Ethics on the agenda

This March, SUHF started a working group for questions regarding ethics, misconduct and good research practise, which I have been appointed to chair. This is an assignment which is both enjoyable and important. Many national and international networks have research ethics on their agenda. This group will work with research ethics issues on a national level during 2019 and 2020. The members represent different skills and positions within different subjects, and represent higher education institutions of various size and focus.

At our first meeting, we started off in the importance that our attention not only be set on misconduct. Our work must spring from the “good” and focus on basic values, the freedom of research, and that we take care of the responsibility that comes with this freedom. With our autonomy as higher education institutions, we have plenty of influence and authority. At the same time, needless to say, we must follow regulations and facilitate a thorough management of deviations.

Members of the working group raised the matter that the ethics issues are utterly important for maintaining trust in our institutions, which also is a prerequisite to keep our autonomy. That is, if we don’t succeed in upholding a good research practise, we as institutions don’t deserve our autonomy. We agreed on that the working group is well-timed, when there’s so much going on in the matter. For example, we talked about the increasing number of cases of misconduct, that there are new demands on education within research ethics, and last but not least, the new bill on research misconduct: (2018/19:58) Ny ordning för att främja god sed och hantera oredlighet i forskning. This bill will have a sizeable effect on our work.

I’m cautiously positive to the new misconduct board that has been suggested. It remains to be seen how it will turn out. I wish for more uniform assessments, more efficient management, and a coherent expertise that can have an advisory and prescriptive function.

Anyway, in the working group we agreed to begin with the comparison of our institutions’ administration arrangements, and to see if we can propose a national code of ethics. This is only selection from a very exciting and important work.

I will surely return to this issue.

This post is also available in: svSvenska