Britain's failure to tackle research misconduct
http://www.100md.com
《英国医生杂志》
EDITOR—We sympathise with Lock's frustration about the delay in establishing a British panel for preventing and managing biomedical research misconduct.1 Having produced this college's consensus conference statement,2 we worked with sister colleges to develop a blueprint for such a panel.3 The subsequent development of the panel was charged by UK colleges and other relevant bodies to the Academy of Medical Sciences. This item has been monitored closely by our audit and research committee, and, like Lock, we are disappointed that the academy has not made more progress.
After the meeting of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) in October, where Lock spoke, it was proposed that the colleges should work with the General Medical Council, Universities UK, NHS Research and Development, and the Academy of Medical Sciences to ensure the progression of the panel. The Federation of Royal Colleges of Physicians of the UK has since confirmed its support for the joint working group. This college continues to promote its misconduct statement and remains fully committed to working actively with all other bodies to establish the British panel.
Gordon D O Lowe, assessor
gdl1j@clinmed.gla.ac.uk, Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH2 1JG
Gordon D Murray, member
Consensus Panel on Misconduct in Biomedical Research, Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH2 1JG
Niall D Finlayson, president
Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH2 1JG
Competing interests: None declared.
References
Lock S. Britain prefers talk to action. BMJ 2003;327: 940-1. (25 October.)
Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh. Consensus statement on misconduct in biomedical research, October 1999. Available at: www.rcpe.ac.uk/esd/consensus/misconduct_99.html
Stonier P, Lowe GDO, McInnes G, Murie J, Petrie J, Wells F. A national panel for research integrity: a proposed blueprint for the prevention and investigation of misconduct in biomedical research. Proc R Coll Physicians Edinb 2001;31:253-5 (www.rcpe.ac.uk/publications/articles/vol31_no3/S_National_Panel.pdf).
After the meeting of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) in October, where Lock spoke, it was proposed that the colleges should work with the General Medical Council, Universities UK, NHS Research and Development, and the Academy of Medical Sciences to ensure the progression of the panel. The Federation of Royal Colleges of Physicians of the UK has since confirmed its support for the joint working group. This college continues to promote its misconduct statement and remains fully committed to working actively with all other bodies to establish the British panel.
Gordon D O Lowe, assessor
gdl1j@clinmed.gla.ac.uk, Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH2 1JG
Gordon D Murray, member
Consensus Panel on Misconduct in Biomedical Research, Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH2 1JG
Niall D Finlayson, president
Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH2 1JG
Competing interests: None declared.
References
Lock S. Britain prefers talk to action. BMJ 2003;327: 940-1. (25 October.)
Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh. Consensus statement on misconduct in biomedical research, October 1999. Available at: www.rcpe.ac.uk/esd/consensus/misconduct_99.html
Stonier P, Lowe GDO, McInnes G, Murie J, Petrie J, Wells F. A national panel for research integrity: a proposed blueprint for the prevention and investigation of misconduct in biomedical research. Proc R Coll Physicians Edinb 2001;31:253-5 (www.rcpe.ac.uk/publications/articles/vol31_no3/S_National_Panel.pdf).