
23 July, 11:00 - 12:30
Special Concurrent 1: Integrity in the Climate-Change Debate | 23 July, 11:00 - 12:30 Pacific 1 |
||
Chair: | Tony Mayer (Nanyang Technological University and European Science Foundation) | ||
Emails written by climate-change researchers, released into the public domain by hackers, have provoked intense scrutiny in the United Kingdom of the integrity of this crucial field of research. That the researchers were indiscrete in what they wrote is clear but numerous enquiries have cleared them of any suggestion that they distorted or misrepresented data. The IPCC itself is also under scrutiny having failed to follow its stated processes . Climate research is based on global research programmes and on the basis of trust between many researchers worldwide. How can one provide 'integrity quality control' in such global programmes? What standards should apply when researchers become public advocates and involved in public debates. This session will explore this aspect of research integrity in an area which is both topical and of major political relevance. |
|||
Speaker Name | Organization | Country | Title |
Ann Henderson-Sellers | Macquarie University | Australia | Research Integrity's Burning Fuse: Climate Truth Before Change Explodes |
Fred Pearce | Guardian Newspaper | United Kingdom | Truth, Lies and the Climategate E-Mails |
Carlos Nobre | Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais | Brazil | Lessons of the 'Amazongate' to the IPCC Process |
Mark Frankel | American Association for the Advancement of Science | United States | Turning Up the Heat on Research Integrity: Lessons from 'Climategate' |
Special Concurrent 2: Integrity in the Digital Age | 23 July, 11:00 - 12:30 Pacific 2 |
||
Chairs: | Deborah Runkle (American Association for the Advancement of Science) Peter Brooks (King Abdullah University of Science & Technology ) |
||
The migration of record keeping and publication from print to digital technology has raised new problems for research integrity. Digital technology can also be used detect misbehavior and foster integrity in research. This session will explore the use of digital technology for detecting plagiarism, duplicate publication, and improper photo manipulation.
|
|||
Speaker Name | Organization | Country | Title |
Harold R. 'Skip' Garner | Virginia Tech | United States | The Characteristics of Highly Similar Scientific Publications |
Xiongyong Sun | China National Knowledge Infrastructure | China | CNKI AMLC System's Advances in Development and Application and the Plan for International Cooperation |
John Dahlberg | Office of Research Integrity | United States | ORI's Forensic Approach in Reviewing Questioned Data and Images |
John Barrie | iParadigms | United States | Vetting Scholarly Work for Originality |
Special Concurrent 3: Integrity Issues in Dual-Use Research | 23 July, 11:00 - 12:30 Ocean 1&2 |
||
Chairs: | Lida Anestidou (National Academies of Science) Paula Strickland (National Institutes of Health) |
||
This session will explore questions about responsibility and integrity that arise in research that has both useful and harmful applications. Do researchers have special responsibilities when they work in these fields? If so, what should these responsibilities be?
|
|||
Speaker Name | Organization | Country | Title |
Lida Anestidou | National Academies of Science | United States | Integrity in science with dual-use potential |
Gerald Epstein | American Association for the Advancement of Science | United States | Governance Options for Dual-Use Research |
David Franz | US Office of the Secretary of Defense | United States | The Role of Leadership and Culture within the Laboratory |
Daniel Davis | National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity | United States | Codes of Conduct as Tools for Fostering Responsibility in Dual Use Research: The Work of the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity, USA |
Robert Mathews | University of Melbourne | Australia | The Role of Awareness-Raising, Education and Codes of Conduct in the Dual-Use Research Environment |
Elizabeth Heitman | Vanderbilt University | United States | Research with Dual-Use Potential in RCR Education: Is There a Role for Codes? |
IV. Post-Conference Workshops and Training Sessions
24 July, 9:00 - 17:00
Workshop 1. Planning and training for Misconduct Investigations | Ocean 1 | |
As countries increase their emphasis on research, the need to conduct responsible investigations of reported problems is likely to grow. Drawing on the experience of countries with experience conducting investigation, this workshop will provide a short course for administrators and researchers who want to learn the basics of conducting a responsible investigation. During the closing sessions, participants will develop conclusions and recommendations for promoting greater cooperation in the development of national research integrity structures and mechanisms facilitating research misconduct investigations in international collaborations.
