Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • COMMENT

Overdue: a US advisory board for research integrity

Research needs an authoritative forum to hash out collective problems, argue C. K. Gunsalus, Marcia K. McNutt and colleagues.
  1. C. K. Gunsalus

    1. C. K. Gunsalus is director of the National Center for Professional and Research Ethics at the University of Illinois, Urbana–Champaign, USA.

    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed  Google Scholar

  2. Marcia K. McNutt

    1. Marcia K. McNutt is president of the US National Academy of Sciences.

    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed  Google Scholar

  3. Brian C. Martinson

    1. Brian C. Martinson studies research integrity and behavioural change at the HealthPartners Institute in Bloomington, Minnesota, USA.

    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed  Google Scholar

  4. Larry R. Faulkner

    1. Larry R. Faulkner is president emeritus of the University of Texas at Austin, USA.

    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed  Google Scholar

  5. Robert M. Nerem

    1. Robert M. Nerem is institute professor emeritus at the Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, USA.

    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed  Google Scholar

Illustration by David Parkins

When it comes to fostering rigour and scientific integrity, US research institutions are stuck. Working out best practice is far from straightforward, and faculty members can be resistant to top-down directives. So, on a day-to-day basis, the conventions that research groups have for documenting methods and results, conducting analyses and allocating credit are often less than optimal. At worst, they can encourage dishonesty and scandal. For example, in April 2017, Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, and its health-care network agreed to pay US$10 million to settle fraud allegations in stem-cell research funding. (Researchers contest who is at fault.) The hospital has requested retractions of more than 30 papers, and a clinical trial involving more than 100 participants has been paused while data are reviewed. Resources that might have brought better medical care have been squandered.

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Learn more

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Nature 566, 173-175 (2019)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-00519-w

References

  1. National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process (National Academies Press, 1992).

    Google Scholar 

  2. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Optimizing the Nation’s Investment in Academic Research: A New Regulatory Framework for the 21st Century (National Academies Press, 2016).

    Google Scholar 

  3. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Fostering Integrity in Research (National Academies Press, 2017).

    Google Scholar 

  4. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The Next Generation of Biomedical and Behavioral Sciences Researchers: Breaking Through (National Academies Press, 2018).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Michalek, A. M., Hutson, A. D., Wicher, C. P. & Trump, D. L. PLOS Med. 7, e1000318 (2010).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. McNutt, M. K. et al. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 2557–2560 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Gunsalus, C. K., Marcus, A. R. & Oransky, I. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 319, 1315–1316 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Competing Interests

B.C.M. co-developed and validated a tool (the SOURCE) specifically for assessing organizational climates, as mentioned in the article. B.C.M. consults with the National Center for Professional and Research Ethics at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, which C.K.G. directs, in the promulgation of the SOURCE tool through services provided at the centre. Through a contract between B.C.M.’s employer and that centre, B.C.M.’s employer receives consulting fees that cover part of B.C.M.’s salary.

Subjects

Latest on:

Nature Careers

Jobs

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing

Search

Advanced search

Quick links