A cautionary tale about a breach of review integrity in the guise of a normal professional interaction.
We are pleased to announce that the NIH-Wide Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years (FYs) 2021-2025 is now available. This updated plan articulates NIH’s highest priorities over the next 5 years, outlining our vision for the future direction, capacity, and stewardship of biomedical and behavioral research.
In this NIH All About Grants podcast episode, we virtually sit down with Diane Dean, a senior advisor within the NIH’s Office of Extramural Research, and dive into what you should know about financial conflicts of interest (FCOIs).
We all have a vested interest in maintaining the integrity of biomedical research. It is critically important to do so, after all, so the public can trust the resulting scientific findings. These posts from 2020, 2019, and 2018 highlight a few ways NIH works toward this goal of an environment promoting integrity and discouraging misconduct (check out this NIH All About Grants podcast for more on this).
Now it’s your turn to share some ideas. Our colleagues with the HHS Office of Research Integrity (ORI) recently published a Request for Information seeking your input. The feedback they receive will be invaluable for conducting future outreach and developing educational resources for the research community.
That’s a bit…odd. That gel image looks photoshopped. The data looks to good to be true. And, wait a second, that figure appeared in another paper! These are examples of research misconduct. What do you do if you suspect research misconduct? Join us for this next installment of NIH’s All About Grants podcast with Dr. Christine Ring on addressing research misconduct.
Addressing Foreign Interference and Associated Risks to the Integrity of Biomedical Research, and How You Can Help
On Tuesday, June 23, Dr. Kelvin Drogemeier, the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), gave a presentation to the Federal Demonstration Partnership (FDP) on “Enhancing the Security and Integrity of America’s Research Enterprise.” Dr. Drogemeier articulated five “key takeaway” messages. I’d like to take this opportunity to summarize Dr. Drogemeier’s presentation and how it fits within the context of NIH extramural research.
On May 22, I had the privilege of participating in a terrific national conference that focused on what institutions can do to foster a culture of research integrity. I was also given the opportunity to present my thoughts on promoting research integrity, something I have written about before. My talk dealt with approaches institutions may take to foster a culture of research integrity, and I wanted to share it here as a resource for others.
When research findings are made up from thin air, misrepresented in some way, or blatantly and without credit copied from others, we risk eroding the public’s trust, damaging institutional reputation, harming careers, incurring skepticism, misleading future research, and, arguably most importantly, hurting patients. NIH takes research misconduct seriously. We are being proactive.
A Reminder of Your Roles as Applicants and Reviewers in Maintaining the Confidentiality of Peer Review
Imagine this: you’re a reviewer on an NIH study section, and receive a greeting card from the Principal Investigator (PI) on an application you are reviewing. A note written inside the card asks that your look favorably upon the application, and in return, the PI would put in a good word with his friend serving on your promotion committee. Do you accept the offer, or just ignore it? Or, do you report it? …. Or maybe several days after the initial peer review of your application, you receive a phone call from a colleague you haven’t spoken to in quite a while. The colleague is excited about a new technique you developed and wishes to collaborate. You realize the only place you’ve disclosed this new technique is in your recently reviewed NIH grant application. What do you do? ….
Today we’d like to start with a little scenario:
Kevin is a principal investigator whose application is undergoing peer review. At a national research symposium, he bumps into one of the reviewers on the study section that is evaluating his application. What should they do or say? The answer: ….