An age-old remedy works best after all

The coughs-and-colds season is upon us here in the northern hemisphere and we are all sneezing and suffering to some degree. Take heart – you need not waste any more money on costly cough remedies from your local pharmacy. A study carried out by Dr Ian Paul at Pennsylvania State University has shown that honey is at least as good if not more effective than cough medicines. The active ingredient in these, dextromethorphan, has just been banned from children’s cough and cold remedies in the US, prompting the search for an effective alternative. Honey seems to fit the bill. Sometimes, despite the wonders of modern science, mother really did know best.

Editor's Letter

I write these words at the beginning of the first day of 2008. Traditionally a time for reflection and resolution as well as celebration, the new year gives us pause to think about some of the key contemporary issues in science, both in Europe and worldwide, and what we should be doing about them, individually and collectively.

This issue of The Euroscientist raises some topics that fit very well under the headings of key and contemporary. The gap between the haves and the have-nots in the world persists. The hopes that those two vast populous countries – India and China – can innovate and manufacture their way into prosperity are not ill-founded, but there is evidence that suggests that the burgeoning high technology industries that are springing up are not necessarily benefiting the populations that host them. Alexandra Ife reports on this in her article about a new Europe-based organisation that aims to look closely at ways in which the needs of the developing world can be better addressed by science.

Ethical behaviour on the part of scientists is another key, contemporary issue. The way that scientists behave and the set of professional standards that they adhere to are part of the foundations of scientific endeavour. The vast majority of scientists display the highest level of integrity and maintain the best possible standards in their professional work, but a tiny minority of miscreants can sully the reputation of the whole research profession. This is taken seriously in Europe. The OECD has already published the results of a study into scientific misconduct and a number of other organisations came together to discuss the issues at a recent conference in Lisbon. The conference was organised by the European Science Foundation and the US Office of Research Integrity. Euroscience was well-represented at the event, providing not only several delegates but also one of the two co-chairs and the rapporteur, as you will read in Tony Mayer’s article. We expect some important developments in this area as a result.

One has already come into being in the UK, where Sir David King, the retiring Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK Government, has proposed a universal (i.e. science in its widest sense) ethical code for researchers. It has three pillars – rigour, respect and responsibility – each covering a few simple, brief points. Sir David’s thesis is that such an ethical code should be part of the early education of every child, thus imbuing the population as a whole with the set of values against which all scientific endeavour can be measured. This code has been adopted by several large UK research bodies and others, both in the UK and also across the European continent, can be expected to follow suit, as Sir David describes.

Lest you think that this issue of The Euroscientist is focused solely on problem areas, let me cheer you up! The new year is also a time for celebration and Euroscience has been doing its share of that. In November we held a special event in Strasbourg to mark the tenth anniversary of Euroscience’s existence. Raymond Seltz recalls the event and other celebratory activities in his article here.

We haven’t nearly finished what Euroscience was set up to do. A special book was published to commemorate Euroscience’s tenth birthday (it can be found on the Euroscience website). The book reflects on Euroscience’s past but also looks forward confidently to the future. As Enric Banda, President of Euroscience, said in his foreword, “Ten years is fine, but the mission of Euroscience deserves the dream of celebrating its 100th anniversary”.

Indeed. Let’s all a little bit this year to help Euroscience on its way to that target.

Alma Swan

Universal Ethical Code for Scientists

Over three years ago, I set in train the development of a new “universal ethical code for scientists” entitled “Rigour, Respect and Responsibility”. The word “universal” captures the fact that I mean science in its broadest sense, and the fact that the Code should be applicable regardless of geographical location or time. So it is very appropriate for those of you practising in a European context where we can increasingly move more seamlessly across both international and traditional subject boundaries. Essentially, it’s a 7 point plan (see below) setting out the key ethical behaviours which we have the right to expect of anyone engaging in research or scientific endeavour. Work to develop the Code stemmed from a meeting I had with British colleagues, and I am particularly grateful to the group which we subsequently set up to think through the issues and establish a memorable and usable set of guidelines. That group included members of the Council for Science and Technology and Baroness Onora O’Neill, so was very much the result of an interaction between scientific and ethical philosophy.

