Literature DB >> 27882502

Institutional Responsibility and the Flawed Genomic Biomarkers at Duke University: A Missed Opportunity for Transparency and Accountability.

David L DeMets1, Thomas R Fleming2, Gail Geller3, David F Ransohoff4.   

Abstract

When there have been substantial failures by institutional leadership in their oversight responsibility to protect research integrity, the public should demand that these be recognized and addressed by the institution itself, or the funding bodies. This commentary discusses a case of research failures in developing genomic predictors for cancer risk assessment and treatment at a leading university. In its review of this case, the Office of Research Integrity, an agency within the US Department of Health and Human Services, focused their report entirely on one individual faculty member and made no comment on the institution's responsibility and its failure to provide adequate oversight and investigation. These actions missed an important opportunity to emphasize the institution's critical responsibilities in oversight of research integrity and the importance of institutional transparency and accountability.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Genomic predictors; Institutional review; Office of Research Integrity; Research fraud

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27882502     DOI: 10.1007/s11948-016-9844-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics        ISSN: 1353-3452            Impact factor:   3.525


  5 in total

1.  From Baltimore to Bell Labs: reflections on two decades of debate about scientific misconduct.

Authors:  David B Resnik
Journal:  Account Res       Date:  2003 Apr-Jun       Impact factor: 2.622

2.  Beyond "compliance": the role of institutional culture in promoting research integrity.

Authors:  Gail Geller; Alison Boyce; Daniel E Ford; Jeremy Sugarman
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 6.893

3.  Transforming the culture of biomedical research from compliance to trustworthiness: insights from nonmedical sectors.

Authors:  Mark Yarborough; Kelly Fryer-Edwards; Gail Geller; Richard R Sharp
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 6.893

4.  The Harvard fraud case: where does the problem lie?

Authors:  R Knox
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1983-04-08       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  Coping with fraud: the Darsee Case.

Authors:  B J Culliton
Journal:  Science       Date:  1983-04-01       Impact factor: 47.728

  5 in total
  5 in total

1.  Main outcomes of an RCT to pilot test reporting and feedback to foster research integrity climates in the VA.

Authors:  Brian C Martinson; David C Mohr; Martin P Charns; David Nelson; Emily Hagel-Campbell; Ann Bangerter; Hanna E Bloomfield; Richard Owen; Carol R Thrush
Journal:  AJOB Empir Bioeth       Date:  2017-08-07

2.  Correctable Myths About Research Misconduct in the Biomedical Sciences.

Authors:  Barbara K Redman
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2018-02-05       Impact factor: 3.525

Review 3.  Establishing and Maintaining Research Integrity at Academic Institutions: Challenges and Opportunities.

Authors:  Janet D Robishaw; David L DeMets; Sarah K Wood; Phillip M Boiselle; Charles H Hennekens
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  2019-09-12       Impact factor: 4.965

4.  Making researchers responsible: attributions of responsibility and ambiguous notions of culture in research codes of conduct.

Authors:  Govert Valkenburg; Guus Dix; Joeri Tijdink; Sarah de Rijcke
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2020-07-07       Impact factor: 2.652

5.  Expanding Research Integrity: A Cultural-Practice Perspective.

Authors:  Govert Valkenburg; Guus Dix; Joeri Tijdink; Sarah de Rijcke
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2021-02-09       Impact factor: 3.525

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.