Albany Medical Center
 Search
Home / Caring / Educating / Find a Doctor / News / Give Now / Careers / About / Calendar / Directions / Contact
Topic: Research Integrity
October 27, 2014 | Posted By Zubin Master, PhD

In a recent paper published in BMC Medical Ethics, my co-authors and I argued that there are unique issues in authorship in the context of global health research (GHR).Global health places priority on improving and ensuring equity in health worldwide. GHR is often multi/interdisciplinaryand involves large collaborative networks. Our analysis of authorship GHR applies to situations where researchers from high income countries (HICs) partner with those in low and middle-income countries (LMICs). First, let’s start by illustrating an example of a GHR research project. Let’s say that researchers wanted to study the genetics of a tropical disease. They wrote and succeeded in obtaining a U.S. National Institutes of Health funded grant. HIC researchers may bring to the collaboration scientific expertise, access to genomics/proteomic technologies, and may have been the main PI on the grant. LMIC researchers may be from a nation affected with the disease and can also provide scientific expertise, insight into local perceptions and realities, and access to the study population – the latter especially being difficult for HIC researchers given possible issues surrounding trust. Together, the team may gather epidemiological genetic data relevant to international public health interventions and also help address local needs and interests.

The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers a Master of Science in Bioethics, a Doctorate of Professional Studies in Bioethics, and Graduate Certificates in Clinical Ethics and Clinical Ethics Consultation. For more information on AMBI's online graduate programs, please visit our website.

July 10, 2014 | Posted By Zubin Master, PhD

Both parts I and II of this blog were originally published as a commentary in the Office of Research Integrity’s Newsletter (http://ori.hhs.gov/newsletters) Volume 22, Number 2, March 2014 and has been reproduced with permission for the AMBI blog.

In Part I, published last month, I discussed my experience organizing and developing a responsible conduct of research (RCR) workshop for stem cell scientists that was held at the Till and McCulloch Meeting in October 2013 as part of Canada’s Stem Cell Network at http://www.stemcellnetwork.ca. In Part 2, I discuss the importance of developing RCR pedagogy that includes both lecture and informational components, and provides ethical cases such that students have a rich understanding of normative, policy, and practical aspects to different RCR topics.

The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers a Master of Science in Bioethics, a Doctorate of Professional Studies in Bioethics, and Graduate Certificates in Clinical Ethics and Clinical Ethics Consultation. For more information on AMBI's online graduate programs, please visit our website.

June 19, 2014 | Posted By Zubin Master, PhD

By sharing a recent experience in which I delivered a lecture and case at a responsible conduct of research (RCR) workshop for biomedical science trainees, I will comment on why I believe that pedagogy on the RCR, specifically for biomedical scientists, needs two essential ingredients: delivering knowledge/information and providing case-based learning. The art is to determine how much of each element is needed and how to most effectively deliver information on an RCR topic and ensure trainees get the most from the ethical analysis of cases.

Ethics Workshop: Responsible Research Conduct & Misconduct in Stem Cell Research

As part of Canada’s Stem Cell Network at http://www.stemcellnetwork.ca, I had the unique opportunity to organize and present an Ethics Workshop as part of the Network’s annual Till & McCulloch Meetings in October 2013. The workshop was a lecture followed by an interactive ethical case using “The Lab: Avoiding Research Misconduct” video hosted by the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) athttps://ori.hhs.gov/thelab. The 50 to 60 workshop attendees were primarily master’s, doctoral, and post-doctoral trainees, and almost all were biomedical researchers working with stem cells. Most attendees had never heard of RCR. Thus, the goals of the workshop were modest and involved introducing attendees to the following: RCR, research misconduct (fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism), the RCR link to scientific retractions, issues of authorship and publication ethics, and Canada’s RCR framework.

The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers a Master of Science in Bioethics, a Doctorate of Professional Studies in Bioethics, and Graduate Certificates in Clinical Ethics and Clinical Ethics Consultation. For more information on AMBI's online graduate programs, please visit our website.