|
||
Introduction and Welcome | 9:00-9:10 | |
Chair: Dirk de Hen | ENRIO & LOWI (National Board of Research Integrity) | Netherlands |
Session 1 | Institutional Structures for Ensuring Integrity | 9:10-10:00 |
Panel members will discuss institutional, national and international mechanisms for ensuring integrity and responsible conduct. Further discussion will focus on the need for agreements between partners at all levels to common principles to ensure such conduct within a research project. Discussion will focus way to ensure cooperation and fairness at all levels. Outcome: Framework for the essential elements of national research integrity structures |
||
Christine C. Boesz | Advisor, U.S Government Accountability Expert | United States |
Ren Yi | University of Southern Queensland | Australia |
Jose Antonio Cuellar Puente | Mexican College of Physicians / National Institutes of Health | Mexico |
Session 2 | The Role of the Research Integrity Officer (RIO) | 10:05-11:00 |
Panel members will discuss the role of the official responsible for managing responsible conduct of research training programs and research misconduct investigations to balance the demands of local, national and international concerns. Focus will be placed on the aspects of such programs that will ensure comprehensive training for researchers who are working together on a project but who were trained in different national systems. Mechanisms will be explored by which the RIO can ensure the fair treatment of individuals who hail from different countries but are joint subjects of an investigation and can convey the confidential results of these investigations to relevant institutions. Outcome: Recommendations for functions and duties of research integrity officers |
||
David Wright | Michigan State University / ORI | United States |
Eero Vuorio | University of Turku | Finland |
Sylvia Rumball | Massey University, New Zealand | New Zealand |
Break | 11:00-11:20 | |
Session 3 | Conducting Investigations into allegations of research misconduct in international collaborative research Projects | 11:00-11:20 |
Speakers will discuss the basic principles of research misconduct investigations and then use specific examples to facilitate the discussion of the key components to thorough, fair and complete investigations. | ||
Peggy Fischer | National Science Foundation, Inspector General Office | United States |
John Dahlberg | Office of Research Integrity | United States |
David Wright | Michigan State University/ORI | United States |
Lunch | Working Lunch Break ~ Case studies | 12:30-1:30 |
(Session 3, continued) | 1:30-3:00 | |
Break | 3:00-3:30 | |
Session 4 | Developing a framework for addressing Research Misconduct in International Collaborations | 3:30-5:00 |
Panel members will describe and discuss the unique aspects of international collaborations that make them vulnerable to misunderstandings and allegations of research misconduct with the goal of suggesting ways countries can collaborate in their response. Outcome: Final conclusions and recommendations for promoting greater cooperation in the development of national research integrity structures and mechanisms for facilitating research misconduct investigations in international collaborations. |
||
Christine C. Boesz | Advisor, U.S Government Accountability Expert | United States |
David Wright | Michigan State University | United States |
Dirk de Hen | ENRIO & LOWI (National Board of Research Integrity) | Netherlands |
Eero Vuorio | University of Turku | Finland |
John Dahlberg | Office of Research Integrity | United States |
Jose Antonio Cuellar Puente | Mexican College of Physicians / National Institutes of Health | Mexico |
Peggy Fischer | National Science Foundation, Inspector General Office | United States |
Ren Yi | University of Southern Queensland | Australia |
Sylvia Rumball | Massey University, New Zealand | New Zealand |
Workshop 2. Codes of Conduct | Ocean 2 | |
Codes of conduct and other types of guidance documents play an important role in defining expectations for responsible professional behavior in research. There are many codes of conduct to which researchers can turn for advice but these codes unfortunately vary considerably in content, useability, and availability. This is particularly true for researchers whose work is interdisciplinary and/or international. The goal of this workshop is to discuss and suggest ways to bring more uniformity to research codes of conduct and to strengthen their role in promoting integrity in research.
