Scientific Integrity Training
Speaking Truth to Science: Advancing Scientific Integrity in our Workplaces
I encourage all PIPSC members to take this training, which is developed by PIPSC. Below are some highlights from it.
For more information or to share feedback on educational programs, please contact: Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC) Education Section, Regional Operations education@pipsc.ca
Workshop Objectives
✔ Demystify the concepts of scientific integrity and the “right to speak” and why they are vital to scientists and researchers, workers more generally, as well as the common good.
✔ Share diverse experiences and perspectives on scientific integrity issues from our various work and social contexts (department, occupation, Group, union role, geographic location, etc.)
✔ Clarify the union’s, employee’s, and employers’ roles and responsibilities with respect to scientific integrity.
✔ Equip stewards to recognize and respond to possible breaches of the scientific integrity policy or the right to express (often known as the “right to speak”) clause.
✔ Generate ideas for engaging members and building solidarity around issues of scientific integrity in our workplaces.
✔ Identify strengths and gaps in our scientific integrity policies and their implementation
✔ Discuss strategies for advancing scientific integrity through avenues such as consultation, breach process, grievances, updates to the SIP, etc.
What this workshop covers
✔ What is scientific integrity and why does it matter?
✔ Overview of scientific integrity policies and the right to express
✔ Scientific integrity trends in our departments/agencies and workplaces
✔ How to apply the policy and bring complaints forward
✔ Holding our employers accountable
✔ Building solidarity with members around scientific integrity
✔ Strategies for advancing scientific integrity through stewarding, consultation, etc
Scientific Integrity Principles: An Overview
Summarized and adapted from the Model Policy Scientific Integrity
Trust in science and research, and decisions that are made based on them depend on making sure integrity is at the forefront during the process of producing it.
Good government-based science and research depend on those government scientists and researchers carrying out their work to apply the same standards of excellence as the wider research and scientific community.
Therefore, in designing, conducting, managing, reviewing, using, or communicating research, science, and related activities, government employees shall:
⚫Perform their work to all standards of scientific excellence, research ethics, and responsible research conduct
⚫Make sure there is no political, commercial, client, and stakeholder interference in science and research work (process or products) and any related communications
⚫Make all science and research available to the public in a timely manner per the Government of Canada’s Directive on Open Government (exceptions, for example, could be for security or intellectual property reasons)
⚫Make sure people who should be credited for the work, are (e.g. authorship and acknowledgments)
⚫Avoid conflicts of interest, and ensure that any real, potential, or apparent conflict of interest is explicitly recognized, reported, and appropriately managed.
⚫Encourage discussions on different interpretations of research and science and ensure differences are accurately noted.
⚫Ensure that the names and roles of those researchers and scientists’ contributions are acknowledged in official publications or communications, including those who made significant contributions to these products and activities.
⚫Report any breach of these principles
Learn key concepts and then consider the following two scenarios provided below, which are taken from similar real-life situations.
What will you do, if you experience these situations?
What you think Union can do to deal with the problems described there?
If you have any questions or need help related to situations described, please contact me directly and I will guide you what to do next.
The following questions you will be need to answer to help the Union help you:
What are the issues at play in this scenario?
What areas of the scientific integrity policy might have been breached if any?
What other policies and/or collective agreement articles might apply in this case?
What additional information/evidence do you need to collect?
Use-case Scenarios
Applying the Policy: Scenario # 1
The government is preparing to launch a new pipeline project. A briefing note just circulated within your department with the Assistant Deputy Minister’s signature on it, stating that the project has been approved and a contract has been awarded to Oil Helpers Inc. to construct the new pipeline.
The briefing note also states that the new “evidence-based” project will help “stimulate the economy and increase job opportunities in an under-employed community.”
The scientists (PIPSC members) who were involved in the environmental assessment had raised concerns about the potential for devastating impacts on the local wildlife at the chosen site. They were also concerned that the project was being rolled out too quickly and that the First Nations community that the site would partially be on, was not properly consulted. None of these concerns were mentioned in the briefing note.
The scientists involved in the environmental assessment believe this is a breach of the scientific integrity policy and one of them comes to you, their steward, for help.
Applying the Policy: Scenario # 6
Kim is a scientific evaluator (SE) who works on a team assessing the benefits and risks of drugs before they are allowed to be on the Canadian market.
Kim is assigned to review a clinical trial of a new birth control medication being conducted by an industry sponsor. While reviewing the efficacy and safety results, Kim notes some scientific evidence that does not support the safety of the drug.
Kim discusses the evidence with the rest of her team, and also consults with the manager, who has a different opinion than Kim. The manager’s opinion is supported by the Director.
The Director makes the final decision to put the new drug on the market. The Manager and Director include their point of view and supporting rationale in the review report but omit Kim’s.
Kim approaches you for help.