Rigour

Rigour, honesty and integrity

• Act with skill and care in all scientific work. Maintain up to date skills and assist their development in others.

• Take steps to prevent corrupt practices and professional misconduct. Declare conflicts of interest.

• Be alert to the ways in which research derives from and affects the work of other people, and respect the rights and reputations of others.

Respect

Respect for life, the law and the public good

• Ensure that your work is lawful and justified.

• Minimise and justify any adverse effect your work may have on people, animals and the natural environment.

Responsibility

Responsible communication: listening and informing

• Seek to discuss the issues that science raises for society. Listen to the aspirations and concerns of others.

• Do not knowingly mislead, or allow others to be misled, about scientific matters. Present and review scientific evidence, theory or interpretation honestly and accurately.

The Code recognises that, as scientists, we have to be increasingly aware of the public. We cannot afford to ignore them either socially or economically. Here in the UK, we have seen how the public can reject developments outright, as in the case of GM crops, while in other countries ethical frameworks or belief systems may frown upon further development in certain fields. And there have been numerous examples of what can go wrong in science, and the impact this has on public confidence in the governance of science. The alleged link between the MMR vaccine and autism , now largely discredited by a large scale Danish study , created a situation where parents in the UK, reluctant to expose their children to risk, caused the vaccination rate to drop from 91% to 80% and the number of confirmed cases of mumps to rise from just 119 in 1998 to over 4,000 in 2006 (with 43,000 in 2005 ). We have also seen a substantial rise in cases of measles.

The disgrace of cloning scientist Hwang Woo-suk, formerly of Seoul National University, and high-profile cases of scientific fraud in the US and elsewhere do not raise public confidence in science.

The Code in part derives from that need to build public confidence by its adoption, and partly from the need to develop a common statement of values which could encapsulate best practice and distil the many pre-existing codes and frameworks into an easily memorable and highly applicable core statement to which everyone could sign up. In a UK context, it also addresses some of the commitments set out in the 10-year Science and Innovation Investment Framework . In my ideal vision of the future, scientists and non-scientists alike are made aware of its existence from school age, and make an early commitment to abide by the principles. That common understanding across our population, with a critical mass of potential disapproval, should prevent corruption or malpractice from even being considered.

The Code “Rigour, Respect and Responsibility” has three main aims: to foster ethical research, to encourage active reflection among scientists on the implications and impacts of their work, and to support communication between scientists and the public on complex and challenging issues. It captures existing best practice and provides a useful framework for discussion. It is also useful as a tool to raise awareness: the concepts are easily understood and can be used at all stages of education. Also, as we have seen demonstrated, the concepts can be easily embedded into organisational business plans and strategies, as well as built into personal objectives for individual practising scientists.

I have no doubt that the vast majority of scientists already do abide by the code in their everyday work. The title of the code provides a simple summary of the values that each of us already espouse as practising scientists; it should also demonstrate to the public that scientists take ethical issues seriously. There are of course already other more detailed codes for more specific situations – for engineers in the construction industry for example. The universal ethical code represents an overarching framework under which these specific codes can stand.

There has been a successful pilot adoption of the Code in the UK involving several government scientific agencies such as the Forestry Commission and the Veterinary Laboratories Agency. Following that we are now making efforts to encourage rollout across the rest of government, and then to other key groups, including those involved in school science education, university educators, scientists and students, and scientists in industry.

Earlier this year, I challenged scientists to adopt and help promote the Code within their organisations. We have made real progress since then and attracted a truly global awareness as evidenced by recent web searches. In addition to the five Government agencies who piloted adoption of the Code, we have seen clear commitments from other Government agencies, including the Food Standards Agency. Their Chief Scientist’s blog is a useful tool for dissemination and furthering understanding. The Royal Academy of Engineering in the UK references the concepts of Rigour, Respect and Responsibility in its revised Statement of Ethical Principles published earlier this year. We have also seen interest from our key educational target groups. We know that several universities have already taken action, while a GCSE examination body has begun work to embed the Code into future work. We must continue to build on these foundations in the UK and in Europe as a whole.

In the workplace, the Code can be used to guide young and experienced researchers alike. UK government pilot schemes have shown how this can be successfully achieved, with some even extending the principles outside the organisation and insisting that contractors adhere to the same core tenets. Scientists in industry are, of course, also key stakeholders. Company misdemeanours can have the greatest impacts on public attitudes due to their potential for attracting headline coverage, and we must continue to ensure that within our scientific industries, these transgressions are not tolerated. The Code’s principles should apply equally to non-scientific interests in these companies, for example in the key marketing function. The attitude set out in AstraZeneca’s website provides a good example of the over-reaching importance of ethics, and one which I would like to see widely adopted throughout industry:

“Nothing – not the need to meet targets or direct orders from a manager – should ever compromise our commitment to honesty and integrity”.

So whatever your field of interest, there is scope for you to embed the principles of the Code either formally or informally into your everyday practice, and I would encourage all of you reading this to do so. You can get more information from our (temporary) website home of www.berr.gov.uk/files/file41318.pdf. Alternatively, email scienceandsociety@dius.gsi.gov.uk for further details or to request hard copies of our leaflets.

Ethics is truly on the table for discussion and that can only be a good thing for all of us. As I leave my role of Government Chief Scientific Adviser in the UK, I would again make a call that we all continue to strive to be good scientists in every sense of the word.

Sir David King

Research Integrity -- the need for responsibility in research

Whenever one takes a large group of human beings, there will always be some amongst them willing to bend or even break the law or the norms of the group. Therefore, we should not expect that research is somehow exempt from human nature. Fortunately, those involved in misconduct represent a very small portion of the whole community and the research system seems to be reasonably efficient at identifying problems and dealing with them. What cannot be denied, however, is that there may be a much larger number of researchers who do not always follow best practice and are the in the group of ‘law stretchers’.

The problem is that those found guilty of misconduct lead to high profile stories in the media and, as most research is publicly sponsored, leads to a distrust of research amongst the general public and calls for tighter controls and from outside the research system. Research has always been a self-governing ‘republic’ within society and if this is to remain the case, then it behoves all of us to ensure that research is conducted at the highest levels of integrity and best practice.

The three major categories of misconduct are fabrication of results, falsification of results and plagiarism. Of these, some people believe that plagiarism is less serious and is a ‘victimless’ crime but this is not so. It is stealing another’s work and, from that, careers and promotion may result in competition with other more worthy people so that it can lead from the theft of ideas and reputation to the theft of a job.

No area of research has been free of such cases and they have also occurred throughout the history of modern research. Often, there are disputed facts and the truth may be difficult to discover long after the event or after the so-called culprit is no longer alive. However, recent cases show that the new vigilance within the research system is much more adept at investigating cases and discovering the truth.

Looking back over history, was Newton guilty of plagiarism of the work of Hooke? The case is still disputed and there are supporters of both protagonists. Certainly in geology and archaeology, there have been cases of planting of fossil and other evidence – the fabrication of results – from the notorious case of Piltdown Man “discovered” by Charles Dawson, the disputed case of Jacques Deprat in Vietnam to the more recent case of Vishwajit Gupta in the Indian Himalayas. In botanical research there is the case of John Heslop-Harrison who is accused of fabricating and falsifying field evidence in the island of Rhum off the west coast of Scotland. Then, more recently, there have been the cases in biomedical sciences of Hwang Woo-Suk in Korea and John Sundbø in Norway who have both been accused of fabricating evidence and, in the Sundbø case, of inventing data from fictitious patients. Of course, in materials sciences, there was the case of Jan Hendrik Schoen who falsified and fabricated data and, now, even more recently, there is the case of serial plagiarism and a career built on false premises by Hans Werner Gottinger in the social sciences.

The purpose of this catalogue is to show that misconduct in research occurs all over the World so no nationality can consider itself exempt. In all areas of research endeavour misconduct is a fact which the research world must face up to.

The question then arises as to why these people committed these ‘crimes’. In the case of Heslop-Harrison, already the holder of a Chair in his field and an acknowledged botanical expert, it may have been in defence of an unsustainable theory on which he had staked his reputation. In many of the other cases quoted, it does appear that one of the motivations is fame and recognition by one’s peers. In the more recent cases in the biomedical area, financial rewards may also come into play. However, whatever the motivation, we need to build systems that can safeguard the research endeavour from such occurrences.

Many people also include ethics as part of research integrity and indeed there has to be a requirement on researchers to abide by and follow the ethical rules and guidelines established within a country. What is revealing is that several of those detected of misconduct have also been found to be in breach of ethical rules. However, when considering misconduct and the responsible conduct of research, ethics is part of the underpinning structure for research, just as we are bound by the law of the land.

Of course, most of the cases of misconduct are revealed after publication in respected journals or books and this puts the editors and reviewers of such journals and books in the very front line in ensuring the highest possible standards and as gatekeepers of the research system.

A new feature that has to be taken into account is the increasing internationalisation of research, not only in Europe but across the world, and this raises new difficulties. When there is cooperative research there will always be collaborators who have been hoodwinked by their fellow researcher. With the requirement on funding agencies and research institutions to investigate reported cases of misconduct, which agency or institution does this and under whose rules? Within Europe, we have so many different bodies, mostly with different rules, or even with no rules, guidelines or policies that this becomes very difficult. The European Commission has realised that this is the case when it comes to the Framework Programme, the world’s largest research funding programme. It has recently started to take this matter very seriously and an Expert Group has reported during 2007.

At world level, the problem of trying to establish commonality between countries at the global level is a very difficult and serious issue and, unless there is a commitment to follow best practice by all concerned, then the welcome trend towards a greater internationalisation of research may come under threat. With this in mind, the OECD Global Science Forum has undertaken a study into the problem. It has produced a draft report which is publicly available and has now embarked on a follow-up exercise.

This brings me to the recent First World Conference on Research Integrity which was held in Lisbon in September of 2007 under the auspices of the Portuguese EU Presidency and with the support of many organisations, including the European Commission, The Ministry of Science and other agencies in Portugal, the Gulbenkian Foundation, EMBO, the UK Research Integrity Office, the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), NATO and ICSU.

It was initiated by the European Science Foundation and the Office of Research Integrity in the USA with myself and Professor Nick Steneck, from ORI and the University of Michigan as co-organisers and co-chairs of the meeting. Some 275 people from 47 countries attended the meeting and Euroscience had several members present as well as providing the Conference Rapporteur, Peter Tindemans. Both organising bodies also contributed funds and staff time to make this event happen. From an ESF perspective, this was a follow-on to work that it had conducted and published 7 years earlier at around the time of the Friedhelm Herrmann misconduct case in Germany. At that time it had attempted to collect policies from all its Member Organisations, review them and highlight best practice.

All the papers presented, the final report of the conference, the list of participants and the reports of the OECD Global Science Forum, the EC Expert Group and a bibliography of recent articles on misconduct can be found at the conference web site at: http://www.esf.org/activities/esf-conferences/details/confdetail242.html

What, then, were the outcomes of the Conference? It was a disparate group of people who attended and it was evident that, whatever their role back home, they wanted to meet others and share experiences as to how to deal with misconduct and how to foster responsible conduct. This was perhaps the key outcome of the conference. That led to the proposal that we should establish a global clearing house of information on research integrity, based on and maintained in a “Wikipedia” style. The prime recommendation was that there is a “need for clear, consistent institutional and national policies based on best practice wherever this occurs”. The second recommendation is that there should be follow up events to the Conference. ESF is planning a forum meeting of its Member organisations, the European Commission has published a Call for Proposals to further research integrity, the ORI will be continuing its mission to encourage best practice and investigate cases and promote responsible conduct of research through its annual meetings and COPE and others will also continue their activities. There is also the possibility that there will be regional meetings in other parts of the World. It shows that much is happening and again demonstrates the need for periodic meetings to exchange views and best practice. Hence, there was a third recommendation that there should a second World Conference, probably at the end of 2009 and probably to be held in East Asia.

