THE CULTURE OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH IN THE UK - The findings of a series of engagement activities exploring
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
The findings of a series of engagement activities exploring THE CULTURE OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH IN THE UK DECEMBER 2014
Contents
Foreword 2
Executive summary 3
Background 6
Project origins and activities 7
The Steering Group 12
Introduction to scientific research in HEIs in the UK 13
What we heard 18
What is high quality science? 19
Concerns about the culture of scientific research 21
Competition 21
Funding of research 23
Assessment of research 25
Research governance and integrity 29
Career progression and workload 31
Observations and suggestions for action 34
THE CULTURE OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH IN THE UK 1
Foreword
Given public investment in UK science and and promotions panels, for example, can affect
the potential benefits it can bring, it is vital that what science is carried out and by whom. And
the culture of scientific research supports and changes in the way that science is disseminated
encourages science that is high quality, ethical and critiqued can influence how scientists work
and valuable. and behave. Debates about different features
of research culture have been running for many
We welcome the aims of this project to gather years. Given the overlapping nature of many of
evidence and promote debate about whether these features, the culture-wide approach of this
the current culture of scientific research in project provides a more integrated view.
the UK is successful in this respect. A wealth
of information has been gathered during the By taking this broad approach, the project
project from the hundreds of scientists and highlights that all those involved in the practice
others who took part. It is the people engaged of scientific research play a role in shaping
in scientific research who are in the best position its culture, and therefore all should take
to tell us what it is like to be a researcher, responsibility for building a culture conducive
whether a post-doctoral researcher on a short- to high quality, ethical and valuable research.
term contract, or a well-established professor. This report concludes with some suggestions
for those who fund, publish, host, organise
The diverse opinions and evidence gathered and do science. As Chairs or Presidents of
during the project are not readily synthesised organisations that carry out a number of these
into a unified picture. However, the findings functions, we will consider these suggestions
of the project confirm that the culture of in the context of our own communities, as well
scientific research is shaped by a wide range as encourage and support funding bodies,
of interconnecting factors, each exerting their research institutions, publishers and researchers
own influences and raising their own challenges. to recognise and fulfil their roles in shaping an
How research is assessed by funding bodies ethical culture for scientific research.
Professor Jonathan Montgomery Professor Dominic Tildesley
Chair, Nuffield Council on Bioethics President, Royal Society of Chemistry
Sir Paul Nurse Professor Sir John Tooke
President, Royal Society President, Academy of Medical Sciences
Professor Dame Jean Thomas
President, Society of Biology
Executive summary
BACKGROUND science. Survey respondents are motivated in
their work by improving their knowledge and
In 2013, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics understanding, making scientific discoveries
embarked upon a series of engagement for the benefit of society, and satisfying their
activities that aimed to inform and advance curiosity.
debate about the ethical consequences of
the culture of scientific research in terms of
encouraging good research practice and the Concerns about the culture of scientific
production of high quality science. Under the research
guidance of a Steering Group, the activities of
the project included: Competition
High levels of competition for jobs and funding
•A
n online survey that received 970 responses. in scientific research are believed both to bring
•F
ifteen discussion events co-hosted with out the best in people and to create incentives
universities around the UK involving around for poor quality research practices, less
740 speakers and participants. collaboration, and headline chasing.
•E
vidence-gathering meetings with funding
bodies, publishers and editors of scientific Funding of research
research, and academics from the social There are concerns about a loss of creativity
sciences. and innovation in science caused by perceived
funding shortages, strategically-directed
A detailed analysis of the survey responses, funding calls, short-term funding, and trends
a summary of the discussion events, and a towards funding of safer research projects and
background paper about the culture of scientific established research centres. However, support
research in the UK are available at: for multidisciplinary and collaborative work was
www.nuffieldbioethics.org/research-culture praised.
Most of the people who took part in our Assessment of research
activities are involved in research being The perception that publishing in high impact
undertaken at higher education institutions factor journals is the most important element in
(HEIs). A wide range of views, perceptions and assessments for funding, jobs and promotions
experiences about scientific research in HEIs is creating a strong pressure on scientists to
were raised, and these are summarised in this publish in these journals. This is believed to
report. be resulting in important research not being
published, disincentives for multidisciplinary
research, authorship issues, and a lack of
WHAT WE HEARD recognition for non-article research outputs.
The Research Excellence Framework (REF)
What is high quality science? is thought to be a key driver of the pressure
to publish in high impact journals, with many
When asked to pick from a list of options, unaware or untrusting of the instructions given
high quality research was described by to REF assessment panels not to make any use
survey respondents as: rigorous, accurate, of journal impact factors in assessing the quality
original, honest and transparent. In addition, of research outputs.
collaboration, multidisciplinarity, openness and
creativity were frequently raised as important Attempts to assess the societal and/or
components in the production of high quality economic impact of research are welcomed
THE CULTURE OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH IN THE UK 3
by some, but others believe this is creating OBSERVATIONS AND
a culture of short-termism and is pushing SUGGESTIONS FOR ACTION
aside interest in curiosity-driven research, as
well as resulting in researchers exaggerating The Steering Group hopes that the findings
the potential application of research in grant of this project provide useful evidence that
proposals. will advance future debate on the culture of
scientific research in HEIs. In the context of what
It was suggested that research organisations scientists told us motivates them in their work
should better recognise the wider activities of and what they believe to be important for the
researchers, such as mentoring, teaching, peer production of high quality science, the findings
review and public engagement. lead us to make some general observations:
Peer review is thought to be having a positive • In some cases the culture of scientific research
effect on science but concerns were raised does not support or encourage scientists’
about unconstructive reviewer comments and goals and the activities that they believe to be
shortages of peer reviewers. The importance important for the production of high quality
of peer reviewers being given training, time and science.
recognition for their work was emphasised.
•T
here seem to be widespread misperceptions
Research integrity or mistrust among scientists about the policies
Fifty-eight per cent of survey respondents are of those responsible for the assessment of
aware of scientists feeling tempted or under research.
pressure to compromise on research integrity
and standards, although evidence was not •A
mong all the relevant stakeholders, concerns
collected on any outcomes associated with about the culture of research are often on
this. Suggested causes include high levels of matters that they think are outside their control
competition in science and the pressure to or are someone else’s responsibility.
publish. Training in good research practice is
thought to be important in creating conditions We believe there is a collective obligation for the
that support ethical research conduct. actors in the system to do everything they can
to ensure the culture of research supports good
Career progression and workload research practice and the production of high
Features of researcher careers, including high quality science. As such, we provide a number
competition for jobs and funding and heavy of suggestions for action for funding bodies,
workloads, are thought to be resulting in a research institutions, publishers and editors,
loss of creativity and innovation in science. professional bodies and individual researchers
Suggestions for improvements include: fair (see Figure 1). Key examples are:
and consistent recruitment processes, better
provision of mentoring and career advice, Funders: ensure funding strategies, policies
tackling negative attitudes towards those who and opportunities, and information about past
leave academic science, and good employment funding decisions, are communicated clearly to
practices for women. institutions and researchers; and provide training
for peer reviewers to ensure they are aware of
and follow assessment policies.
Research institutions: cultivate an environment Researchers: actively contribute to the
in which ethics is seen as a positive and integral adoption of relevant codes of ethical conduct
part of research; ensure that the track record of and standards for high quality research; use a
researchers is assessed broadly; and provide broad range of criteria when assessing the track
mentoring and career advice to researchers record of fellow researchers; and engage with
throughout their careers. funders, publishers and learned societies to
maintain a two-way dialogue and contribute to
Publishers and editors: consider ways of policy-making.
ensuring that the findings of a wider range of
research meeting standards of rigour can be earned societies and professional bodies:
L
published; consider ways of improving the peer promote widely the importance of ensuring the
review system; and consider further the role of culture of research supports good research
publishers in tackling ethical issues in publishing practice and the production of high quality
and in promoting openness among scientists. science; and take account of the findings of this
report in relation to guidelines for members on
ethical conduct and professionalism.
Figure 1. Suggestions for action to support good research practice and the production
of high quality science
DISSEMINATION
Publication of a wide range of rigorous
research
Openness and data sharing between
researchers
ASSESSMENT
FUNDING
Use of a broad range of criteria in research
Adoption of diverse funding approaches assessments
Clear communication of funding opportunities Recognition of the wider activities of
and assessment criteria researchers
GOOD
Training and recognition for peer reviewers
RESEARCH
PRACTICE AND
RESEARCH GOVERNANCE HIGH QUALITY CAREERS
AND INTEGRITY SCIENCE
Mentoring and career advice
Training in good research practice
Adoption of employment practices that
Openness about consequences of misconduct support diversity and inclusion
Adoption of appropriate ethical review Training and recognition for leaders in research
processes
THE CULTURE OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH IN THE UK 5
BACKGROUND
Project origins and activities
The Nuffield Council on Bioethics carried The activities of the project included:
out inquiries on the ethical issues raised by
emerging biotechnologies in 2011-12, and by Online survey
novel neurotechnologies in 2012-13. These An online survey was open from March to
inquiries brought to light concerns about the July 2014 and received 970 responses. The
ethical consequences of the culture of scientific survey consisted of 26 questions that asked
research in terms of its potential to affect respondents to provide their views on various
research practices and the quality and direction aspects of the culture of scientific research.
of science. The survey included a mixture of multiple-
choice questions, some with the option to add
These concerns were shared by organisations comments, and questions that allowed free text
that work closely with the scientific community, answers. A detailed analysis of the responses
including the Royal Society, Society of Biology, was carried out by Research By Design and is
Institute of Physics, Royal Society of Chemistry available at:
and Academy of Medical Sciences. Under the www.nuffieldbioethics.org/research-culture
guidance of a Steering Group that included
members of staff from these organisations, in
October 2013 the Nuffield Council on Bioethics DEMOGRAPHICS OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS
embarked upon a series of engagement
activities that aimed:
…to foster constructive debate among
all those involved in scientific research
about the culture of research in the Male 42%
UK and its effect on ethical conduct
in science and the quality, value
and accessibility of research; and to Prefer not to answer 2%
advance current debate through wide
dissemination of the outcomes of
these discussions.
Female 56%
The project aimed to explore the effects of a
wide range of influences on scientific research
including, for example, funding mechanisms,
publishing models, career structures and
governance processes. ‘Science’ and ‘scientific
research’ were not strictly defined in order to
allow anyone involved in science or a related
discipline to take part in the activities.
THE CULTURE OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH IN THE UK 7
DEMOGRAPHICS OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS
What area(s) of science do you work in?§
56% Bioscience
27% Medicine
12% Chemistry
8% Psychology
8% Social sciences
8% Physics
6% Computing
6% Engineering
5% Mathematics
4% Environmental
3% Across all sciences
2% Geoscience
2% Veterinary science
1% Neuroscience
6% Other
What type of organisation do you work for?§
80% University
14% Research institution
4% Charity or NGO
3% Biotechnology/pharmaceutical company
3% NHS
2% Industrial/commercial company
2% Government department
2% Funding body
2% Contract research organisation
1% Professional body
1% Publisher
1% Regulator
1% Hospital
3% Other
Which of the following most closely matches your job title?§
30% Post-Doctoral Researcher
14% Researcher/Lecturer
14% Senior Researcher/Lecturer
11% Professor
6% PhD Student
4% Research Support Officer
4% Reader
3% Research Support Manager
2% Head of Department
2% Chief Executive
1% Project Manager
1% Senior Executive Officer
Researcher 1% Executive Officer
Non-Researcher 8% Other
§The percentages show the proportion of the total number of respondents who provided
an answer to the question. In the graphs on area of science and type of organisation, the
percentages do not total 100 due to respondents being able to tick more than one answer.