May 16, 2014 | Posted By Zubin Master, PhD

Last month, I discussed bias in academia and more specifically in the workplace. Just to recap, there are several studies that show bias in peer review and bias or favoritism in the workplace. Much of the bias may be unconscious or what is considered “hidden bias” and is not shown overtly. In this month’s blog, I propose three steps to reduce bias in the workplace.

The solutions proposed here are geared towards academic work environments at the departmental level in one of the three settings: 1) professors or research scientists running a lab or a research group who supervise research assistants, students, fellows and staff; 2) department directors/heads; and 3) members and chairs of committees charged with the selection of candidates for awards, prizes, and positions. While I am not applying these steps to the peer review of grants or publications, some of the points may be helpful to reduce bias in peer review processes.

The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers a Master of Science in Bioethics, a Doctorate of Professional Studies in Bioethics, and Graduate Certificates in Clinical Ethics and Clinical Ethics Consultation. For more information on AMBI's online graduate programs, please visit our website.

May 8, 2014 | Posted By John Kaplan, PhD

The Graduate Studies Program of AMC has provided education and training in research integrity and the responsible conduct of research (RCR) since the early 1990s. This program has been directed to graduate students in the basic sciences working toward masters and doctoral degrees and to post-doctoral fellows in the basic sciences. The impetus for initiation of such education and training was the mandate issued by the National Institutes of Health that required a description of activities related to instruction in RCR in institutional training grant applications. We will describe the initiation, development, evolution, and current status of our curriculum.

The individual training grant directors were responsible for the initial activities of this endeavor, which were sporadic, inconsistent, and undocumented. Subsequently, in 1994, the Dean of AMC charged the Associate Dean for Graduate Studies, who happened to be me, with the task of developing a formal graduate course to address this mandate.

This task was initially addressed by identifying faculty who would develop and teach this course, create curriculum plans and objectives, and identify materials useful in teaching. This process also included self-education because this area had not been previously taught here. It also involved a good deal of public relations because most students and faculty resisted the implementation of training in RCR as an intrusion upon time that should be most profitably spent in the laboratory.

The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers a Master of Science in Bioethics, a Doctorate of Professional Studies in Bioethics, and Graduate Certificates in Clinical Ethics and Clinical Ethics Consultation. For more information on AMBI's online graduate programs, please visit our website.

April 17, 2014 | Posted By Zubin Master, PhD

One of my areas of research focus in bioethics is known as the responsible conduct of research (RCR) (a.k.a. research integrity). Research on research integrity covers a range of different norms and practices including authorship and publication ethics, research misconduct (fabrication, falsification and plagiarism), responsible mentorship, peer review, and RCR education among others. I have written on several of these topics in our AMBI blogs.

One of the topics I am interested in chatting about today is bias in the academic setting, but even more generally in the workplace. Much about research methodology aims to reduce or eliminate bias. For example, the experimental scientific method attempts to reduce bias by having proper controls, blinding researchers, and employing statistics so that we don’t over interpret our findings. Sociologists and other qualitative researchers may declare their biases when reporting research so the reader knows where the researcher is coming from. The entire concept of declaring conflicts of interest also aim to permit others to know what potential interest(s) the researcher may have which could bias their results. Moreover, the peer review process, which academia heavily relies on, aims to reduce bias in research. Peer review is not only used in the context of evaluating research, it also evaluates academic scholars for jobs, committee memberships, awards and scholarships, and other entitlements. One recent studydone by Drs. Daniele Fanelli and John Ioannidis showed the overestimation of effect sizes in behavioral research. Here the researchers performed a meta-analysis of meta-analyses (cleverly called meta meta-analysis) and found that researchers working in the behavioral, but not biomedical, sciences tended to exaggerate effects that were not supported by the data. Most interestingly, this exaggerated effect was heightened if the research had one or more US authors. While this sort of bias in the reporting of research may at first glance seem relatively benign, it actually has significant consequences because other researchers build on the results of previously published work and accumulatively, our social policies and clinical practices are based on evidence collected from such studies. Yet bias can come in all sorts of shapes and sizes in the academic and research context, some of which I think hits more personally to individual researchers.