Because the incidences of misconduct are few, there is a tendency for established researchers, while admitting that there may be a problem, to either put their heads under the sand and hope that it will go away leaving research to proceed as before or to say that “something must be done”, to demand better ‘policing’ and then to do nothing. So we have to change cultures and start to inculcate good practice and an understanding as to why it is important at all levels in the research society but especially for those younger researchers just embarking on their careers.

While we have to be ever vigilant about cases of misconduct, we must try to foster and instil responsible conduct of research in all researchers, whether established or students.

We must recognise that, today, they work under intense pressure to produce results and justify financial support with very little time at their disposal. Temptations may be everywhere. Responsible conduct is both an attitude of mind and also good and meticulous record keeping, whether in hard copy notebooks or in secure electronic databases. This latter point is not only an issue of best practice in responsible research but may be important n terms of intellectual property rights. Mentoring is one way forward but then this depends on the mentors and their attitudes. Studies by Melissa Andersson, presented at the Conference, showed that mentoring was not always the answer. But we still have to lead by example. It is a self determination not to adopt dubious practices such as ‘self-plagiarism’, ‘salami’ slicing of results and papers, ‘guest’ and ‘ghost’ authorship and many other practices. It is a determination to abide by ethical codes and a determination to exercise responsibility at all times.

If we can achieve this new attitude of mind amongst researchers, then we can justifiably go to the society that supports us and tell how that self-governance and self-regulation really does work.

Tony Mayer

Science for Humanity

A new organisation, Science for Humanity, aims to bridge the gap between scientists and the needs of the developing world.

We live in a time where advances in science and technology offer the promise of economic growth and potential solutions to problems of poverty, yet, there are 1.2 billion people living globally on less than one US dollar a day and rather than closing the gap between the developed and developing worlds, science and technology are potentially contributing to growing inequality.

Research recently conducted by the Institute of Development Studies in the UK looked at the impressive growth of the biotechnology sector and knowledge economy of Bangalore in southern India. It concluded that despite huge investment and a large capacity for public research, there was no substantial evidence that new products are being developed to meet local market needs. For example, the development of products to deal with the extreme climatic change, (genetically modified crop seed adapted for drought or flood conditions), which is being so dramatically experienced in this part of the world.

This research illustrates that perhaps the long-held assumption that science and technology and its associated economic growth will trickle down to benefit even the world’s poorest people, is not necessarily true.

Where scientific research is applied to the development of new products and services it is usually done with commercial interests in mind - to meet market demands and to deliver financial return. This business model leaves little incentive for developing products based on human needs rather than on market demands, as such products bring minimal or no immediate financial return.

A new UK based not-for-profit organisation, however, wants to change that.

Science for Humanity aims to create a central dialogue between the development community and the scientific community facilitating direct communication about what is needed by the one hand, and what is available on the other.

By partnering with development agencies in Africa, Asia and Latin America, Science for Humanity will bring scientists and local communities together to develop and deliver appropriate and sustainable scientific solutions to the challenges of poverty.

David Grimshaw from Practical Action, a development agency with 40 years of experience working in developing countries, believes that the work of Science for Humanity is much needed.

As he explains, “If a request comes in from the field which potentially requires a scientific solution, it is just luck if someone happens to know someone in a university or academic institution who we can ask for advice.” He continues, “We are also often approached by scientists with research that they believe could be of use to people in developing countries, however, like most development agencies, we have no way of formally reviewing the science.”

Through events, workshops and its website, the organisation will share challenges on topic areas with its members. Membership is open to anyone with an active interest in science. Members are encouraged to identify potential solutions and submit them for review by the organisation’s scientific advisory board and very importantly, by the local community involved.

“We know that science cannot just be imported into a community. Without an understanding of the particular needs of the community including social, cultural and economic factors and ownership by the people, solutions will not succeed.” comments Philip Rowley, chief executive of the organisation.

Science for Humanity will also provide support in gaining funding for research or project piloting.

“We know scientists love a challenge,” says Rowley, “and what better challenge than to apply their intellect and energy to real problems affecting the lives of the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people. Big problems need big minds.”

