Advertisement

A Unifying Vision for Scientific Decision Making: The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics’ Scientific Integrity Principles

Published:August 28, 2015DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jand.2015.06.372

      Abstract

      In 2014, recognizing the need to have a single document to guide scientific decision making at the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (Academy), the Council on Research was charged with developing a scientific integrity policy for the organization. From the Council on Research, four members volunteered to lead this workgroup, which reviewed the literature and best practices for scientific integrity from well-respected organizations, including federal funders of research. It became clear that the scope of this document would be quite broad, given the many scientific activities the Academy is involved in, and that it would be unreasonable to set policy for each of these many situations. Therefore, the workgroup set about defining the scope of scientific activities to be covered and envisioned a set of guiding principles, to which policies from every organizational unit of the Academy could be compared to ensure they were in alignment. While many relevant policies exist already, such as the requirement of a signed conflict of interest disclosure for Food & Nutrition Conference & Expo speakers, the Evidence Analysis Library funding policy, and the Academy’s sponsorship policy, the scientific integrity principals are unique in that they provide a unifying vision to which future policies can be compared and approved based on their alignment with the principles. The six principles outlined in this article were approved by the full Council on Research in January 2015 and approved by the Academy’s Board of Directors in March 2015.
      This article covers the scope of the principles, presents the principles and existing related resources, and outlines next steps for the Academy to review and revise current policies and create new ones in alignment with these principles.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

      1. Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics House of Delegates. HOD backgrounder: Engaging members in research. House of Delegates website. http://www.eatright.org/hod/. Updated 2014. Accessed July 2, 2014.

      2. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 45 Public Welfare, Department of Health and Human Services Part 46 Protection of Human Subjects. Revised January 15, 2009. Effective July 14, 2009.

        • Steneck N.H.
        ORI. Introduction to the Responsible Conduct of Research.
        US Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC2007
      3. National Institutes of Health Office of Extramural Research. Frequently asked questions: Human subjects research—requirement for education. Grants and Funding website. http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/hs_educ_faq.htm#229. Published December 12, 2013. Updated 2013. Accessed July 2, 2014.

      4. Anonymous. Mission and history. CITI Program website. https://www.citiprogram.org/index.cfm?pageID=30. Accessed July 2, 2014.

        • Hand R.K.
        • Lawless M.E.
        • Deming N.
        • Steiber A.L.
        Development and pilot testing of a human subjects protection training course unique to registered dietitian nutritionists.
        J Acad Nutr Diet. 2014; 114: 2009-2016
      5. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Roles and responsibilities. http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/. Accessed December 11, 2014.

        • Bekelman J.E.
        • Li Y.
        • Gross C.P.
        Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: A systematic review.
        JAMA. 2003; 289: 454-465
        • Barden J.
        • Derry S.
        • McQuay H.J.
        • Moore R.A.
        Bias from industry trial funding? A framework, a suggested approach, and a negative result.
        Pain. 2006; 121: 207-218
        • Lundh A.
        • Sismondo S.
        • Lexchin J.
        • Busuioc O.A.
        • Bero L.
        Industry sponsorship and research outcome.
        Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012; 12: MR000033
        • Naci H.
        • Dias S.
        • Ades A.E.
        Industry sponsorship bias in research findings: A network meta-analysis of LDL cholesterol reduction in randomised trials of statins.
        BMJ. 2014; 349: g5741
        • Djulbegovic B.
        • Kumar A.
        • Miladinovic B.
        • et al.
        Treatment success in cancer: Industry compared to publicly sponsored randomized controlled trials.
        PLoS One. 2013; 8: e58711
        • Myers E.F.
        • Parrott J.S.
        • Cummins D.S.
        • Splett P.
        Funding source and research report quality in nutrition practice-related research.
        PLoS One. 2011; 6: e28437
      6. US Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service Administrative & Financial Management Staff. Types of agreements. http://www.afm.ars.usda.gov/agreements/agreement-types.htm#memo. Updated 2013. Accessed December 11, 2014.

        • Rowe S.
        • Alexander N.
        • Kretser A.
        • et al.
        Principles for building public-private partnerships to benefit food safety, nutrition, and health research.
        Nutr Rev. 2013; 71: 682-691
        • Alexander N.
        • Rowe S.
        • Brackett R.E.
        • et al.
        Achieving a transparent, actionable framework for public-private partnerships for food and nutrition research.
        Am J Clin Nutr. 2015; 101: 1359-1363
        • Steinbrook R.
        Financial support of continuing medical education.
        JAMA. 2008; 299: 1060-1062
        • Caudill T.S.
        • Johnson M.S.
        • Rich E.C.
        • McKinney W.P.
        Physicians, pharmaceutical sales representatives, and the cost of prescribing.
        Arch Fam Med. 1996; 5: 201-206
      7. Upstate Medical University Office of the President. Policy on the relations with industry in patient care and education. CAMP A-24. http://www.upstate.edu/policies/documents/CAMP_A-24.pdf. Accessed June 28, 2015.

      8. Lo B. Field M.J. Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC2009
      9. Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education. Disclosure of relevant financial relationships—Sample form. http://www.accme.org/news-publications/publications/tools/disclosure-relevant-financial-relationships-sample-form. Updated 2010. Accessed December 11, 2014.

      10. National Institutes of Health Office of Extramural Research. Frequently asked questions: Responsibility of applications for promoting objectivity in research for which PHS funding is sought (42 CFR part 50 subpart F). http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/coi/coi_faqs.htm#3156. Updated 2014. Accessed December 11, 2014.

        • American Dietetic Association
        American Dietetic Association/Commission on Dietetic Registration code of ethics for the profession of dietetics and process for consideration of ethics issues.
        J Am Diet Assoc. 2009; 109: 1461-1467