The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers a Master of Science in Bioethics, a Doctorate of Professional Studies in Bioethics, and Graduate Certificates in Clinical Ethics and Clinical Ethics Consultation. For more information on AMBI's online graduate programs, please visit our website.

April 3, 2014 | Posted By John Kaplan, PhD

The scientific and medical potential of stem cells hold so much promise that progress in this area is widely followed with intense interest. Since pluripotent stem cells are able to differentiate into any cell type they hold the promise of leading to therapies for a wide variety of diseases and disabilities which cause human suffering and end lives prematurely. This field of research and development has attracted the efforts of large numbers of the most brilliant and talented biomedical researchers in the entire world. This raises the vexing question of why some of these brilliant and talented researchers are doing some very stupid things.

It seems like only yesterday (it was actually in 2004 and 2005) that Hwang Woo-Suk a renowned Korean veterinarian and researcher published the first reports in Science Magazine of the derivation of pluripotent stem cells from human embryos and subsequently the successful cloning of human embryonic stem cells. Hwang was a national hero. However these studies were recognized in 2006 as being the result of fraud.  I remember wondering then, just as I am wondering now, how someone could risk all that they had earned by committing such blatant fraud. How could they not realize that misconduct in such important work would be discovered and punished. I do not get it.

The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers a Master of Science in Bioethics, a Doctorate of Professional Studies in Bioethics, and Graduate Certificates in Clinical Ethics and Clinical Ethics Consultation. For more information on AMBI's online graduate programs, please visit our website.

January 27, 2014 | Posted By Michael McNichol and Zubin Master, PhD

Since the discovery of human embryonic stem cells in 1998, many promises have been made by individuals and groups about the potential of stem cell research to revolutionize the practice of regenerative medicine. Yet to date, very little has been seen in terms of novel therapies in the clinic. Because of the substantive economic investments made in stem cell research in order to realize the promise they can offer, greater efforts to translate stem cell research into medicines has ensued. However, many factors might impede the clinical translation of stem cell research. In this blog, we briefly highlight the ethical and scientific issues surrounding the successful translation and commercialization of stem cell research.

The process of clinical translation begins with preclinical research using in vitro systems and animal models to show proof-of-principle and demonstrate safety and efficacy of a potential therapeutic. For example, if a stem cell is to be transplanted into a patient to treat a degenerative disease, then the type of stem cell that is being used must show that it can successfully treat a similar disease in animals prior to testing the product in humans. There are many reasons for using appropriate animal models that mimic human diseases: low cost, reproductive cycle, number of offspring, genetic similarity, similarity in the manifestation of the disease in humans, and ease of handling. However, there are many limitations to animal models that do not result in direct translation in humans, meaning what may work in animals may not at the end of the day be effective in people. While we choose animals as models to mimic human disease, the biology of animals is still significantly different than humans and thus may simply not translate 100%. This issue is difficult to get around. 

The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers a Master of Science in Bioethics, a Doctorate of Professional Studies in Bioethics, and Graduate Certificates in Clinical Ethics and Clinical Ethics Consultation. For more information on AMBI's online graduate programs, please visit our website.

December 31, 2013 | Posted By Zubin Master, PhD

Bioethics research is closely tied with policy. While discrepancies exist, I classify bioethics as an interdisciplinary field of study. As most interdisciplinary fields, one aim of bioethics is to develop practical solutions for real world problems in the biomedical and clinical sciences among other fields it impacts. Thus much of bioethics scholarship is closely intertwined and aims to inform health, social and science policy. Bioethics scholarship is also meaningful in attempting to raise awareness and educate researchers, practitioners, patients and the public on many areas of ethics in the health sciences. As a bioethics academic who has worked in both Canadian and U.S. institutions, I have enjoyed the benefit of examining policy and educational landscapes in both countries. Today, I want to specifically talk about research integrity policies, practices and education in Canada and compare it to the U.S.

