Research Integrity in the Face of Skepticism

By Christopher J. Cramer, Ph.D., executive vice president and chief research officer for UL Research Institutes

“Without trust, we don’t truly collaborate; we merely coordinate.” — Stephen M.R. Covey

Trust is the currency that fuels successful partnerships. A research organization that loses the trust of its stakeholders — ranging from the public, to policymakers, to research peers — has literally lost everything. Rebuilding trust after such a loss is, as it should be, extraordinarily difficult. That is why sustaining research integrity is critically important.

It’s not enough to simply avoid research misconduct — the “fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results,” as defined by The Office of Research Integrity within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.  

A commitment to research integrity must be much more intentional. It requires building a culture of ethicality, as well as being transparent — engaging in open science in most circumstances. Without such a commitment, research organizations can expect to lose talent, make flawed decisions or cause others to do so, and ultimately damage the overall scientific research community by spurring mistrust.  

What threatens research integrity? 

In my experience, professional researchers overall tend to have an extremely strong commitment to research integrity because we’re keenly aware of how dependent we are on one another when it comes to discovery. Almost all research builds upon some prior foundation, and if that foundation cannot be trusted, we’re all in an untenable position.  

However, bad actors do exist — even though the discovery of one among us would be painful. When individuals have a personal or familial financial interest in a project or its outcome, they may be tempted to engage in misconduct to advance those interests. Further, when individuals are aiming to advance their careers, they might feel personal pressure to compromise research integrity in order to get ahead.  

Even if we accept that most researchers will have a predilection to act with integrity, we should ponder what circumstances might cause them to lose their moral compass. More often than not, systemic pressures tied to performance or funding are culprits in the subornment of misconduct. 

Personal performance pressure — as previously mentioned — is intrinsic. Systemic performance pressure, however, can derive from an organization’s culture and priorities, like its reward structures or a “publish or perish mentality.” For instance, if a research organization prioritizes quantitative publication metrics over the ethical integrity of published work, researchers may consciously or unconsciously skew their results to meet organizational goals for fear of otherwise adverse consequences.   

Similarly, funding can be a particularly pernicious source of bias. It costs money to do research, and researchers can feel pressure to generate results that would only be viewed positively by the source of their funds. This risk of funding-driven bias can be especially relevant in the case of support from business interests. 

Of course, setting performance expectations and publishing goals, or having outside funding and conflicts of interest are not per se harmful: They simply create situations that should be disclosed and managed to avoid inappropriate outcomes. 

Strategies to mitigate threats to research integrity 

So, how can research organizations protect themselves and their reputations from the threats to research integrity that might tarnish them? 

• Outline Policies and Associated Procedures: Misconduct can be made more difficult through properly crafted and communicated policies, alongside associated procedures that address important areas like secure and ethical data usage; safe research environments; responsible publishing and peer review practices; fiscal responsibility; conflicts of interest and commitment; foreign influence and involvement; and more.  

• Create the Right Culture: Implementing clear policies and reporting procedures, ethical training, and fostering a culture of kindness, collaboration, and open-mindedness will go a long way to circumventing pervasive misconduct. Further, directors of research projects should be mindful never to create environments where researchers feel pressured to get certain results or to publish/patent/etc., “no matter what”. 

• Be Transparent: Transparency is one of the most powerful tools we have. Clear disclosure of conflicts of interest, openness about funding, and a real commitment to sharing methods and data where appropriate don’t weaken research. They strengthen it. This is how credibility is earned and protected. 

Needless to say, I’m proud of our dedication to research integrity at UL Research Institutes.  

We do, indeed, have policies, procedures and training in place that provide clarity around how to avoid misconduct. 

And we also pay attention to culture. We are dedicated to fostering an environment where our employees feel heard and valued, where they can bring their authentic selves to work and advance our shared mission, together.  

As for transparency, we are committed to open science, disclosing appropriate funding information and conflicts of interest and sharing non-sensitive data when they are ready to be released — making it easy to see everything we’re doing. 

At the same time, I’d be remiss to not acknowledge the importance of approaching research integrity with humility.  Claiming to be the research organization with the most integrity would be a dangerous exercise in hubris. No one is perfect, and we can all do better. That’s why we continue to focus on policies, culture, and transparency — so we can continue working for the safer world we all deserve based on science that people can trust.  

Editor’s Note: This perspective piece was adapted from an internal memo also written by Chris Cramer, Chief Research Officer, in 2024.

PUBLISHED