Ethics or Scientific Integrity Committees: What’s the Difference?
[ C H R O N I C L E ]
Mustard gas in the trenches, atomic bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, human experiments by Dr Josef Mengele in the Auschwitz-Birkenau death camp, the Tuskegee syphilis study… 20th century history abounds with horrific scientific practices and applications. Recent artificial trachea transplants carried out at the prestigious Karolinska Institute in Sweden, by Dr Paolo Macchiarini, who used his patients as guinea-pigs, are proof that we are not immune from these atrocities. To these acts of barbarism can be added all sorts of cheating and pretences, such as that of the physician Jan Hendrik Schön, who falsified the results of his experiments for years.
How should scientists act to combat such deviant activities? While echoing the Socratic question “How should one conduct one’s life?”, this question brings a specific dimension, as it concerns a specific life: the life of scientists, both in their laboratory, during their research, and in the outside world, as holders of scientific knowledge, conferring upon them a duty to inform the public and to warn. The first point - life in the laboratory - reveals what is classified as scientific integrity, whereas the second - the role of the scientist in the world - corresponds to research ethics. As science requires specific skills, it seems logical that reflection on these issues be conducted by scientists; similarly, assessing the conduct of scientists requires some practice of science. For these purposes, in France and abroad, a multitude of committees have existed for around forty years designed to warn of the risks, define the rules of conduct, prevent breeches of these rules and sanction any infractions.
A reasoned inventory of this multitude of institutions needs to be drawn up to understand them fully. There are think tanks, such as the National Consultative Ethics Committee for health and life sciences (CCNE) created in 1983 following the reaction to the birth of Amandine, the first test-tube baby in France, the CNRS ethics committee (Comets), which I chair, and the Scientific Integrity Council (CIS), which are different from committees dealing with specific cases and which are more operational in nature. Among the latter are those that act preventatively to rule on research projects, such as the Inria Coerle, committees which sanction breeches of integrity, such as the Inserm Scientific Integrity Delegation (DIS).
Think tanks need independence to ensure freedom of debate. Their opinions are public. They are not necessarily consensual, as the goal is not to act in the instant, but to make general recommendations. Finally, most of the time, they only cover a specific aspect of ethics: one disciplinary field, digital for Cerna, the committee of French public research actors in digital - CEA, CNRS, Inria, etc., or specific issues, for example scientific integrity for the CIS.
Preventative operational committees on the other hand, certify research protocols by ensuring their compliance with legislation. This is particularly true for projects that involve animal experiments or tests on human subjects, or even the processing of personal data. These committees are not independent, as they incur the liability of their supervisory organisation. Finally, organisations that deal with breeches of scientific integrity need to answer allegations of fraud or misconduct, propose means of prevention and implement procedures. We should conclude by saying that these committees also need to train scientists early on in ethics and scientific integrity, as awareness of these issues remains the best prevention against abuses.
> AUTHOR
Jean-Gabriel Ganascia
Artificial intelligence researcher
Jean-Gabriel Ganascia is a professor of IT at the Pierre-et-Marie-Curie University (Paris 6). He chairs the CNRS ethical committee (Comets).