Alexandra Ife

Euroscience active in European science policy debates

Making our voice heard is exactly what we have done about the European Institute of Technology. Euroscience’s position was in tune with very many sceptical reactions on this largely politically inspired initiative that is rather out of touch with the realities of real top-class science, technology development and innovation. An analytical report for the European Parliament, of which Peter Tindemans was one of the authors, not only confirmed but reinforced those scepticisms. Politics and prestige prevailed however, and so it seems that we will soon see a headquarters and two experimental Knowledge and Innovation Communities of companies, universities and research institutes working on energy problems or perhaps global change solutions. Only a small part of the funding is secured, so far, and it will not be easy to identify other sources.

Euroscience’s Tony Mayer was a joint organiser of the first International Conference on Research Integrity, together with Nick Steneck of the Office of Research Integrity of the US National Institutes of Health. Several members of Euroscience and its Science Policy WG participated actively in this conference and it was judged to be highly successful. It covered many approaches to integrity issues in science and science institutions and resulted in a series of concrete recommendations, not only for universities, funding organizations, publishers, individual scientists but also for science policy. For those interested in knowing more about this see the appendix 4 of the final conference report at .

The Initiative for Science in Europe, now supported by almost all European learned and professional societies and other organisations in the field of science, is currently drafting a Vision for Science in Europe, in which the scientist’s perspective will be centre stage. Just as this perspective has given us the ERC, it should help us to identify the areas where fundamentally different approaches in the set-up of policies and institutions and funding mechanisms in Europe are needed.

One such area concerns more attractive career prospects for scientists, especially young scientists and women. Euroscience members, along with organisations such as the Marie Curie Fellows Organisation and Eurodoc, have been very influential and active in launching the Charter for Researchers and the Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers. Many universities and research organisations have already pledged commitment to these initiatives, showing that awareness of the importance of good career provisions is gaining ground. The European Commission is currently consulting representatives of signatory institutions and researchers’ organisations (Renzo Rubele is involved for Euroscience) on whether it would be possible and make sense to go one step further. The idea is to create a ‘label’ to be used by research organisations that commit to providing their own gap analysis regarding the principles of the charter and the code of conduct, publish the results and make them available in external evaluations.

Peter Tindemans

Comments on the conference:

"Minister Gago should be proud to have organised a conference where major topics crucial for the European Research Area were discussed. If anything, though, I missed the participation of business people. We cannot afford any longer to discuss research issues without the industrial and services sectors being present. I am aware that some of their representatives were invited but few showed up. We should reflect on this issue".

Enric Banda, Euroscience President

"The Lisbon conference, in spite of the positive aspects described by Peter Tindemans, raises two major issues One, can we act as if the European construct is not faced with a deep political mistrust, with clear consequences: for instance, the poor budgetary compromise of 2007, yielding a disappointing budget for FP8? Two, there are hundreds of thousands of researchers in Europe. Will we attract enough smart young women and men to such careers if what is offered is years and years of short term employment and project based research hindering any really long term undertaking?"

Martin Andler, Mathematics, Universite de Versailles Saint-Quentin

“The quality of the diagnosis presented in the conclusions of the Lisbon conference should not be underestimated. However, for scientists not directly involved in the administration of R&D, one gets a less rosy picture of this event and this gives an indication of the amount of work in front of us. When Lisbon delegates were asked to indicate if they were from industry, fewer than half a dozen of hands were raised among the four hundred participants. So much for the future of technology. Also, most of the talks were extremely boring. One might get some comfort from the fact that such diverse participants share the official euro-jargon but, frankly speaking, there is a heavy price to pay for this: the constant repetition of the claim for excellence. Of course, excellence in this context is understood as the rejection of the "juste retour" mechanism [the French term is perfect for this deprecating notion]. Would Lisbon not have been the place for more concrete proposals? This obsessive notion of excellence enlarges the gap with scientists, whatever the quality of their work. If we wish Europe to become something more than a budget booth, and if we hope for a shared vision of the future, more creativity is required".

Georges Waysand , Laboratoire Souterrain à Bas Bruit de Rustrel-Pays d'Apt (LSBB), Université de Nice Sophia-Antipolis