background preloader

Office of Research Integrity

Office of Research Integrity
Related:  Research ethics

Project MKULTRA Dark Matters DCL Wednesday, August 3, 1977 U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and Subcommittee on Health & Scientific Research of the Committee on Human Resources Following is an excerpt of an opening statement from Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.). Senator KENNEDY. Some 2 years ago, the Senate Health Subcommittee heard chilling testimony about the human experimentation activities of the Central Intelligence Agency. At least one death, that of Dr. Perhaps most disturbing of all was the fact that the extent of experimentation on human subjects was unknown. We believed that the record, incomplete as it was, was as complete as it was going to be. The records reveal a far more extensive series of experiments than had previously been thought. The intelligence community of this Nation, which requires a shroud of secrecy in order to operate, has a very sacred trust from the American people. I think this is illustrated, as Chairman Inouye pointed out.

Université de Montréal - La performance scientifique et l'intégrité en recherche par Béatrice Godard, directrice du Département de bioéthique, en collaboration avec Lise Lévesque, agente de recherche Le but de la démarche scientifique est de fournir des explications qui permettent de mieux comprendre les processus de recherche par une démarche selon laquelle les hypothèses doivent être confrontées à des observations rigoureuses, à des mesures et à des tests. Pour atteindre ce but, les équipes scientifiques (lesquelles incluent les chercheurs, les étudiants, le personnel de recherche…) considèrent que l’objet de recherche et les activités d’observation doivent être isolés de ce qui pourrait constituer des influences pouvant biaiser les conclusions. Ainsi, la validité même du processus scientifique repose sur l’honnêteté intellectuelle des chercheurs qui communiquent avec transparence leurs résultats et leurs méthodologies. Les facteurs qui influencent l’intégrité en recherche Les différents types de manquement à l’intégrité scientifique A) L’évaluation par les pairs

J Med Libr Assoc. 2003 Jan; 91(1): 42–46. Impact factor: a valid measure of journal quality? On Being a Scientist: A Guide to Responsible Conduct in Research: Third Edition The scientific research enterprise is built on a foundation of trust. Scientists trust that the results reported by others are valid. Society trusts that the results of research reflect an honest attempt by scientists to describe the world accurately and without bias. On Being a Scientist was designed to supplement the informal lessons in ethics provided by research supervisors and mentors. This third edition of On Being a Scientist reflects developments since the publication of the original edition in 1989 and a second edition in 1995. On Being a Scientist is aimed primarily at graduate students and beginning researchers, but its lessons apply to all scientists at all stages of their scientific careers.

What is Ethics in Research & Why is it Important? December 1, 2015 The ideas and opinions expressed in this essay are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of the NIH, NIEHS, or US government. When most people think of ethics (or morals), they think of rules for distinguishing between right and wrong, such as the Golden Rule ("Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"), a code of professional conduct like the Hippocratic Oath ("First of all, do no harm"), a religious creed like the Ten Commandments ("Thou Shalt not kill..."), or a wise aphorisms like the sayings of Confucius. Most people learn ethical norms at home, at school, in church, or in other social settings. One plausible explanation of these disagreements is that all people recognize some common ethical norms but interpret, apply, and balance them in different ways in light of their own values and life experiences. Most societies also have legal rules that govern behavior, but ethical norms tend to be broader and more informal than laws. David B.

EUREKALERT 09/05/11 Ensuring research integrity Public release date: 9-May-2011 [ Print | E-mail Share ] [ Close Window ] Contact: Kim Barnhardtkim.barnhardt@cmaj.ca 613-520-7116 x2224Canadian Medical Association Journal Canada needs an agency to investigate research misconduct, states an editorial in CMAJ (Canadian Medical Association Journal) (pre-embargo link only) Although honesty, accuracy and professionalism of scientists are vital for research integrity, there have been many public examples of serious research misconduct. Scientific journals can and will investigate misconduct when detected, and academic institutions will investigate if it is reported before submission to a journal. "We need a better system to prevent, report and respond to allegations of research misconduct," writes Dr. The authors suggest that Canada needs a new agency with the mandate and power to investigate allegations of research misconduct. [ Print | E-mail AAAS and EurekAlert!

Chapter 3 - Ethics and Study Design - Introductory << Previous Section | < Previous Page | Next Page > | Next Section >> Ethics and Study Design - Introductory Clinical research can be defined more or less broadly. For our purposes we define it to be any study that requires IRB approval. These include: Data from living individuals Biological material from living individuals Interaction or intervention with a living individual Use of a non-FDA approved, drug, device or biological Such research includes: Physiological or behavioral studies of normal individuals or those with a specific condition. Phase 1: Toxicity (small number of individuals) Phase 2: Efficacy, may include pharmacodynamics (small number of individuals) Many studies are mixed Phase 1 and 2. Phase 3: Efficacy and safety of unapproved drug, device or biological (tend to be large studies) Phase 4: Efficacy and safety of approved drugs, devices or biologicals, or a comparison between interventions.

AFFAIRES UNIVERSITAIRES (Canada) 25/10/10 Création d’un conseil national chargé des questions d’intégrité en rechercheLe groupe Le groupe ne recommande toutefois aucun changement majeur à l’actuel système d’application des règles régissant l’intégrité en recherche financée par le fédéral. par Rosanna Tamburri Dans un effort visant à contrer l’inconduite en recherche, un groupe d’experts recommande au gouvernement fédéral de créer un nouvel organisme national, le Conseil canadien pour l’intégrité en recherche (CCIR), qui aurait pour mandat de conseiller et d’orienter les universités et les hôpitaux de recherche en matière de prévention de l’inconduite. Le conseil jouerait principalement un rôle consultatif et éducatif. Le groupe d’experts formé de 14 membres a été créé en 2009 par le Conseil des académies canadiennes, un organisme indépendant, à la demande d’Industrie Canada après que plusieurs cas majeurs d’inconduite en recherche aient été rapportés. Personne ne sait à quel point le phénomène de l’inconduite en recherche est répandu au Canada.

Related: