The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity

European Science FoundationThe European Science Foundation (ESF) wasestablished in 1974 to provide a common platformfor its Member Organisations to advance Europeanresearch collaboration and explore new directions forresearch. It is an independent organisation, owned by78 Member Organisations, which are research fundingorganisations and research performing organisations,academies and learned societies from 30 countries.ESF promotes collaboration in research itself, infunding of research and in science policy activities atthe European level.www.esf.orgALLEA (All European Academies)ALLEA (All European Academies) is the EuropeanFederation of National Academies of Sciences andHumanities whose 53 Member Academies in 40countries are self-governing communities of scientistsand scholars. It was founded in 1994 to promote theexchange of information and experience betweenAcademies; to offer European science and societyadvice from its Member Academies; and to promoteexcellence and high ethical standards in science andscholarship.www.allea.orgCover picture: © iStockMarch 2011ISBN: 978-2-918428-37-4Printing: Ireg – Strasbourg

ContentsForeword 31. Executive Summary 51.1 The Code 51.2 The Principles of Research Integrity 51.3 Misconduct 61.4 Good Research Practices 62. The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity 82.1 The Code of Conduct 82.2 Background and Elucidation 92.3 Guidelines for Good Practice Rules 132.4 International Collaborative Research 152.5 Annexes 15Annex I: Recommended Principles for Investigating Research MisconductAnnex II: Boilerplate text for International Agreements, as suggested by the OECD Global Science ForumCoordinating Committee for facilitating international misconduct investigations3. ESF Member Organisation Forum on Research Integrity and list of members 174. ALLEA Standing Committee on Science and Ethics and list of members 19

Forewordl l lScience is expected to enlarge mankind’s knowledgebase, provide answers to global challenges,and guide decisions that shape our societies. Yetwhen science is compromised by fraudulent activities,not only the research enterprise stumbles, butalso society’s trust in it. Thus, researchers and leadersthroughout the world should ensure that scienceis trustworthy to our best knowledge. This can beachieved by education, promoting a culture of integrity,and by development of and compliance withjoint rules and norms.In this remit, the European Science Foundationhas fostered research integrity since its inception,but in a more explicit manner since 2000 when itpublished a landmark science policy briefing on recommendationson best practices, ‘Good ScientificPractice in Research and Scholarship’. One of therecommendations envisages, as an important taskfor the National Academies, the formulation ofcodes of good scientific practice. At the Europeanlevel ALLEA (ALL European Academies – theEuropean Federation of 53 National Academies ofSciences and Humanities) adapted a Dutch documentfrom the Royal Netherlands Academy into the‘Memorandum on Scientific Integrity’ (2003), whichhas been translated into several languages and is inuse in many countries today.ESF continued to promote international debatearound this topic by organising in 2007 the FirstWorld Conference on Research Integrity, togetherwith the Office for Research Integrity of the USPublic Health Service, which brought together theleading international stakeholders in the field andhighlighted the need for international collaborationand consensus. In 2008, a survey was carriedout on research integrity structures, ‘Stewards ofIntegrity – Institutional Approaches to Promoteand Safeguard Good Research Practice in Europe’.A dedicated debate platform was then set up, an ESFMember Organisation Forum on Research Integrity,that assembled 31 research funding and performingorganisations from 22 countries, together withALLEA. The work of this group produced the consensusdocument ‘The European Code of Conductfor Research Integrity’, launched at the SecondWorld Conference on Research Integrity held inJuly 2010. The Code addresses the proper conductand principled practice of systematic research inthe medical, natural and social sciences and thehumanities. It stands as a canon for self-regulationwith clear recommendations, and is now on the wayto being taken as a reference template for implementationthroughout Europe. It is not intended toreplace existing national or academic guidelines, butto represent a Europe-wide agreement on a set ofprinciples and priorities for the research community.The Code is provided in this booklet in two forms,the Executive Summary and the full Code.Human curiosity and science are borderless,and so must be the policies that surround them.Global research collaboration is unthinkablewithout a common understanding of the rules ofintegrity. This is why the next step is to develop aninternational Code of Conduct for scientists andstakeholders worldwide.Professor Marja MakarowChief Executive, ESFProfessor Jüri EngelbrechtPresident, ALLEA3The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity

1.Executive Summaryl l l1.1 The CodeResearchers, public and private research organisations,universities and funding organisations mustobserve and promote the principles of integrity inscientific and scholarly research.These principles include:• honesty in communication;• reliability in performing research;• objectivity;• impartiality and independence;• openness and accessibility;• duty of care;• fairness in providing references and givingcredit; and• responsibility for the scientists and researchersof the future.Universities, institutes and all others who employresearchers, as well as agencies and organisationsfunding their scientific work, have a duty to ensurea prevailing culture of research integrity. Thisinvolves clear policies and procedures, training andmentoring of researchers, and robust managementmethods that ensure awareness and application ofhigh standards as well as early identification and,wherever possible, prevention of any transgression.Fabrication, falsification and the deliberate omissionof unwelcome data are all serious violationsof the ethos of research. Plagiarism is a violationof the rules of responsible conduct vis-à-vis otherresearchers and, indirectly, harmful for science aswell. Institutions that fail to deal properly with suchwrongdoing are also guilty. Credible allegationsshould always be investigated. Minor misdemeanoursshould always be reprimanded and corrected.Investigation of allegations should be consistentwith national law and natural justice. It should befair, and speedy, and lead to proper outcomes andsanctions. Confidentiality should be observed wherepossible, and proportionate action taken where necessary.Investigations should be carried through toa conclusion, even when the alleged defaulter hasleft the institution.Partners (both individual and institutional) ininternational collaborations should agree beforehandto cooperate to investigate suspected deviationfrom research integrity, while respecting the lawsand sovereignty of the states of participants. In aworld of increasing transnational, cross-sectionaland interdisciplinary science, the work of OECD’sGlobal Science Forum on Best Practices for EnsuringScientific Integrity and Preventing Misconduct canprovide useful guidance in this respect.1.2 The Principles of ResearchIntegrityThese require honesty in presenting goals and intentions,in reporting methods and procedures and inconveying interpretations. Research must be reliableand its communication fair and full. Objectivityrequires facts capable of proof, and transparency inthe handling of data. Researchers should be independentand impartial and communication withother researchers and with the public should be openand honest. All researchers have a duty of care forthe humans, animals, the environment or the objectsthat they study. They must show fairness in providingreferences and giving credit for the work of othersand must show responsibility for future generations intheir supervision of young scientists and scholars.5The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity

1.3 Misconduct1.4 Good Research Practices6The European Code of Conduct for Research IntegrityResearch misconduct is harmful for knowledge. Itcould mislead other researchers, it may threatenindividuals or society – for instance if it becomesthe basis for unsafe drugs or unwise legislation –and, by subverting the public’s trust, it could leadto a disregard for or undesirable restrictions beingimposed on research.Research misconduct can appear in many guises:• Fabrication involves making up results and recordingthem as if they were real;• Falsification involves manipulating research processesor changing or omitting data;• Plagiarism is the appropriation of other people’smaterial without giving proper credit;• Other forms of misconduct include failure to meetclear ethical and legal requirements such as misrepresentationof interests, breach of confidentiality,lack of informed consent and abuse of researchsubjects or materials. Misconduct also includesimproper dealing with infringements, such asattempts to cover up misconduct and reprisals onwhistleblowers;• Minor misdemeanours may not lead to formalinvestigations, but are just as damaging given theirprobable frequency, and should be corrected byteachers and mentors.The response must be proportionate to the seriousnessof the misconduct: as a rule it must bedemonstrated that the misconduct was committedintentionally, knowingly or recklessly. Proofmust be based on the preponderance of evidence.Research misconduct should not include honesterrors or differences of opinion. Misbehaviour suchas intimidation of students, misuse of funds andother behaviour that is already subject to universallegal and social penalties is unacceptable as well, butis not ‘research misconduct’ since it does not affectthe integrity of the research record itself.There are other failures to adhere to good practices– incorrect procedures, faulty data management, etc.– that may affect the public’s trust in science Theseshould be taken seriously by the research communityas well. Accordingly, data practices shouldpreserve original data and make it accessible to colleagues.Deviations from research procedures includeinsufficient care for human subjects, animals or culturalobjects; violation of protocols; failure to obtaininformed consent; breach of confidentiality, etc.It is unacceptable to claim or grant undeservedauthorship or deny deserved authorship. Otherpublication-related lapses could include repeatedpublication, salami-slicing or insufficient acknowledgementof contributors or sponsors. Reviewersand editors too should maintain their independence,declare any conflicts of interest, and be waryof personal bias and rivalry. Unjustified claimsof authorship and ghost authorship are forms offalsification. An editor or reviewer who purloinsideas commits plagiarism. It is ethically unacceptableto cause pain or stress to those who take partin research, or to expose them to hazards withoutinformed consent.While principles of integrity, and the violationthereof, have a universal character, some rules forgood practice may be subject to cultural differences,and should be part of a set of national or institutionalguidelines. These cannot easily be incorporated intoa universal code of conduct. National guidelines forgood research practice should, however, considerthe following:1. Data:All primary and secondary data should be storedin secure and accessible form, documented andarchived for a substantial period. It should beplaced at the disposal of colleagues. The freedomof researchers to work with and talk to othersshould be guaranteed.2. Procedures:All research should be designed and conductedin ways that avoid negligence, haste, carelessnessand inattention. Researchers should tryto fulfil the promises made when they appliedfor funding. They should minimise impact onthe environment and use resources efficiently.Clients or sponsors should be made aware of thelegal and ethical obligations of the researcher,and of the importance of publication. Wherelegitimately required, researchers should

espect the confidentiality of data. Researchersshould properly account for grants or fundingreceived.3. Responsibility:All research subjects – human, animal or nonliving– should be handled with respect and care.The health, safety or welfare of a communityor collaborators should not be compromised.Researchers should be sensitive to their researchsubjects. Protocols that govern research intohuman subjects must not be violated. Animalsshould be used in research only after alternativeapproaches have proved inadequate. Theexpected benefits of such research must outweighthe harm or distress inflicted on an animal.The primary responsibility for handling researchmisconduct is in the hands of those who employ theresearchers. Such institutions should have a standingor ad hoc committee(s) to deal with allegationsof misconduct. Academies of Sciences and othersuch bodies should adopt a code of conduct, withrules for handling alleged cases of misconduct, andexpect members to abide by it. Researchers involvedin international collaboration should agree tostandards of research integrity as developed in thisdocument and, where appropriate, adopt a formalcollaboration protocol either ab initio or by usingone drafted by the OECD Global Science Forum.4. Publication:Results should be published in an open, transparentand accurate manner, at the earliest possibletime, unless intellectual property considerationsjustify delay. All authors, unless otherwise specified,should be fully responsible for the contentof publication. Guest authorship and ghostauthorship are not acceptable. The criteria forestablishing the sequence of authors should beagreed by all, ideally at the start of the project.Contributions by collaborators and assistantsshould be acknowledged, with their permission.All authors should declare any conflict of interest.Intellectual contributions of others shouldbe acknowledged and correctly cited. Honestyand accuracy should be maintained in communicationwith the public and the popular media.Financial and other support for research shouldbe acknowledged.7The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity5. Editorial responsibility:An editor or reviewer with a potential conflict ofinterest should withdraw from involvement witha given publication or disclose the conflict to thereadership. Reviewers should provide accurate,objective, substantiated and justifiable assessments,and maintain confidentiality. Reviewersshould not, without permission, make use ofmaterial in submitted manuscripts. Reviewerswho consider applications for funding, orapplications by individuals for appointment orpromotion or other recognition, should observethe same guidelines.

2.The European Code of Conductfor Research Integrityl l l8 2.1 The Code of ConductThe European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity2.1.1 PreambleThis Code of Conduct is not a body of law, but rathera canon for self regulation. It is a basic responsibilityof the scientific community to formulate the principlesand virtues of scientific and scholarly research,to define its criteria for proper research behaviour,and to set its own house in order in case scientificintegrity is threatened.Science as the process of knowledge augmentationis embedded in a wider socio-ethical context,and scientists must be aware of their specific responsibilitytowards society and the welfare of mankind.They bear responsibility for the choice of subjects tobe investigated and its consequences, for proper careand treatment concerning the objects of research,and attention and concern with respect to practicalapplications and use of their research results. In thisCode, however, we confine ourselves to standardsof integrity while conducting research, and do notconsider this wider socio-ethical responsibility.2.1.2 Code of ConductScience, including natural and social sciences aswell as humanities, is the systematised knowledgeobtained through observation and experimentation,study and thinking. Scientific research is carried outto determine the nature and principles of what isbeing studied. In spite of their differences in contentand methods all sciences have a common characteristic:they depend on arguments and evidence,i.e. observations of nature or of humans and theiractions and products.Researchers, research institutes, universities,academies and funding organisations committhemselves to observe and to promote the principlesof scientific integrity. These include: honestyin reporting and communicating, reliability inperforming research, objectivity, impartiality andindependence, openness and accessibility, duty ofcare, fairness in providing references and givingcredits, and responsibility for future science generations.Research institutes, funding organisations,academies and other actors in the field of scientificresearch have to adhere to appropriate standards fordata management and preservation of records anddata and to high ethical standards in dealing withresearch participants.Research employers (universities, institutes andother research performing organisations) also havea responsibility to ensure that a culture of researchintegrity prevails. This includes clear policies andprocedures, training and mentoring of researchersat all stages of their careers, and robust managementprocedures to ensure that high standards areobserved and any transgression is identified at anearly stage.Fabrication and falsification, including misrepresentationand deliberately omitting unwelcomefacts or data, are among the most serious violationsof the ethos of science. Also plagiarism is anunacceptable form of misbehaviour, and a violationagainst other researchers.Institutes or organisations that fail to dealproperly with such wrongdoing are also guilty ofdereliction of duty. All allegations should be properlyassessed, and credible allegations should beinvestigated fully, with corrective actions taken ifallegations are confirmed.Minor misdemeanours, reflecting only poorperformance by researchers as opposed to seriousmisconduct – some adjustment or selecting of dataor ‘adaptation’ of a figure – may not give cause to

a formal charge. Minor misdemeanours by studentsor junior researchers should however alwaysbe reprimanded and corrected by teachers or mentors.Minor misdemeanours by more experiencedresearchers that leads to misrepresentation may betreated more seriously, and if repeated should beconsidered as misconduct.In addition to the violation of the fundamentalprinciples of responsible science many otherforms of poor and inappropriate practices in scienceresearch deserve attention. These include poordata practices and inadequate data management,inappropriate research procedures, including questionableprocedures for obtaining informed consent,insufficient respect and care for participants in theresearch, improper research design and carelessnessin observation and analysis, unsuitable authorshipor publishing practices, and reviewing and editorialderelictions. Some of these are very serious anddiscreditable, e.g. abuse of ethical requirements andof trust in relation to the public, research subjects orother participants in the research. However, unlikethe fundamental principles of scientific integrityand the violation thereof, which have a universalcharacter, such practices may be subject to differentnational traditions, legislative regulations or institutionalprovisions. A required system of regulations ofgood practice in research should, therefore, (exceptfor gross violations of ethical principles or the law)not be part of a universal Code of Conduct, butshould be developed in the form of national GoodPractice Rules, that would recognise the legitimatedifferences between national or institutional systems.The enclosed list of recommendations shouldbe used as a guideline for the formulation of suchnational Good Practice Rules.Investigations of research misconduct allegationsshould be consistent with national laws of thecountry in which the investigations are conducted.What is required is a due and fair process, that isuniform and sufficiently rapid, and leads to properoutcomes and sanctions. The investigations must becarried out in accordance with the highest standardsof process integrity, uniformity within onedomain of jurisdiction, and fairness to all parties.Confidentiality should be observed as much as possible,unnecessary detriment to reputations shouldbe avoided, and a proportionate action should betaken against persons found to have committedresearch misconduct. Wherever possible precautionshould be taken to ensure that investigations arecarried through to a conclusion. They should notcease, leaving questions unresolved, merely becausethe defaulter has left the institution.In international collaboration partners shouldagree to conduct their research according to thesame standards of research integrity, and to bringany suspected deviation from these standards, inparticular alleged research misconduct, to theimmediate attention of the project leader(s) (andof the senior responsible officer in the universityor institute (employer), in order for it to be investigatedaccording to the policies and procedures ofthe partner with the primary responsibility, whilerespecting the laws and sovereignty of the States ofall participating parties. In large scale, funded internationalprojects the promotion of good practiceand the handling of possible cases of misconduct,as recommended by the coordinating committee ofthe OECD