For all graphs, the percentages may not total 100 due to rounding of numbers.Discussion events LOCATIONS OF DISCUSSION EVENTS
Fifteen discussion events were co-hosted with
universities between June and September
2014. The universities were chosen to ensure
a geographical spread around the UK. Most
of the events took the form of a 90-minute
lunchtime seminar that was free to attend and
open to anyone. The events involved a total of
63 speakers and chairs, and approximately 680
people registered to attend as participants. A
summary of the issues that were raised at the
events is available at:
www.nuffieldbioethics.org/research-culture
THE CULTURE OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH IN THE UK 9DEMOGRAPHICS OF PARTICIPANTS WHO REGISTERED ACROSS ALL EVENTS
What area(s) of science do you work in, if relevant?±
42% Bioscience
27% Medicine
24% Social sciences
12% Psychology
11% Across all sciences
7% Research support services
7% Engineering
5% Computing
5% Chemistry
5% Physics
3% Humanities and law
3% Veterinary science
2% Mathematics
1% Nursing
1% Earth sciences
17% Other
What type of organisation do you work for, if relevant?±
86% University
10% Research Institution
4% Charity/NGO
2% Student
2% NHS
2% Government department
1% Professional body
1% Publisher
1% Funding body
1% Contract research organisation
2% Other
Which of the following most closely matches your job title?±
18% Post-Doctoral Researcher
13% Student
13% Researcher/Lecturer
10% Senior Researcher
9% Research Support Manager
7% Professor
5% Research Support Officer
3% Reader
1% Research Assistant
1% Chief Executive
1% Senior Executive Officer
1% Executive Officer
1% Head of Department
20% Other
± The
percentages show the proportion of the total number of participants who provided an
answer to the question on registering for an event. In the graphs on area of science and
type of organisation, the percentages do not total 100 due to participants being able to tick
more than one answer. For all graphs, the percentages may not total 100 due to rounding of
numbers.Evidence gathering meetings
Three closed meetings were held between June
and September 2014 to engage with:
1) representatives of organisations that fund
scientific research; 2) p
ublishers and editors of
scientific research; and 3) a cademics from
the social sciences with expertise in the practice
and culture of scientific research.
REPORTING ON THE DATA
The people who took part in the survey and
discussion events were self-selecting participants
and cannot be assumed to be representative
of the wider researcher population. Most of
those who took part in our activities are involved
or interested in research being undertaken
by higher education institutions (HEIs), which
carry out around a quarter of UK research and
development. A large proportion of the survey
respondents and event participants work in
either bioscience or medicine and are early-
career researchers, which is reflective of the
demographics of the HEI research community.
Not all the survey respondents answered
every question. Where percentages of survey
respondents are used in this report, this refers to
the percentage of respondents who answered
that particular question.
Taking into account the limitations of the
data, we believe some important themes
and ideas emerged during the project. These
are summarised in this report and illustrated
with data from the survey and with views and
evidence raised during the discussion events
and evidence gathering meetings. The report
aims to inform and advance debate about the
ethical consequences of the culture of scientific
research in terms of encouraging good research
practice and the production of high quality
science. Although the focus of the project was
scientific research, the issues being considered
are likely to be relevant to many other areas of
academic research.
THE CULTURE OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH IN THE UK 11The Steering Group
A Steering Group was set up in October 2013
to oversee the design and implementation of
the project and to provide connections with
the scientific community. The contributions of
members of the Steering Group were based on
their personal expertise and experience. They
were not formally representing the views of their
organisations but did regularly consult with their
organisations and members to help inform the
project and raise awareness of activities.
MEMBERS
Ottoline Leyser (Chair)
Professor of Plant Development and Director,
The Sainsbury Laboratory, University of Cambridge;
Deputy Chair, Nuffield Council on Bioethics
Laura Bellingan Peter Main
Director of Science Policy, Society of Biology Director of Education and Science
(until May 2014, now Education Advisor),
Elizabeth Bohm Institute of Physics
Senior Adviser, Science Policy Centre,
Royal Society Peter Mills
Assistant Director, Nuffield Council on Bioethics
Mindy Dulai (from June 2014)
Senior Programme Manager, Environmental Jonathan Montgomery
Sciences, Royal Society of Chemistry Professor of Health Care Law, University College
London; Chair, Nuffield Council on Bioethics
Ann Gallagher
Professor of Ethics and Care, International Rachel Quinn
Care Ethics Observatory, University of Surrey; Director of Policy, Academy of Medical Sciences
Member, Nuffield Council on Bioethics
James Hutchinson (until June 2014)
Senior Programme Manager, Life Sciences,
Royal Society of ChemistryIntroduction to scientific research in
HEIs in the UK
A detailed background paper which provides more information about the
culture of scientific research in the UK is available at:
www.nuffieldbioethics.org/research-culture
Scientific research has led to advances in This kind of funding is offered through a mixture
knowledge that have improved our health, of research grants, fellowships, studentships,
well-being and understanding of the world, training and other programmes, and supports a
and to innovations and technologies that have wide range of research, including basic research
had a major impact on the way we live and which aims to advance knowledge of the world,
on economic growth. The UK regularly tops and applied research which is directed towards
international lists ranking countries by research the development of particular applications or
productivity and quality when numbers of products.
researchers and levels of R&D expenditure are
taken into consideration. Funding bodies tend to provide a combination
of short and long-term grants. Some Research
Council funding is directed towards providing
FUNDING OF RESEARCH IN HEIS long-term support for large-scale projects
at institutes or research centres, such as
Annual research and development (R&D) the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences
expenditure across all sectors and disciplines in Research Council (BBSRC)-supported John
the UK has increased from around £17 billion in Innes Centre. Alongside such projects, funding
the 1980s to £27 billion in 2012, with the higher bodies may award large project grants such
education sector carrying out £7.2 billion of as the Engineering and Physical Sciences
R&D.1 Research Council’s (EPSRC) Research Capacity
grants. Other funding streams are designed to
Core (or block) funding is allocated annually support medium and short-term work, such
by the UK higher education funding bodies as the EPSRC’s Mathematical Sciences Small
to HEIs. This funding supports research Grants or the Natural Environment Research
infrastructure and gives institutions freedom to Council’s (NERC) Urgency Grants.
undertake research in keeping with their own
objectives. The amount of funding awarded to Some funding bodies have introduced initiatives
each institution is determined by the number to support ‘high risk’ science. For example, the
of researchers, the costs of different types of EPSRC has a number of grant programmes
research and an assessment of the quality of that aim to stimulate creativity, adventure
research carried out every five or six years. and lateral thinking in research, and NERC’s
Discovery Science funding stream aims to
In addition to core funding, grants for specific support curiosity-led science and encourages
research projects or programmes are awarded adventurous research.
by a wide range of bodies, including the seven
Research Councils, government departments, Most funders have schemes targeted at
businesses, charities, foundations, and overseas supporting early career researchers. The
sources such as the European Commission. Medical Research Council’s (MRC) New
1 Office for National Statistics (2014) UK Gross Domestic Expenditure on Research and
Development, 2012, available at: www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_355583.pdf. Prices have
been adjusted for inflation.
THE CULTURE OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH IN THE UK 13Investigator Grant, for example, is aimed at The findings presented in journal papers may
researchers with between three and ten years be reported in the media if they come to the
of post-doctoral experience and the Wellcome attention of journalists and are deemed to
Trust’s New Investigator Awards are intended to be of interest to the wider public. Research
support researchers in the first five years of their institutions, funding bodies and a range of other
research careers. organisations, including journal publishers,
support researchers in engaging the public with
science through the media and in other ways,
DISSEMINATION OF RESEARCH for example, by taking part in public events and
festivals.
The findings of research are typically
disseminated via peer-reviewed journals.
Papers are assessed by journals through a ASSESSMENT OF RESEARCH
process of peer review to determine whether
or not they should be published. Peer review Peer review is the process by which academic
typically includes assessment of the rigour of work is assessed by other experts in the field.
the science and of the contribution it makes to It is the mainstay of most research assessment
the field. Acceptance of a paper in a prominent processes, including those carried out by
journal typically requires that the work is of journals to assess which work to publish, by
high technical quality and that the findings funding bodies to determine which proposals
represent a major, and possibly newsworthy, to fund or how much core funding to allocate,
advance in knowledge. Some journals, however, and by institutions to decide who to appoint or
such as the open access journal PLOS ONE, promote to academic positions. Peer reviewers
have removed ‘scientific importance’ from its are typically, but not always, unpaid.
acceptance criteria.
In science disciplines, the peer review process
The traditional publishing model relies on is usually ‘single-blind’, where the identity of the
researchers writing and reviewing papers, reviewer is hidden from the author or applicant,
journals publishing them, and institutions and takes place prior to publication. However,
paying subscriptions fees to view the published open and post-publication peer review are
papers. There is support from policy makers, gaining prominence. For example, many of the
funders and others for a move to open access journals published by Biomed Central make
publishing, where peer-reviewed journals allow reviews available alongside the final articles,
free access to their articles, paid for by article and websites such as PubPeer and PubMed
processing charges (often referred to as ‘Gold’ Commons allow researchers to post public
open access), or where published research comments about articles following publication.
is placed in a separate public repository for In addition, some science journals are
anyone to see after an agreed period of time experimenting with double-blind reviews where
(often referred to as ‘Green’ open access). Many the identity of both the author and the reviewer
research funders now require or encourage are hidden, which is common practice among
their grant holders to ensure free, online access social science journals.
to their published work, and most universities
have publicly accessible research repositories As a key indicator of research quality, publication
for their researchers to use. Discipline-specific in peer-reviewed journals is highly sought after
repositories also exist, such as arXiv.org, where by researchers, particularly journals with the
pre-prints of papers in the fields of physics and highest ‘impact factors’. High impact factor
mathematics are self-archived by authors. journals are widely read, often leading towork receiving a high number of citations by for their research to have an impact on society
other academics. Although this varies across in the ‘Pathways to impact’ section of grant
disciplines, the impact factor of the journal in applications. In addition, in 2013, the UK
which a paper is published is therefore often higher education funding bodies undertook a
used as an indicator of the quality and impact new process for assessing research quality,
of published work. Despite their prevalent use, the Research Excellence Framework (REF), to
it is widely agreed that journal impact factors inform the allocation of core funding to HEIs
have serious limitations. The San Francisco from 2015. The process involved peer review of
Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) each institution on the basis of 1) the outputs of
recognises that research should be assessed research (such as journal publications, datasets
on its own merits rather than on the basis of the and patents), 2) the impact of past research
journal in which the research is published, and on the economy, society and culture, and 3)
has now been signed by over 12,000 individuals the vitality and sustainability of the research
and 500 organisations. environment. The REF assessment panels were
instructed not to make any use of journal impact
One method for assessing the significance factors in assessing the quality of research
of individual papers is to use the number of outputs. The results are due to be announced
times the paper has been cited in other peer- in December 2014. HEFCE is currently
reviewed papers, which can be adjusted to undertaking research to evaluate the strengths
account for article type, time since publication and weaknesses of the REF process.
and differences in citation practices across
disciplines. There is also growing interest in
‘altmetrics’ – metrics proposed as alternatives CAREER PROGRESSION
to journal impact factors and paper citation
numbers for assessing the quality and reach The number of academic staff across all
of all kinds of published research. Altmetrics disciplines employed in English HEIs has risen
include download and bookmark numbers, from around 105,000 in 2003-04 to around
blog and social media mentions, and expert 126,000 in 2012-13.2 Around 30 per cent of
recommendations. Altmetrics are beginning to science PhD graduates go on to post-doctoral
be explored and adopted by publishers, funders, research positions, and around four per cent of
institutions (for example, through the Snowball science PhD graduates proceed to permanent
Metrics Initiative) and researchers. However, academic posts with a significant research
there is also wide recognition that research is component.3 Many overseas researchers are
very difficult to assess using metrics alone, and recruited into the UK system at different career
that qualitative assessments are an essential points, and UK researchers take up positions in
component. The Higher Education Funding other countries.
Council for England (HEFCE) is currently
undertaking an independent review of the role of Researchers are assessed for promotions or
metrics in the assessment of research. jobs by panels of senior members of staff on the
basis of a range of relevant criteria, such as their
In an attempt to undertake a fuller assessment performance in research, teaching, leadership
of the value of research and the contributions of and outreach activities.
researchers, some funding bodies are taking into
consideration the impact of future or previous
research beyond academia. For example,
Research Councils require researchers to set
out how they are going to explore opportunities
2 Higher Education Funding Council for England (2014) A briefing on: Staff employed at HEFCE-funded
HEIs: Trends and profiles, available at: www.hefce.ac.uk/whatwedo/lgm/workforce/staff/overall/
3 The Royal Society (2010) The Scientific Century: securing our future prosperity, available at:
https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2010/4294970126.pdf
THE CULTURE OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH IN THE UK 15Typical career path for a scientist in an HEI
PhD
(3-4 years)
POST-DOCTORAL RESEARCHER
(typically two or more fixed-term contracts)
RESEARCH FELLOW
(typically a 5-year contract)
RESEARCHER / LECTURER
(typically an open-ended contract)
SENIOR RESEARCHER / LECTURER
(typically an open-ended contract)
READER
(typically an open-ended contract)
PROFESSOR / CHAIR
(typically an open-
ended contract)
Percentages of staff employed in research roles in UK HEIs in
2011/12 in selected scientific disciplines4
37% Biosciences
14% Physics
12% Chemistry
12% Electrical, electronic and computer engineering
10% Earth, marine and environmental sciences
5% Pharmacy and pharmacology
4% Anatomy and physiology
4% Mineral, metallurgy and materials engineering
3% Chemical engineering
4 Data supplied by HESA Services Ltd. The percentages do not total 100 due to rounding of
numbersRESEARCH GOVERNANCE
AND ETHICS
Research in HEIs is not overseen by a dedicated This section has provided an introduction
regulatory body, but most institutions have to the wide range of factors that influences
their own policies on good research practice, the culture of research in the UK, including
systems for the ethical approval of projects, and what kind of funding is available and how
procedures for handling misconduct.5 Certain it is allocated, the governance of research,
types of research have additional oversight the way in which research is disseminated,
processes that are governed by bodies outside the composition of the workforce, and how
the HEI system, such as animal research, clinical researchers progress in their careers. The
trials and research involving genetically modified next section presents evidence collected
organisms. during this project about how scientists
and other key stakeholders experience
There is a wide range of activities that could be the culture of research and the factors that
considered to constitute research misconduct they believe are having positive or negative
or poor quality research practice. This includes effects on science.
data fraud, poor experimental design, corner-
cutting in research methods, inadequate
replication of research, ‘cherry picking’ results,
inappropriately slicing up data to create several
papers, authorship issues, plagiarism, over-
claiming the significance of work in grant
proposals and papers, and carrying out poor
quality peer review, for example by failing to
declare a conflict of interest. The scale of
research misconduct or poor quality research
practice is hard to assess since it is likely that
much goes on undetected. The Committee on
Publication Ethics (COPE) identifies authorship
issues as one of the most common concerns
raised by its journal members.
The first sector-wide research guidance
for universities, The Concordat to Support
Research Integrity, was published in 2012.6
Institutions funded by the UK higher education
funding councils are required to comply with
the concordat, which sets out a number of
commitments. These include maintaining the
highest standards of rigour and integrity in all
aspects of research, and supporting a research
environment that is underpinned by a culture of
integrity and based on good governance, best
practice and support for the development of
researchers.
5 For instance, see the University of Birmingham’s Code of Practice for Research 2013-14, available at:
www.birmingham.ac.uk/Documents/university/legal/research.pdf
6 Universities UK (2012) The Concordat to Support Research Integrity, available at:
www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/highereducation/Pages/Theconcordattosupportresearchintegrity.aspx
THE CULTURE OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH IN THE UK 17WHAT WE HEARD
Over the course of the project, we heard a wide range of views,
perceptions and experiences related to the ethical consequences
of the culture of scientific research in terms of encouraging good
research practice and the production of high quality science. These are
summarised in this section.
What is high quality science?
When survey respondents were asked to select were asked what feature of the UK research
five words from a list that best describe their environment is having the most positive effect
understanding of high quality research, the five on science. The respondents (a quarter) who Collaborations –
most frequently selected words were: raise this think collaboration is leading to an open, friendly
better communication between researchers, environment
1. Rigorous greater sharing of data and methodologies, where people
2. Accurate less competition between different research work together to
achieve things
3. Original teams, and reduced feelings of isolation among
faster rather
4. Honest researchers. This, respondents perceive, results
than competing
5. Transparent in an “explosion of ideas” and more innovation in needlessly.
research. Additionally I
‘Rigorous’ was the top choice across all think that the
disciplines. Respondents working in medicine, Multidisciplinarity emerging inter-
engineering, psychology, social science and The potential for multidisciplinary research to disciplinary
computing included ‘ethical’ in their top five, and address some of the major questions facing (e.g. bio-maths
‘beneficial to society’ was the third most popular society was highlighted at several of the department split
selection by social scientists. ‘Justified’, ‘open’, discussion events. Researchers who have PhD programmes)
‘legal’ and ‘respectful’ were the least frequently trained in completely different ways need to efforts though
chosen words. work together, it was suggested, and the wide facing teething
problems now will
gaps between disciplines that existed in the past
be very valuable
During the project activities it emerged that are now becoming much narrower.
in the future.
several other components are thought to be
particularly important in the production of high Openness Survey respondent
quality science: collaboration, multidisciplinarity, Sixty-one per cent of survey respondents think (PhD Student, female,
aged 18-25)
openness and creativity. that the move towards open access publishing is
having a positive or very positive effect overall on
Collaboration scientists in terms of encouraging the production
Increased collaboration was the most common of high quality research. Researchers in the
answer given when survey respondents field of computing were particularly positive.
61%
of survey respondents think open access publishing is having a
positive or very positive effect on scientists
Photo: Participant at the discussion event held at University College London
THE CULTURE OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH IN THE UK 19Open access publishing is also the third most freedom and variety in research were among
popular answer given by survey respondents the most common answers given by survey
when asked which features of the UK research respondents. Respondents report that these
environment are having the most positive effect features encourage creative thinking, leading
on scientists. Reasons given for this positive to diversity in research and innovation as well
effect include making research more accountable as encouraging researchers and institutions to
to the public, and helping to correct exaggerated follow more ambitious projects. Concerns about
or inflated claims made in the media. a loss of creativity were raised in discussions
about a possible culture of ‘short-termism’
Participants in the discussion events were also in research (see Short-term funding p23 and
positive about the potential of open access Research impact p26) and perceived increases
publishing to promote collaboration, reduce in strategically-directed funding by funding
unnecessary duplication, increase reproducibility bodies (see p23).
in research and reduce poor quality research
practices. Although concerns about how
researchers will cover article processing fees MOTIVATIONS OF SCIENTISTS
were raised at several of the events, the
Freedom gives publishing experts we spoke to expressed The motivations of scientists provide additional
[you] the chance the view that the UK is currently in a period of insights into how they view research, and the
to let your transition and that open access publishing will majority of the survey respondents clearly
mind wander. be the norm in 10-15 years time. chose a career in science in order to find out
Collaboration more about the world around them. When
gets you places In addition, almost two thirds of respondents respondents were asked to rank phrases to
more quickly and believe data sharing policies in the UK are describe what they believe motivates them in
often to places
having a positive or very positive effect overall their work, the top three were:
none of you could
on scientists in terms of encouraging the
reach alone.
production of high quality science. Respondents 1. Improving my knowledge and
Survey respondent believe increased transparency and data understanding
(Senior Researcher/ sharing are facilitating the dissemination of 2. M aking scientific discoveries for the
Lecturer, male, aged
36 to 45) results, enabling research to be accomplished benefit of society
more quickly and cost effectively, and allowing 3. Satisfying my curiosity
greater scrutiny of research findings. A greater
proportion of respondents aged under 35 think Phrases that came lower down the rankings
data sharing policies are having a very positive were (in descending order): ‘progressing my
effect overall than those aged over 45 (15 per career’, ‘communicating science to others’,
cent vs. 7 per cent). There are concerns related ‘earning a salary’, ‘training the next generation of
to data sharing however, with issues about scientists’, ‘gaining recognition from my peers’,
commercial sensitivities and the challenges of ‘working as a team’ and ‘gaining recognition
making data publicly available raised at several from the public’ ranked last.
of the discussion events.
Respondents working in medical research are
Creativity more likely to cite ‘making scientific discoveries
The importance of creativity in the scientific for the benefit of society’ as their main
process was raised during the project in a motivation. ‘Satisfying my curiosity’ is particularly
number of contexts. When asked how different important for respondents working within
features of the UK research environment are computing and physics.
having a positive effect on scientists, academicConcerns about the culture of
scientific research
COMPETITION believe it is having a negative or very negative
effect (49 vs. 38 per cent male). More
High levels of competition, or professors think competition is having a very
‘hypercompetition’,7 in scientific research positive or positive effect when compared to
emerged as a strong theme running through people nearer the beginning of their careers (60
all the project activities. Applying for funding is vs. 35 per cent post-doctoral researchers for
thought to be very competitive by the majority example).
