Last week, the office of the Principal Scientific Adviser (PSA) to the Government of India publicised a new draft National Policy on Academic Ethics, prepared with feedback from two of India’s three science academies (Indian National Science Academy and Indian Academy of Sciences). A brief published online states, “The document lays down the foundational principles for upholding integrity and ethical practices in an academic environment and also streamlines the course of action to ensure delivery of justice in case of malpractices.” It adds that the draft policy will be implemented for an unspecified period, after which the office will solicit feedback and ready the final version.
The Wire invited comments from a few scientists on the document, and these are published below. The first comment is from K. VijayRaghavan, the PSA and the chief architect of the policy.
K. VijayRaghavan, Principal Scientific Adviser to the Government of India
Science in India has many achievements, from successes in applying its outcomes to benefit our society and economy, quality basic-science and building institutions that support excellent researchers and teachers. However, there are also many points of concern we must address as we grow. Principal among them is the median quality of science. The value of current science is best judged by the future, but in the meantime, we must ensure that the bulk of it addresses what we feel are substantive questions and not obviously pedestrian ones, and that it is conducted following accepted ethical practices. Such practices can no longer be transmitted by precept or diktat; we must formally articulate our expectations and provide training.
In science, as in all walks of life, people slip-up. There will also be deliberate misconduct ranging from the minor to the serious. There will be situations where institutional and laboratory environments encourage and ensure ethical conduct. There will be others where a blind-eye is turned to bad practice and yet others where misconduct is substantial. Our goals are to maximise the good and minimise the bad. At the heart of the solution is culture – a culture of following the rules even when no one is looking. This requires training from an early age, not only in good conduct in science but in good conduct, period. Above this training-level is that of example. Teachers have a particular role here. The third level is that of policing and enforcement. Responses must be correct, exemplary and proportionate, with due protection to whistleblowers and against gratuitous accusations.
The Academic Ethics Policy tries to lay out these general principles, in the form of a ‘living’ document that describes the best practices in a general way. Specific articulations in agriculture, medical research, health research, basic sciences, etc. will now be needed. These will have to be implemented at the institutional level, with recourse to higher levels if there is evidence of failure. Institutional ethics and misconduct committees should be set up and be functional. These are important tasks to which we must all set ourselves.
Prajval Shastri, astrophysicist at the Indian Institute of Astrophysics, Bengaluru
The policy is explicit that sexual misconduct, gender-based harassment and bullying in the workplace, as well as discriminatory behaviour based on any of caste, class, religion, ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation, are all unethical – which is a big step forward if adopted. Furthermore, there is acknowledgement that gender bias is systemic, and it is implicit that all members of organisations at all levels of the hierarchy should undergo gender-sensitisation training. This is a very necessary and welcome step.
While public engagement by academics has been so far regarded as optional in Indian academia, it is very welcome that the policy sees the lack of public engagement by publicly funded academics as abdication of responsibility and therefore unethical.
Gautam Menon, biophysicist at Ashoka University, Sonepat
The draft academic ethics policy addresses, correctly, the need to identify and address plagiarism, data fraud, predatory publishing and undeserved authorship of papers. I like the fact that it specifically addresses bias against under-represented sections, identifies the importance of dealing with workplace bullying and is specific about addressing conflicts of interests. It also makes clear the need for swift and fair resolutions to complaints, the need for privacy and confidentiality of proceedings, as well as the need to guard against malicious allegations and to protect reputations where unnecessarily clouded.
The document, however, contains no discussion of ethics associated with technology research, e.g. the development of tools for the use of personal data to track individuals without their consent. A broad statement on ethical issues associated with experiments on humans and animals might not have been amiss but is absent. I would have preferred stronger wording than “When potential conflicts are liable to occur, the official must make this known to the concerned colleagues”, and would have argued for mandatory recusal in such cases unless absolutely unavoidable. But overall, the document is an important mission statement towards consolidating good academic ethics practices across science and education at all levels, and I gladly support it.
D. Indumathi, theoretical physicist at the Institute of Mathematical Sciences, Chennai
The draft national policy on academic ethics is a long overdue one and as such welcome. Having said that, it appears to have a very broad scope. It has long been acknowledged that plagiarism, predatory journals, and ethics in data collection/analysis as well as in theory-related papers have been found out, but no systematic approach to the problems have been seen so far.
The main issue, to my mind, is in the implementation. While the draft policy mandates a standing committee to deal with the issue, the composition of such committees and their independence will be crucial to any meaningful outcome. If the problem is in high places, then a ‘local’ committee may have its hands tied, although the policy document does recommend safety norms and procedures for such ‘whistleblowers.
Unless this is clearly in place (admittedly not an easy thing to do), the policy may fall short of its very ambitious but welcome goals.
Madhusudhan Raman, theoretical physicist at the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Mumbai
A national policy on academic ethics is, of course, very welcome, and the ethical guidelines laid down are clear and well-intentioned. For some time now, Indian academia has been plagued with crises, whether they be related to data fraud, plagiarism, workplace safety, caste-based discrimination or sexual harassment. Before I discuss my response to it, I should like to underscore that a commendable role has been played by science journalists in the highlighting of these crises, and I hope they continue to hold academia’s feet to the fire.
The manner in which power is distributed and leveraged in academia, however, is the single largest roadblock to a more just and inclusive academy. Caste-based discrimination, bullying and sexual harassment often affect the youngest members of our community, and the relations of power are so arranged as to hamstring any attempts at bringing perpetrators to justice. A truly bold and progressive code of ethics would emphasise the primacy of the interests of the oppressed classes within academia, and secure for them a seat at the table where all determinations of innocence and guilt are made. Until this happens, it is difficult to imagine these guidelines being in any way restorative or effective in resolving the crises that plague our community. This was understood over a hundred years ago – isn’t it time we caught up?
Shruti Muralidhar, neuroscientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston
This is probably one of the few comprehensive ethics documents that has been officially put forward by a central body governing academic research in India. It is a first step forward, but needs a lot of support and implementation. Choosing a few of the points to focus on:
1. Bias and discrimination: Its heartening to see a ‘to-do’ list along with a ‘do not do’ list – setting it apart from most ethics policies and documents.
2. ‘Full and equal participation of women’: Great sentiment, but needs hard numbers and practically attainable standards and goals. If those numbers can’t be fulfilled (for example, in committee member representation) at the time, then that fact should be recorded and publicly accessible. For example, online as summarised case logs subject to provisions of the RTI Act.
3. Public interaction and outreach: It is unfair to declare science communication as an academic’s ‘duty’ but without providing training and incentives for the same. Science communication is not an easy task – to learn or to perform. Academics who go out of their way to learn and do good science communication must be rewarded. Therefore, unless there are science-communication training modules and grant incentives in place, this point is currently just lip-service.
Overall, this policy document needs to be bolder and talk about enforcement and audits/time periods of implementation for all the suggested measures. Rather than being a stand-alone set of rules, it should be mirrored in the form of an institutional ethical policy framework at each academic institution in India, along with defined time frames and actions for dealing with each of the infractions.
Jayant Murthy, astrophysicist at the Indian Institute of Astrophysics, Bengaluru
In the context of the high profile cases that have come to light recently, I believe it is welcome that issues of ethics in academics are being highlighted at the national level. However, those who have to be reminded of academic ethics are those for whom a ‘National Policy’ will make no difference. It has never been acceptable to plagiarise, discriminate or bully and simply stating this again is not useful. Instead, what is needed is a professional review mechanism where those who violate the code are punished. This has not happened: there is a perception, based on actual cases, that academic integrity is not valued and, in fact, holds one back from one’s well-deserved place in the academic hierarchy. This could very well be solved by UGC or at the institutional level without a National Policy. Appoint the right people and the outcomes will come.
On another, perhaps minor, note: the document says that scientists are encouraged to voice their professional opinions openly and without fear. The line between our professional competence and our scientific competence is not an easy line to draw when our scientific temper is under threat every day and, unfortunately, the PSA may not speak for the government as a whole in this.