Global Science Forum, should be followed.The boiler plate text, recommended by this committee,should be embodied in the formal documentsthat establish the collaborative project.2.2 Background and ElucidationIn this section a more extensive elucidation of thecondensed Code of Conduct, presented in chapter 1,is given. The nature of science and scholarship, thevalues to be fostered in scientific and scholarlyresearch, the various discreditable forms of misconductwill be discussed, and procedures for dealingwith allegations of misconduct and rules for goodresearch practice will be recommended.2.2.1 Nature of science and scholarshipIn a broad sense science (in Latin scientia is knowledge)is the systematised knowledge obtainedthrough observation and experimentation, studyand thinking. It is rooted in human curiosity, thewish to understand the physical, biological andsocial worlds as well as the human mind and itsproducts. Science aims at deepening our understandingand extending our knowledge beyond whatis already known. The term ‘science’ is normallyapplied only to the natural and social sciences; inthis document it will be applied in a broader sense,like the German word ‘Wissenschaft’, which appliesalso to the humanities. Of course, there are differencesbetween the various disciplines, sometimeseven indicated as ‘cultural’1, but in this discussionemphasis will be laid on the communalities ratherthan the disparities between the disciplines.1. C.P. Snow (1959), The Rede lecture. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.W. Leppenies (1985), Die drei Kulturen; Sociologie zwischenLiteratur und Wissenschaft. München: Hanser.9The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity

10The European Code of Conduct for Research IntegrityScientific research is carried out in order to determinethe nature and principles of what is beingstudied. Such research is diverse and multifacetedand cannot be captured in a single factual and normativedescription. However, although they maydiffer in methods and traditions, all sciences have afundamental characteristic in common: they dependon argument and evidence, i.e. observations of nature,or of humans and their actions and products.Science is not an enterprise carried out in isolation.Research cannot be done without drawingupon the work of other scientists and scholars; andin most cases it requires collaborating with others(cf. Merton’s2 communalism). And this collaborationassumes ever more an international character.It is also the scientific community that determinesappropriate methods of research and the validationof findings. The contribution of scientific researchto the extension of human knowledge can, therefore,only take place if its results are presented to othersin such a way that they can judge their validity(Merton’s organised scepticism).There is another connection with the outsideworld. Not only do social and political forces affectthe directions of research, science itself also affectsgreatly societal developments. The impact of science,now extending to nearly all fields of knowledge andits applications, has contributed immensely to society,even though its results can be and have beenmisused at times. It is the responsibility of scientistsand researchers to do what they can to ensure thatresearch is for the universal well being of mankindand the good of society.Coercion of powerful persons or institutions,religious or political pressure, economic or financialinterests can corrupt science. Science should,therefore, be as ‘disinterested’ and independentas possible and always impartial, and should havethe freedom to adhere to its own laws and criteria.At the same time we have to acknowledge thatscientists operate in a value-bound context. Theirparadigmatic presumptions, their choice of subjectsto be studied, the way they collect their data, theimpact of their discoveries on the society all referto the ethical and social context in which scienceproceeds.2.2.2 Science and ethicsThe ethical/social values and conditions referredto in the previous section accentuate again theethical and social responsibility of the scientist. Adistinction should be made between two categoriesof issues: problems related to science and society,emphasising the socio-ethical context of research,and problems related to scientific integrity, emphasisingstandards when conducting research. Thereis, of course, no perfect watershed between the twocategories. Some forms of misconduct may haveserious consequences for the health or wellbeing ofcitizens, and can, therefore, be seen as unethical inthe broader sense of the word, but in the light of adiscussion on a Code of Conduct the distinctionmay be clarifying.Any ethical questions arise when science isregarded in a wider ethical/social context. Is thesubject worthy of investigation? What are the consequencesof such research? Could the researchresult in harm for people, nature or society, or bein conflict with basic human values? Is the researchsufficiently independent of interested parties? Coulda university or laboratory become too dependent onsponsored contract research? Could the researcherguard against the improper or selective use andmisinterpretation of their findings, or against objectionableapplications of their discoveries?This document will not deal with this widerethical context of science, but focus on the secondcategory, the responsible conduct of research3.2.2.3 Integrity in science and scholarship:principlesBoth the definition of scientific misconduct and thespecification for proper scientific practice are basedupon principles of scientific integrity. These areprinciples that all scientific and scholarly researchersand practitioners should observe individually,among each other and toward the outside world.These principles include the following:• Honesty in presenting research goals and intentions,in precise and nuanced reporting on researchmethods and procedures, and in conveying validinterpretations and justifiable claims with respectto possible applications of research results.• Reliability in performing research (meticulous,careful and attentive to detail), and in communicationof the results (fair and full and unbiasedreporting).• Objectivity: interpretations and conclusions mustbe founded on facts and data capable of proof andsecondary review; there should be transparency in2. R.K. Merton (1973), The sociology of science: theoretical andempirical investigations. Chicago: Cambridge University Press.The other three Mertonian norms of science are universalism,desinterestedness and organised scepticism.3. As was requested at the establishment of the ESF MemberOrganisation Forum on Research Integrity (Madrid, 2008), andreiterated at the first meeting of the Chairs of the four workinggroups (Amsterdam, 2009).

