– When we think of scientific misconduct, we think of that one “bad apple”. Though it is true that this researcher must be held personally accountable, and in fact exemplify what ought to be avoided, it is not the main cause of the prevalence of scientific misconduct, Professor Rosemarie de La Cruz Bernabe at the Center for Medical Ethics, University of Oslo (UiO) says.
– Rather, scientific misconduct is more likely pushed by a bad setting or environment. When we neglect the environment and focus on the “bad apples” only, we do not solve the problem of scientific misconduct.
Research ethics and integrity are key dimensions of excellence in research, and crucial to create public trust in science. The main goal of the BEYOND project, “Beyond Bad Apples: Towards a Behavioral and Evidence-Based Approach to Promote Research Ethics and Research Integrity in Europe” (BEYOND), is to robustly explore and advance individual and institutional responsibilities in research misconduct and promote research ethics and research integrity in Europe.
BEYOND is financed by the Horizon Europe program of the European Commission. The project will receive three million Euro over three years and will be ongoing from 2023 to 2026. Bernabe will coordinate the BEYOND project from UiO.
BEYOND consists of 13 partners from ten European countries, academics, research integrity organizations, national agencies, and more. Among the partners are European Network of Research Ethics Committees, the French High Council for Evaluation of Research and Higher Education, French Research Institute for Agriculture, Food and the Environment, Oslo Metropolitan University, the Finnish National Board on Research Integrity, Trilateral Research, University of Central Lancashire – Cyprus, University of Helsinki, University of Humanistic Studies, University of Latvia, University of Tartu, Stichting VUmc, and the London School of Economics.
Research misconduct is more than just a few “bad apples”
The BEYOND project started with a Horizon Europe call in the spring of 2022.
– The topic of scientific misconduct resonated with me. Previously, there has been a narrow approach when studying the topic. Research within human psychology does not support how we deal with it today, Bernabe says.
Commonly, scientific misconduct is handled by a “bad apples” approach.
– Researchers who engage in scientific misconduct are seen as “bad apples” and treated like criminals. Without denying personal responsibilities, scientific misconduct is, however, not primarily caused by a few “bad apples”. Rather, scientific misconduct is the result of being a part of an institutional and social context that makes it possible and even encourages it, Bernabe says.
Bernabe explained that today’s academic setting puts a lot pressure among researchers to produce large quantities of quality research and grant funds in order to succeed.
– Conducting scientific misconduct can be a result of a researcher caving into such pressure in order to “thrive” in academia’s toxic environment.
BEYOND is taking a systemic approach to scientific misconduct
Scientific misconduct is primarily a problem at the cultural and institutional levels. Often, it is a problem in the research environments, where a culture and acceptance of misconduct sometimes thrive.
– The BEYOND project will explore practices of misconduct, and how we can apply what we learn from the behavioral sciences and from other empirical evidence to deal with it. We are taking a systemic approach, as we place the responsibility on both the researchers or individuals, and the organizations, institutions and environments they work within, Bernabe says.
By drawing on behavioral and psychological science, BEYOND will study the effects of nudges in influencing moral behavior in academia. It will also sift knowledge on causes and approaches to misconduct by looking at current literature and empirical data, as well as through observational and interventional studies.
– We will try to figure out how 1) effective the different measures against misconduct are and 2) which approaches to research ethics are most effective in the short and long term. From these learnings, BEYOND will create educational materials and normative guidelines that can be used within the institutions, Bernabe says.
– I am looking forward to the project. A review of how we approach scientific misconduct has been neglected for some time now, also by the institutions. We need to accept that creating ethical environments does not rest on individuals only, but also on the institutions in which they work.
Bernabe wanted to include new partners in the BEYOND project
– The EU-application process was interesting. My approach was and always has been to be as democratic as possible through most of the process, then narrow it down two months before the deadline, Bernabe explains.
– There was a lot of pressure, because we knew there was competition, and it was a good sum of money being awarded for the project, she says.
The approach they took with BEYOND, Bernabe explains, was to not only tap their usual allies who had previously been successful in applying for and receiving EU-grants and bring them into the project. They also wanted to invite new players to the table, who had few or no previous participation in EU-projects, but was doing important research in the field.
– Why? Because we noticed that projects have been recycling players. In the long run this will create echo chambers, where the same perspectives are recycled over and over. We wanted to bring in the new and synergize with the old, Bernabe says.
The work packages in the BEYOND project are a combination of the “traditional” work packages of a coordination and support action (CSA) project, i.e., review of the literature, normative guidance, stakeholder coordination, and the production of educational materials, plus the not-so-common CSA work packages that include experimentation.
– Our project evaluation was perfect, which shows that the commission appreciated this approach, Bernabe says.