of the survey respondents (94 per cent), as is
applying for jobs and promotions (77 per cent). A number of potential negative effects of high I think in theory
Around nine in ten think making discoveries levels of competition were raised during the competition
and gaining peer recognition is quite or very project: should be healthy
competitive. however I don’t
think it is, rather it
Poor quality research practices
means people do
Competition for funding is felt particularly keenly Behaviours such as rushing to finish and publish
not share ideas/
by researchers working in the biosciences, and research, employing less rigorous research data/thoughts
respondents aged under 45 are more likely to methods and increased corner-cutting in in the same way
find applying for jobs and promotions to be research were raised by 29 per cent of survey so that high
very competitive when compared to their older respondents who commented on the effects of quality science
colleagues. competition on scientists. The potential for high can be done
levels of competition to encourage poor quality for the greater
Competition appears to be a double-edged research practices was also raised in several of good. Rather it is
sword. Many believe that competition can bring the discussion events. about getting the
out the best in people as they strive for ever recognition for
better performance, and that science advances Less collaboration yourself as your
career/funding
more rapidly as a result. It is also thought Of the survey respondents who provided a
is dependent on
that high levels of competition go against the negative comment on the effects of competition
publications etc.
ethos of scientific discovery and can create in science, 24 out of 179 respondents (13 per
incentives for practices that are damaging to the cent) believe that high levels of competition Survey respondent
production of high quality research. between individuals discourage research (Senior Researcher,
female, aged 36 to 45)
collaboration and the sharing of data and
Views vary depending on gender and methodologies. This concern was echoed
academic position. A higher proportion of during several of the discussion events.
male respondents to the survey think that
competition is having a positive or very positive Rewarding self-promoters
effect overall (45 vs. 35 per cent female), whilst Of the survey respondents who provided a
a higher proportion of female respondents negative comment on the effects of competition
94%
of survey respondents think applying for funding is very competitive
7
s described in Alberts B, Kirschner MW, Tilghman S, and Varmus H (2014) Rescuing US
A
biomedical research from its systemic flaws Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
111(16): 5773–7.
THE CULTURE OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH IN THE UK 21in science, 28 out of 179 respondents (16 This, survey respondents believe, can lead to per cent) believe that ‘headline chasing’ has selfish behaviour and means people who do increased in prominence, and that people not behave in this way may be disadvantaged, ‘shouting the loudest’ stand a better chance of irrespective of the quality of their work. gaining promotion and securing funding.
FUNDING OF RESEARCH believe results in fewer new ideas, a decrease in
the time available to plan good research, greater
A number of specific concerns about funding adherence to safer research topics (where
were raised during the project. results are almost guaranteed in advance) and
people cutting corners in research. The factors
Amount of funding cited as causing short-termism include short-
When asked which features of the UK research term employment contracts caused by short-
environment are having the most negative term project funding and a focus on short-term
effect, the most common answer given by research outputs and impact (see Research
survey respondents (31 per cent) was the impact p26). Respondents, particularly post-
lack of funding available. These respondents doctoral researchers and professors, believe the Current funding
believe that the amount of available funding has current system encourages short-term research program
decreased recently and that too much of their proposals and safe research, which may be concentrates
time is wasted applying for what they believe is geared towards commercial development, rather on funding
a shrinking pot of money. than high risk research in unexplored areas. research where
the research
Strategically-directed funding Funding for ‘risky’ research results are within
The survey respondents who think the lack of When asked what they would like to change reach, i.e. where
funding available is having the most negative about the UK research environment, over 42 the results can
be pretty much
effect on scientists also comment that per cent of respondents comment on funding
guaranteed.
researchers are tailoring their work in order to issues, with some expressing a desire for
This type of
meet strategically-directed funding calls, rather more funding for ‘riskier’ projects. There is a ‘safe’ funding
than applying for the original research they feeling that funding bodies have become more also means it’s
had in mind. They believe that creativity and conservative and favour safer research projects, very hard to find
innovation are being lost within the scientific where results are almost guaranteed in advance, funding for un-
community as a result. This point of view but this approach, respondents believe, can conventional/
was echoed in the discussion events, with hamper scientific development. This concern risky/not-trendy
participants commenting that the use of themes was echoed at the discussion events, with approaches.
and strategic priorities by funders may induce participants expressing a belief that funders are However, these
researchers to pursue research they perceive as reluctant to take risks with research and tend are the ones most
more ‘fundable’, which over the long term may to fund the same projects or research teams able to bring in
the big advances
exert a distorting influence on what research is repeatedly.
in science.
conducted. Survey respondents also note that
increased competition for funding may be driving Funding of large, established research Survey respondent
researchers to tailor their applications to meet groups (Senior Researcher/
Lecturer, male, aged
targeted calls, thereby increasing the number of The 42 per cent of respondents who raise 36 to 45)
opportunities they have to win funding. funding issues when asked what they would like
to change about the UK research environment
Short-term funding are also concerned that funding is concentrated
The potential negative effects of short-term towards large, well-equipped research centres
funding were raised in several contexts by and that there is favouritism toward Russell
survey respondents and event participants. Group universities. They are concerned that
Twenty-eight per cent of respondents these centres tend to explore strategically-
commenting on how different features are directed areas of research and that opportunities
having a negative effect on scientists point to a for other researchers wanting to explore their
general culture of ‘short-termism’, which they own areas of interest are reduced as a result.
THE CULTURE OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH IN THE UK 23Positive aspects of the current funding collaborative work was also particularly praised
landscape were also raised by some by survey respondents. Forty-one per cent of
participants during the project. When asked respondents believe that how multidisciplinary
which features of the UK research environment and collaborative research is supported is
are having the most positive effect on having a positive or very positive effect overall
scientists in terms of encouraging high quality on scientists in terms of encouraging the
science, access to funding for projects was production of high quality science (compared
raised by a fifth of respondents, particularly to 26 per cent who think it is having a negative
when respondents were comparing the UK or very negative effect). Respondents working
situation to that of other countries. Support in bioscience and female respondents were
by funding providers for multidisciplinary and particularly positive in their answers.
