image1
image2
image3

Parallel sessions

Research integrity, ethics and governance

The parallel sessions detailed below have been identified as falling under the theme "Research integrity, ethics and governance". Most sessions have this as their primary theme, but for some it is a secondary theme. Please review the description of each session for further information about what it will cover.

For other sessions, see also:

104: Ethics, governance, research and enterprise: management approaches to conflicts of interest

Dr Peter Hooper, Head of Research Services, University of Keele
Prof Laetus O K Lategan, Dean: Research and Development, Central University Technology, Free State

With the developing agenda of 'user-engagement', enterprise and entrepreneurship, it is vital that universities and research organisations have clear procedures for dealing with real or perceived conflicts of interest in research projects. A fundamental strand of any policy in this area must the awareness of researchers (and others) of what is an appropriate approach and when to seek guidance. Not all cases of potential conflict of interest are clear-cut and institutions need to have clear, defensible and consistent approaches when dealing with these with these issues. The area of 'business ethics' and 'environmental ethics' are overlooked but increasingly important aspects of research and enterprise activity.

204: Accreditation: Pros and Cons drawing on experience in the US and UK

Michael Bone, Chairman, Association of Research Ethics Committees (AREC)
David Anderson-Ford, Vice Chair, Association of Research Ethics Committees & Chair, Research Ethics Committee, Brunel University
Ada Sue Selwitz, Director, Office of Research Integrity, Kentucky University

This session will compare and contrast the UK and US systems of University Research Ethics Committees/Institutional Review Boards with a particular focus on the issue of accreditation.

In recent years, UK universities have increasingly established research ethics committees to review research undertaken on human participants in both clinical but non-NHS, and non-biomedical projects. But this has been in a haphazard and disparate manner. They may not have any regulatory requirement, and each university determines its composition, terms of reference and standard operating procedures (SOPs). The University sector of AREC is currently producing guidance on SOPs, quality assurance and accreditation, planning to examine the lessons learnt from the NHS model of practice in order to make the system robust and fit for purpose yet responsive to the needs of the sector with its extremely broad interest and fields of activity.

In the US, however, the research ethics committee's composition and operation, and informed consent requirements, are strictly regulated by nineteen federal agencies and Food and Drug Administration policy. In addition, the research community has adopted an accreditation system which is designed to ensure that human subjects research being conducted by institutions meets the highest ethical standards. We will discuss lessons learned about obtaining and implementing accreditation for human research protection programmes.

304: Ethical review in the Social Sciences: rebuilding the Tower of Babel?

David Hunter, Lecturer in Bioethics, Biomedical Sciences, University of Ulster
Dr Ron Iphofen, Lecturer in Medical Sociology and the Sociology of Health, School of Health Care Sciences, University of Wales Bangor

This session explores approaches to and management of ethical review in social science research with specific reference to the UK as well as the wider European context. The speakers will draw on recent developments within the UK (the ESRC Research Ethics Framework, for instance) contrasting them with the development of the NHS National Research Ethics Service. Recent developments within the EU to establish pan-European standards for best practice in social science research will be presented and there will be opportunity to discuss pros and cons and exchange experiences.

404: How research administrators can effectively and sensitively foster ethical, responsible research: experiences of three universities

Dr Michael Owen, Vice-President Research & Graduate Studies, Ontario College of Art & Design
Richard Hudson, Quality Assurance Manager, Research Office, University of Sheffield

  • Target Audience: Policy Developers, Pre- and Post-Award Research Administrators, Ethics Officers (of particular relevance to new and emerging research organisations in any location)
  • UK/International: Not geographically specific
  • Experience Level: No/basic experience

The regulatory frameworks governing research continue to expand. One unintended outcome is that research ethics is increasingly perceived as contentious and frustrating; indeed as a block to innovative research. Furthermore, policy makers wrestle with how to effectively foster research integrity.

Many universities focus on compliance and risk. This session considers how universities can proactively, positively and sensitively promote values and behaviours in research practice that encourage responsible research. The speakers will discuss the approaches of institutions in Britain and Canada (strategies, resources, benefits, challenges, role of research offices, outcomes). The direction of the regulatory environment will also be discussed.

504: International Governance of Research Integrity: a comparative view

Dr Glyn Davies, Director of Policy and Resources and Deputy Chief Executive, Economic and Social Research Council
Dr Tina Boesz, Inspector General, National Science Foundation
Prof Ben Martin, Professor of Science and Technology Policy Studies, SPRU, University of Sussex

This session will include three presentations examining approaches to investigation of cases of research misconduct, drawing on examples from the UK, EU and USA.

In recent years, UK universities have established a range of internal codes designed to promote research integrity and prevent research misconduct. However, more recently there has been a school of thought that a body independent of universities, should be established to oversee matters relating to research integrity and to review the increase in reported cases of misconduct. The first presentation will examine this debate.

The second presentation will describe the US focus on responsible conduct of research and what steps are taken when plagiarism and data fabrication/falsification are suspected. Case study examples will be used to illustrate the process and the findings. A description of the goals and preliminary recommendations of a project being undertaken by the Global Science Forum of OECD, exploring how to investigate allegations of misconduct in international research collaborations, will also be presented.

Participants will also have the opportunity to hear of a recent case of serious research misconduct spanning the EU and the US and the particular issues and challenges that the investigation and its reporting posed to research integrity with reference to the US and the developing situation in the UK.

604: Managing overseas ethics: a practical experience

Prof Bobbie Farsides, Professor of Clinical and Biomedical Ethics, Brighton and Sussex Medical School
Dr Melanie Newport, Reader in Infectious Diseases, Brighton and Sussex Medical School
Jimmy Whitworth, Head of International Activities, Wellcome Trust

  • Target Audience: Staff involved in the ethical arrangements/management of overseas medical/clinical trials (research administrators/ethics officers/faculty)
  • UK/International: Not geographically specific
  • Experience Level: No/basic experience

This session will explore the issues and challenges of setting up and managing the ethical aspects of overseas clinical trials and other research studies. The speakers, who will include a Professor of Clinical and Biomedical Ethics, a Principal Investigator, and a major UK based funder of overseas research, will draw on a real case study based in Ethiopia to illustrate the particular issues discussed.

See also: