A leader at the Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences requested that the Research Ethics Committee at UiO (REC) assessed possible breaches of recognized research ethics norms by a former postdoctoral fellow.
The institute suspected that the postdoctoral fellow had shared confidential information with a foreign research group. This suspicion was based on suspicious circumstances surrounding a publication from the research group, which presented overlapping research findings and listed the postdoc as a co-author. The institute’s suspicions were linked to the postdoc’s long-term affiliation with UiO and access to substantial amounts of information and research data. Another factor was the method description and data basis in the foreign article, which were considered insufficient, and the institute deemed the timeline provided as highly implausible.
The postdoc denied sharing unpublished research data with outsiders, emphasizing that his contribution to the foreign research group did not include conducting experiments.
REC first evaluated whether a possible hidden transfer of confidential information fell within the definition of plagiarism but believed that these actions rather constituted "other serious violations of recognized research ethics norms" according to the Research Ethics Act § 8, second paragraph.
REC's further assessment was based on the principle that scientific misconduct, according to The Norwegian Research Ethics Act, depends on two conditions: whether there indeed has been a violation of recognized research ethics norms, and whether the researcher can be blamed for this. There must be a clear preponderance of the evidence for this to be proven.
REC reviewed a range of documents but did not find proof of the postdoc sharing confidential information. REC noted, among other things, that the foreign research group had reported one of the overlapping research findings several months before the UiO institute, and that other co-authors of the disputed publication had made significant contributions within the relevant research field. Therefore, the co-authors did not need access to confidential information from UiO to conduct their research.
REC further investigated whether it was unethical for the postdoc to participate in an external, competing research project while affiliated with UiO. REC referred to principles of reliability, honesty, and respect in research ethics. It noted that UiO has a legitimate expectation of a collaboration agreement being made before a researcher participates in an external research collaboration. The lack of such an agreement was criticized. At the same time, REC understood that the postdoc believed it was unnecessary to inform the UiO institute about his work on the external publication and believed that the research findings were not in direct competition with each other.
REC concluded that the postdoc's co-authorship in the foreign publication was in accordance with the relevant research ethics guidelines. Additionally, REC recommended that the postdoc should retain his affiliation to UiO, even though the publication was released after his engagement at UiO had ended. This was because his contributions to the publication were based on knowledge he had acquired during his many years at the UiO institute. REC also encouraged the institute to take measures to restore the relationship with the postdoc.
Although scientific misconduct was not found, the REC expressed understanding that the circumstances and facts of the case provided grounds for the institute's report of concern and believed a research ethics assessment was necessary.
The REC’s conclusion in the case was unanimous.
References
- The Research Ethics Act (2017) §§ 6 and 8
- The Regulations of the Law to The Research Ethics Act (2018) § 7 last paragraph
- The draft bill of The Research Ethics Act (Prop. 158 L (2015-2016) Chapter 5.2.2
- The Norwegian National Committee for Research Ethics in Science and Technology (NENT): Guidelines for Research Ethics in Science and Technology (2015) Sections 4 and 5
- All European Academies (ALLEA): European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (2017) page 4
- International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Defining the Role of Authors and Contributors (“the Vancouver Recommendations”) Section 2
The text has been translated and improved by UiO GPT.
More statements and summaries from the Research Ethics Committee at UiO