|
||
Introduction and Welcome | 9:00-9:10 | |
Chair: Tony Mayer | Nanyang Technological University/ European Science Foundation | UK-Singapore |
Session 1: Institutional and Professional Codes | 9:10-10:30 | |
With a few examples as models, the goal of this session is to discuss the goals, content, and use of codes of conduct developed by research institutions and professional or academic societies. Questions to address include: 1. What is the purpose of a research code of conduct at the level of research institutions and professional or academic societies?2. What topics or areas should these codes cover? 3. Should these codes play a regulatory role, such as setting standards for judging behavior? 4. What are the problems that arise when adopting institutional codes? |
||
Ragnvald Kalleberg | University of Oslo | Norway |
Frank Wells | European Forum for Good Clinical Practice | United Kingdom |
Peter Mahaffy | The International Council of Science | Canada |
Break | 10:30-11:00 | |
Session 2: National Codes | 11:00-12:30 | |
With a few examples as models, the goal of this session is to discuss the goals, content, and use of national codes of conduct. Questions to address include: 1. What is the purpose of a research code of conduct at the national level?2. What topics or areas should these codes cover? 3. Should these codes play a regulatory role, such as setting standards for judging behavior? 4. What are the problems that arise when adopting national codes? |
||
Matthias Kaiser | National Committee for Research Ethics in Science and Technology | Norway |
Timothy Dyke | National Health & Medical Research Council | Australia |
Sergio Litewka | PABI, University of Miami & CITI Program | United States |
Lunch | 12:30-1:30 | |
Session 3: Regional and International Codes | 13:30-15:00 | |
With a few examples as models, the goal of this session is to discuss the goals, content, and use of the few regional or international codes of conduct that exist. Questions to address include: 1. What is the purpose of a research code of conduct at the regional level?2. What topics or areas should these codes cover? 3. Should these codes play a regulatory role, such as setting standards for judging behavior? 4. What are the problems that arise when adopting regional codes? |
||
Pieter Drenth | ESF Code | ESF / Europe |
Yali Cong | Peking University Health Science Center | China |
Lida Anestidou | National Academies of Science | United States |
Break | 15:00-15:30 | |
Session 4: Universal Codes, The Singapore Statement | 15:30-16:30 | |
Suggestions have been made for a universal code of conduct for research but none has ever been widely adopted. Some suggest that this is due to the very diverse nature of research. Nonetheless, researchers seem to believe in fundamental values and to understand when they have been violated. This session will explore the potential role of the Singapore Statement, which may or may not be affirmed during the Conference, in promoting integrity in research. | ||
Melissa Anderson | University of Minnesota | United States |
Emilio Bossi | Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences | Switzerland |
Carthage Smith | International Council of Science | International |
Wrap up: Conclusions and Recommendations | 16:30-17:00 | |
Workshop 3. International Responsible Conduct of Research Education Workshop | Ocean 3 | |
The primary purpose of the workshop will be to draft consensus statements and/or specific plans for next steps with respect to goals, content, approaches, best practices and strategies for the development of responsible conduct of research (RCR) training programs. A secondary goal will be to increase awareness and interest in some of the approaches for promoting RCR education. It is hoped that this workshop will at the very least provide a roadmap for producing consensus statements, suggested practices, or international collaborations. Outcomes could include tools for teaching RCR, recommendations for approaches, a "how to" handbook to get programs started, or the establishment of an international network of RCR experts.
|
||
Introduction and Welcome | 9:00-9:10 | |
Chair: | Nicholas Steneck | United States |
Panel 1: Goals & Audience | 9:10-10:30 | |
If our long-term goal is to produce effective programs for RCR education, then we need to first be clear on our goals so that we can assess program effectiveness. This session will address questions such as: 1. What are the goals and rationales for RCR education?2. Who is the audience for RCR education programs? 3. To what extent is there international agreement about goals and audience?? 4. On what key issues, if any, do we not find consensus? |
||
Michael Kalichman | University of California, San Diego, CA | United States |
Nils Axelsen | Statens Serum Institut | Denmark |
Sonia Ramos Maria Vasconcelos | Federal University of Rio de Janeiro | Brazil |
Anthony Mullings | University of the West Indies | Jamaica |
Break | 10:30-11:00 | |
Panel 2: Content | 11:00-12:30 | |
In addition to knowing how (settings, tools) RCR education should be provided, it is necessary to know what topics should be covered. This session will address questions such as: 1. What topics should be considered part of RCR education?2. What topics, if any, are necessary for everyone? 3. To what extent is there international agreement about the topics to be covered? 4. For which topics, if any, do we not find consensus? |