What is research integrity?

Academics in every discipline including the fundamental and applied sciences (i.e., biomedical science, engineering), the social sciences, and humanities are self-governed professionals who conduct research upholding principles of research integrity. Research integrity (a.k.a. scientific integrity or the responsible conduct of research) captures a range of principles and practices governing ethical research. It includes practices such as research misconduct (commonly known as fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism), authorship and publication ethics, peer review, mentoring, conflicts of interest, research involving animals and humans and social responsibility. Yet beyond outlining principles and practices, there is a growing field of research on research integrity where scholars try and improve our understanding of the normative and practical aspects of research integrity. I’ve written about different topics within research integrity including what is conceptual bioethics research? and peer review in previous AMBI blogs.

The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers a Master of Science in Bioethics, a Doctorate of Professional Studies in Bioethics, and Graduate Certificates in Clinical Ethics and Clinical Ethics Consultation. For more information on AMBI's online graduate programs, please visit our website.

December 3, 2013 | Posted By Zubin Master, PhD

This is part 2 of a blog written last month. In Part 1, I explained how open access (OA) journals work and some of the shortcomings of peer review. This was done to provide a background on a recently published study by staff at the leading journal Science. In this part, I will cover the specific experiment reported by Science and explain some of the limits of its design followed by an interesting and novel model of the non-profit OA journal BioéthiqueOnline.

Part 2: Open Access Journals, Peer Review, and Conflicts of Interest

Do OA Journals Perform Rigorous Peer Review?

Recently, John Bohannon of the Science group conducted an investigation where he submitted scientifically flawed papers using fake names and provided the names of research or academic institutions that didn’t exist to 304 OA journals (Science 342: 60-65, 2013). The idea was to create a scientific paper with major errors, so that “[a]ny reviewer with more than a high-school knowledge of chemistry and the ability to understand a basic data plot should have spotted the paper’s shortcomings immediately.” Bohannon created a database of molecules, lichens and cancer cell lines and ran them through a computer program to generate unique papers, but with a standard structure: “molecule X from lichen species Y inhibits the growth of cancer cell Z.” He also created fake authors from fictitious African institutions with the hope that using developing world authors would lessen suspicion by journal editors. The main flawed graph showed a dose-dependent decrease in cell growth yet despite rising concentrations, the effects on cells were modest. In addition, the anti-proliferative molecule was dissolved in a large amount of ethanol and because the control group was not treated with the same solution buffer, the anti-proliferative effects seen could simply be due to the cytotoxic effects of ethanol. In a second experiment, Bohannon attempted to show an “interactive effect” by adding the molecule with radiation, but the control cells were not exposed to any radiation. As the experiments had a tragically flawed design, the idea was that any peer reviewer should pick them up and the article should be rejected.

The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers a Master of Science in Bioethics, a Doctorate of Professional Studies in Bioethics, and Graduate Certificates in Clinical Ethics and Clinical Ethics Consultation. For more information on AMBI's online graduate programs, please visit our website.

SEARCH BIOETHICS TODAY
SUBSCRIBE TO BIOETHICS TODAY
ABOUT BIOETHICS TODAY
BIOETHICS TODAY is the blog of the Alden March Bioethics Institute, presenting topical and timely commentary on issues, trends, and breaking news in the broad arena of bioethics. BIOETHICS TODAY presents interviews, opinion pieces, and ongoing articles on health care policy, end-of-life decision making, emerging issues in genetics and genomics, procreative liberty and reproductive health, ethics in clinical trials, medicine and the media, distributive justice and health care delivery in developing nations, and the intersection of environmental conservation and bioethics.
TOPICS