FST JOURNAL

Summary: 

• The principles laid out in the Concordat to Support Research Integrity cover all research, but they need to be interpreted in different ways depending on the context and discipline in which someone works
• Integrity requires the whole research system to work together to ensure that the research we do is the very best 
• There's a distinction between thinking about the individuals that we place trust in and thinking about the organisations, the institution and the groups that they work in. 
• Trust in scientists has remained high and stable over a number of years
• There has been interest in characterising who trusts science and scientists most and who trusts science and scientific least
• Scientists can support trust in science by maintaining research integrity in their work so that science remains as good as it possibly can be. 

In this report we explore different aspects of Research Integrity, of how we safeguard trust in science, and the role of Research Integrity within that. The UK Committee on Research Integrity is responsible for promoting and driving Research Integrity in the UK. This intelligence in Research Integrity.

The Concordat principles of Research Integrity The principles of Research Integrity are designed to ensure that the research that we do is excellent and high-quality across all disciplines.

• Honesty: For example, honesty requires researchers to describe their work accurately.
• Rigour: How well the research has been done in a technical sense.
• Transparency and open communication: Making sure that we are clear about describing the research we have done, how we have done it, and any conflicts of interest.
• Care and respect: Care and respect not only for the participants in research (humans and/or animals), but also for other members of the research community, and people that we interact with.
• Accountability: Being clear who is responsible for each aspect of the research enterprise. These principles cover all disciplines, but they have got to be interpreted in different ways.

What rigour means for a medieval linguist will be different from what it means for somebody working in CERN. Different disciplines also have different norms about how to apply different aspects of Research Integrity. For example, philosophers and subatomic particle physicists at CERN would have very different understandings of who should be included as author on a research work. That is something that we have to think through and balance. An understanding of what Research Integrity means in different disciplines is vital for collaboration between those disciplines.

These principles are also useful when talking about collaborative work between sectors, such as translation of work between academia and government, or academia and industry, or indeed industry and government. The principles provide a framework for communication between the different parties in research, so that there is clarity about the research and it is translated into practical application.

Research Integrity is the responsibility of the whole sector. This includes individual researchers, organisations that undertake research, funders, publishers, regulators, and professional or learned societies. One of the dangers is that there can be a tendency for people to blame another party for failings in integrity, whether it be the publishers, funders or universities. Such failures should be better thought of as a system failure, and are often due to issues in the interactions between various components of the sys- tem. While all of the components of the system are important, it is actually how the whole system works that determines how the research we do can be the very best that we can ask for.

The importance of trust

Collaboration in research and between science, policy and members of the public depends on trust. Like integrity, the concept and practice of trust has been explored by many scholars and disciplines. In the broadest terms, trust is described as an attitude towards or a belief about individuals, groups, organisations, or institutions. Trust can occur when there is anticipation that expectations will be met. When we think that expectations will be met we tend to think that someone or something is trustworthy. Trust is earned.

Trust is often thought about in terms of inter- personal relationships between individuals. But trust also takes place in relationships between individual and groups, institutions, organisations, areas, and fields such as science. Trust of or between individuals may have a different flavour to trust of, or between, institutions and groups. When we think about trust of science and scientists we may be wise to consider views of those who use science, members of the public, and from the wide variety of people working within the science ecosystem.

Trust in science in the UK

In the UK, evidence clearly indicates that trust in science and scientists is high and stable. A recent Ipsos survey, the Veracity Index, highlighted that scientists, professors, and engineers are among the most trusted professions in the UK today. This level of trust in scientists and related professions has remained relatively stable over a number of years.

There has been considerable work to under- stand who trusts scientists and science most and least. This work has tended to explore the characteristics of the individuals who are expressing views about their trust: i.e. the people doing the trusting. For instance, surveys often suggest that slightly higher proportions of women than men trust scientists. Other studies indicate that how many years’ experience they have in education appears to impact on the amount that people trust science. Recently, a growing body of work examines how social media and internet sources relate to views of, and trust in, facts or evidence.

As well as providing research evidence about who trusts scientists and science most, it is import- ant to consider what science itself can do to maintain or support trust in its processes and outputs. The five principles set out in the Concordat to Support Research Integrity point to ways that scientists can deliver science with integrity. Science that has greater integrity, and that is seen to have integrity, is more likely to be trustworthy and trusted.

The principle of honesty is vital to trust in science. Science that is carried out and described with honesty is the bedrock of good practice. We also know that trustworthiness in science is supported more fully when honesty includes candid discussion about uncertainties and boundaries of knowledge, as well as reflection when evidence or information changes.

Equally, when science is rigorous and when rigour is made clear then this supports trust in science. This clarity is particularly important as a means of making scientific method understandable, reproducible where appropriate or possible, and open to refinement and development over time.

We also know that openness and transparency in the work that we do as scientists helps to support the sense and expectation that science is doing the best job that it can. Transparency in this sense includes provision of information about why some information cannot be shared, whether that be for valid reasons of privacy or security.

Care, respect, accountability

 Finally, commitment to the principles of care and respect throughout the research ecosystem and to accountability work with one another to support trust in science. Well-defined and visible approaches to care, respect and accountability demonstrate attention to ethical practices in ways that serve those working in science and wider society.

Research Integrity enables science to be as good as it possibly can. As such, integrity in science supports trust in science. But integrity is not important solely because it is underpins trust in science. Instead, science can only be good if it has integrity.