||
Philip Langlais | Old Dominion University | United States |
Gerlinde Sponholz | Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft | Germany |
Sang Wook Yi | Hanyang University | Korea |
Mary Ritter | Imperial College | United Kingdom |
Lunch | 12:30-1:30 | |
Panel 3: Tools and resources | 13:30-14:45 | |
Based on the goals and audience for RCR education, the best approaches may vary. It is important to note that while classroom meetings structured around discussion of case studies often come to mind first, these are not the only approaches, nor are they necessarily the best approaches, to address the intended goals and audiences. This session will address questions such as: 1. What are the options for educational settings to teach about RCR?2. What kinds of tools are available to encourage RCR discussion and learning? 3. What is the evidence for the effectiveness of these approaches? 4. To what extent is there international agreement about the best choices for settings and tools? 5. On what best practices for settings and tools, if any, do we not find consensus? |
||
Paul Braunschweiger | University of Miami & CITI Program | United States |
David Babington-Smith | Epigeum | United Kingdom |
Bruce McKellar | International Council of Science | Australia |
Jean Feldman | US National Science Foundation | United States |
Break | 14:45-15:15 | |
Panel 4: Programme development | 15:15-16:30 | |
Sustainable RCR training requires planning and support to create practical, effective programmes. RCR programs exist in many forms and at different levels, from the strategies developed by a single department to institutional initiatives and government-driven national efforts. It is unlikely that one plan or one programme will work in every country but some mechanisms may be useful to assure comparability across countries. This session will address questions such as: 1. Should there be minimum international standards or a fundamental basic curriculum for RCR training?2. Could international standards for RCR training be assessed and if so, how? |
||
Elizabeth Heitman | Vanderbilt University | United States |
Jan Taplick | European Molecular Biology Organization | Europe |
Ames Dhai | Biko Centre for Bioethics | South Africa |
Tomoaki Tsuchida | Waseda University | Japan |
Next Steps | 16:30-17:00 | |
Workshop 4. Workshop for Authors and Editors | Ocean 4 | |
The Workshop for Authors and Editors is organized around two guidance documents developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). During the morning sessions, participants willdiscuss these documents and make recommendations for their adoption on a broad global basis. The afternoon session will provide an opportunity to present and discuss cases, with the goal of helping editors and authors understand best practices and practical ways for assuring high standards for integrity in research publication.
|
||
Introduction and Welcome | 9:00-9:10 | |
Chairs: | Sabine Kleinert (COPE) and Elizabeth Wager (COPE) | United States /United Kingdom |
Session 1: Defining goals and content | 9:10-9:45 | |
During this session, the presenters will summarize the ideas and recommendations presented during the Conference, focusing on areas of agreement and disagreement, leading to a list is issues that remain to be resolved. The purpose of this session is todevelop an agenda for the two breakout groups that follow. | ||
Sabine Kleinert | Committee on Publication Ethics | United Kingdom |
Elizabeth Wager | Committee on Publication Ethics | United Kingdom |
Diane Sullenberger | Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences | United States |
Session 2: Breakout discussion | 9:45-11:30 | |
During this session, participants will divide into two working groups (one focused on guidance for authors the other on guidance for editors) to discuss the outstanding issues identified in the opening session and to develop recommendations to address these issues. | ||
Discussion Leaders | Organization | Country |
Editors: Sabine Kleinert Douglas Arnold |
Committee on Publication Ethics University of Minnesota / Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics News |
United Kingdom United States |
Ping Sun | ORI, Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) | China |
Authors: Elizabeth Wager Ana Marusic |
Committee on Publication Ethics Council of Science Editors |
United Kingdom Croatia |
Break | 20 min. during session | |
Session 3: Reports from the breakout groups, discussion | 11:30-12:30 | |
During this session, rappeuteurs from the two working groups will summarize their conclusions and recommendations, with the goal of reaching agreement on the language in the two guidance documents. | ||
Lunch | 12:30-13:30 | |
Session 4: Case studies | 13:30-16:00 | |
During this session, COPE and other participants will present case studies involving authorship and editing issues but discussion. The session will begin with a brief desciption of the process COPE uses to review and provide advice on cases. The goal of the session is to provide practical guidance on how to deal with difficult integrity issues in publication. | ||
Break | 20 min.during session | |
Session 5: Wrap up, Steps to promote global best practices for authors and editors | 16:00-17:00 | |
Discussion of next steps toward the adoption of global guidance for authors and editors | ||