You're right about this
@alex3619.
The MRC have this long document entitled:
MRC POLICY AND PROCEDURE FOR INVESTIGATING ALLEGATIONS OF RESEARCH MISCONDUCT
(See attached file)
In it they set out their full definition of research misconduct, which is as follows:
Appendix B- Definitions of misconduct
The MRC endorses the definitions of research misconduct and other unacceptable research behaviour identified in the RCUK Policy and Guidelines on Governance of Good Research Conduct
(February 2013). Unacceptable conduct includes the following:
Fabrication
The creation of false data or other aspects of research, including documentation and participant consent.
Falsification
The inappropriate manipulation and/or selection of data, imagery and/or consents.
Plagiarism
The misappropriation or use of others’ ideas, intellectual property or work (written or otherwise), without acknowledgement or permission.
Misrepresentation, including:
- misrepresentation of data, for example suppression of relevant findings and/or data, or knowingly, recklessly or by gross negligence, presenting a flawed interpretation of data;
- undisclosed duplication of publication, including undisclosed duplicate submission of manuscripts for publication;
- misrepresentation of interests, including failure to declare material interests either of the researcher or of the funders of the research;
- misrepresentation of qualifications and/or experience, including claiming or implying qualifications or experience which are not held;
- misrepresentation of involvement, such as inappropriate claims to authorship and/or attribution of work where there has been no significant contribution, or the denial of authorship where an author has made a significant contribution.
A Breach of duty of care, whether deliberately, recklessly or by gross negligence:
- disclosing improperly the identity of individuals or groups involved in research without their consent, or other breach of confidentiality;
- placing any of those involved in research in danger, whether as subjects, participants or associated individuals, without their prior consent, and without appropriate safeguards even with consent; this includes reputational danger where that can be anticipated;
- not taking all reasonable care to ensure that the risks and dangers, the broad objectives and the sponsors of the research are known to participants or their legal representatives, to ensure appropriate informed consent is obtained properly, explicitly and transparently;
- not observing legal and reasonable ethical requirements or obligations of care for animal subjects, human organs or tissue used in research, or for the protection of the environment;
- improper conduct in peer review of research proposals or results (including manuscripts submitted for publication); this includes failure to disclose conflicts of interest; inadequate disclosure of clearly limited competence; misappropriation of the content of material; and breach of confidentiality or abuse of material provided in confidence for peer review purposes.
Improper dealing with allegations of misconduct
- failing to address possible infringements including attempts to cover up misconduct or reprisals against whistleblowers.
- failing to deal appropriately with malicious allegations, which should be handled formally as breaches of good conduct.
So that "MRC" definition of scientific misconduct, originally posted by
@adreno, and repeatly posted by me is flat out wrong! The bit where it says scientific misconduct "does not include poor research unless this encompasses the intention to deceive" is completely innaccurate.
Having seen the correct MRC definition, I believe we now have a much stronger case for misconduct against the principal investigators of PACE.
[Edit: added file attachment]
