matters dealing with research misconduct will now be handled promptly and willingly externally, according to KI. Photo: Daniella Backlund
Fallen with prohibited transplantations using artificial trachea may have resulted in more reports research misconduct at the Karolinska Institute. It shows SvD’s review of the cases received in the last six years, from 2010 to 2016.
This year so far 14 cases recorded as complaints of misconduct in research. This should be compared with the five previous years, when there has been between zero and five reports of research fraud per year.
My guess is that universities and colleges do not want to keep it within its walls.
misconduct in research raised when Macchiarini affair put research cheat on the agenda. It may also be the reason that the number of notifications have been so many so far this year.
– It’s hard to say exactly what caused it, one possible reason is the attention surrounding Paolo Macchiarini. People have become aware of this and there is a greater willingness to report. Other institutions say the same thing, they have seen an increased inflow, says Henrik Grönberg, Vice Rector at KI since March.
The case of KI surgeon Macchiarini same time showed how complex the case of scientific misconduct can be. KI hired an outside investigator to review the several parts notified as cheating, it was both about cheating in the laboratory as in care settings and patients. The investigator concluded that there had been widespread cheating in reporting. But when the Karolinska Institute made their own assessment as proposed marriage institution completely Macchiarini. He had only been sloppy, mean CI.
However, it took several months of time before the external investigator had access to all the material and could begin its review. According to the university system has now been changed. After the famous case say they now KI have tightened how to handle fraud cases, which according to university have been communicated throughout the organization.
The matters to be dealt with “expeditiously,” said Vice Rector Professor Grönberg. After an initial examination, contact the person or notified to get a chance to respond.
– When we received the written reply, I go and two senior researchers through the material, if after there are still suspicions remain sends today we are out to external peer review. It is either the Central Ethical Review Board or to independent medical experts, says Henrik Grönberg.
The fraud accused gets a chance to respond once again. The external experts will then give an opinion and the headmaster at KI makes finally a decision whether it is research misconduct or not.
How is it that it has not worked before?
– it’s before my time, I came here as Deputy President in March, so it’s hard for me to say why. I do not want to enter into speculation, says Henrik Grönberg.
Central Ethical Review Board , CEPN, included the task of examining applications from researchers who want to do research on people, it should also examine cases of research misconduct to the institutions who submit entries. CEPN’s expert group on research misconduct has seen a record increase in the number of cases.
– We have received ten cases this year, it’s “all time high”, we also know that there are more cases of entrance. Since 2010, we have a year had three cases and in some years none at all, says Jörgen Svidén, Permanent Secretary at the CEPN.
Although there is the perception that more people become aware of research fraud after the scandal with artificial trachea.
– much depends on Macchiarini scandal, misconduct in research has been highlighted much more. My guess is that colleges and universities do not want to keep it within its walls, says Jörgen Svidén.
As SvD could tell in February this year the Government set up the state investigation “Organization for investigations research misconduct “. The aim is to suggest if the current system is adequate, today investigating example universities themselves when there are cases of research fraud.
The commission has asked all of the approximately 50 state and private universities how many cases of scientific fraud they handled between 2010 and 2015. a few have been under investigation Secretary Carolina Östgren not responded.
– We have sent a questionnaire to the government and private principals, but there are some difficulties in interpreting the figures for research misconduct is defined slightly different. But the basic concept of research misconduct that included three things in concept, falsification, fabrication and plagiarism, says Carolina Östgren.
A total of 112 cases of suspicion of scientific misconduct had been handled by universities period. In 16 cases, the universities come to the conclusion that it was about research fraud, equivalent to an average of 2.7 cases per year.
– There are few that folds in cases of suspected scientific misconduct. But suspicion is not always because sometimes it can be personal conflicts behind, says Carolina Östgren.
No comments:
Post a Comment