I think the lack
of funding for
small groups and
projects means
that the focus has
moved to larger
groups, which
reduces thinking
‘outside the box’
Survey respondent
(Senior Researcher/
Lecturer, female,
over 45)
Photo: Participant at the discussion event held at University College LondonASSESSMENT OF RESEARCH of journals focus on single disciplines or areas
of research, which can make the publication of
In a competitive system, the criteria used multidisciplinary research difficult, particularly
by funding bodies, journals and research work that has involved unusual collaborations.
institutions to assess the quality and value of Therefore, assessment processes that focus
science influences what science is pursued and on publications in particular journals may
how scientists behave. be unfairly disadvantaging multidisciplinary
research, creating disincentives for this kind of
Four topics commonly feature in discussions work to be carried out, or resulting in the need
about research assessment processes: to publish across a range of journals covering
journal and article metrics, assessing the wider all the contributing disciplines.
professional activities of researchers,
peer review and the Research Excellence • Authorship issues
Framework (REF). Focusing on metrics related to journal articles
in the assessment of researchers may be
contributing to a culture in which scientists try
Journal and article metrics to gain authorship credits for as many articles Research should
be evaluated in
Throughout the project we heard repeatedly as possible, participants of the discussion
such a way that
that publishing in high impact factor journals is events suggested. Specific issues raised
it ignores simple
still thought to be the most important element in relating to authorship include: the difficulties of metrics like
determining whether researchers gain funding, ensuring that appropriate credit for published impact factors
jobs and promotions, along with article-level work is given to researchers at different and numbers
metrics such as citation numbers. This has stages of their careers; and the challenges of papers and
created a strong pressure on scientists not only raised by differing conventions for authorship instead tries to
to ‘publish or perish’, but to publish in particular when comparing publication records across take a better
journals. different disciplines and when publishing overall account
multidisciplinary research. of all outputs
Concerns raised by survey respondents and arising from the
event participants in relation to the use of journal • Other research outputs research.
and article metrics in research assessment A range of non-article research outputs was Survey respondent
include: mentioned by survey respondents and event (Reader, male, aged
participants, including datasets, software, 56-65)
• Publication bias patents and films. In addition, the internet
High impact journals will usually only is providing researchers with the ability to
publish research that they perceive to be of disseminate their research outputs without
outstanding scientific importance. A concern the help of publishers. Although this will
raised by participants at several of our vary across disciplines, it is likely to become
events and meetings is that the pressure to increasingly important to include a wider
publish in these journals is resulting in some range of research output types in research
types of important research findings not assessments. The REF already accepts a
being published or recognised, for example, variety of research outputs for assessment, but
research with negative findings or research that it appeared from our discussions that very few
replicates or refutes others’ work. researchers are aware of this, or do not believe
that anything other than peer-reviewed journal
• Disadvantaging multidisciplinary articles will be judged favourably.
research
Event participants pointed out that the majority The desire for a more diverse set of measures
THE CULTURE OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH IN THE UK 25of research quality and reach to be used in addition, a focus on impact was, some event
assessments was raised by many survey participants said, resulting in researchers
respondents throughout their responses. The exaggerating the potential application of
publishers we spoke to pointed to the San research in grant proposals and the timescales
Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment in which it might be delivered.
(DORA) as a positive development in this area.
The Research Councils we spoke to believe
they have a duty to explain to the public
Assessing the wider activities of and the Government the impact of public
researchers investment in science. They emphasised
that this is done mostly retrospectively, and
Research impact applicants are not expected to be able to
Participants at several of the events broadly predict at the application stage the economic
welcome the attempt by funding bodies to or societal impacts that research will achieve.
assess the impact of future or previous research
beyond academia, believing that scientists Professional activities
have obligations to maximise opportunities It was suggested during the discussion events
for and demonstrate the benefit of their work that research organisations should pay closer
to the public. It also, some believe, focuses attention to and value the hard-to-measure
researchers’ attention on the purpose of their and often invisible ways in which researchers
research and forces them to explain their contribute to the production of high quality
research clearly. science. This may include mentoring, training,
teaching, peer review, university administration,
However, others were less enthusiastic about public engagement and contributing to the
the move to include these wider assessment work of national bodies and policy makers.
criteria. Concerns raised by survey respondents Almost half of the survey respondents believe
and event participants in relation to the provision of professional education, training and
assessment of impact include: supervision in the UK is having a positive or
very positive effect overall on scientists in terms
• A culture of short-termism of encouraging the production of high quality
Pressure to create impact is one factor cited science.
by survey respondents as causing a culture
of short-termism in the UK (which is thought Staff development, PhD awards and research
by 28 per cent of respondents to be having collaboration are already recognised by the REF
a negative effect on scientists in terms of in the ‘Environment of research’ category and
encouraging high quality science). A culture of often feature in university promotion criteria,
short-termism, they say, results in fewer new but nonetheless there was a clear perception
ideas, a decrease in the time available to plan among the event participants that they are
good research, greater adherence to ‘safer’ undervalued.
research topics and people cutting corners in
research.
Peer review
• A focus on applied research Seventy-one per cent of the survey respondents
Participants at several of the events are believe the peer review system in the UK is
concerned that an increased focus on the having a positive or very positive effect overall
impact of research is pushing aside interest on scientists in terms of encouraging the
in and funding of curiosity-driven research. In production of high quality science.You can also read