the collection, analysis and interpretation of data,and verifiability of the scientific reasoning.• Impartiality and independence from commissioningor interested parties, from ideological or politicalpressure groups, and from economic or financialinterests.• Open communication, in discussing the work withother scientists, in contributing to public knowledgethrough publication of the findings, in honestcommunication to the general public. This opennesspresupposes a proper storage and availabilityof data, and accessibility for interested colleagues.• Duty of care for participants in and the subjects ofresearch, be they human beings, animals, the environmentor cultural objects. Research on humansubjects and animals should always rest on theprinciples of respect and duty of care.• Fairness, in providing proper references and givingdue credits to the work of others, in treating colleagueswith integrity and honesty.• Responsibility for future science generations. Theeducation of young scientists and scholars requiresbinding standards for mentorship and supervision.2.2.4 Integrity in science and scholarship:misconductViolating these basic norms leads to researchmisconduct, which is the crux of inappropriatebehaviour in science. Research misconduct is damagingto science, because it may create false leads forother scientists or the results may not be replicable,resulting in a continuation of the deception. It isalso harmful to individuals and society: fraudulentresearch may result in the release and use of unsafedrugs, in the production of deficient products,inadequate instruments or erroneous procedures.Furthermore, if policy or legislation is based onthe results of fraudulent research, harmful consequencesare not inconceivable. But damage is alsodone through the subversion of the public’s trust inscience. The credibility of science would decline andtrust in science as a dependable source of informationand advice in respect of numerous decisions, soimportant for the welfare of mankind and society(environment, health, security, energy), would besubverted. This could lead to undesirable restrictionson permissible research, which could furtherdamage the pursuit of knowledge.There is some empirical evidence4 that there isan increasing incidence of research misconduct.Pressure to publish, commercialisation, greater competitionfor funds, more opportunities for instancethrough the internet, evaluation practices, and thecurrent career system for scientists, may all contriuteto this unfortunate development.The two most serious violations of the ethos ofscience are fabrication and falsification. Fabricationis making up results and recording or reportingthem. Falsification is manipulating research processesor changing or omitting data. Fabricationand falsification can also arise in the reporting ofother researcher’s results, in the reporting of expertopinion and in the public dissemination of science.A third category of misdemeanour is plagiarism inproposing, performing, or reviewing research, or inreporting research results. Plagiarism is the appropriationof another person’s ideas, research resultsor words without giving appropriate credit. The precisewording of an idea or explanation or illustrativematerial (such as original figures and photographs,as well as lengthy tables) in textbooks or popularmaterial are protected by copyright laws, but neverthelesscan be subject to plagiarism. Plagiarism isof a different order since it is supposed to be moreinjurious to fellow scientists than to science as such.However, we have seen that openness is one of thebasic integrity principles, and that progress in sciencedepends on communication and discussionamong fellow scientists and on a well functioningpeer-review system. And if scientists would hesitateor even refuse to practice this openness andcommunication for fear of not being recognised asdevisor or author the quality of science would sufferas well.Also improper dealing with such infringement ofprinciples of integrity (attempts to cover up, reprisalsto whistle-blowers and violations of due process)can be classified as misconduct. In general it shouldbe underlined that research institutes, funders,academies, universities and other actors conductingand administering research have the duty to promotegood research management so that researchintegrity is instilled into the culture.It is generally accepted that the primary responsibilityfor handling cases of misconduct is in thehands of the employers of scientists doing research.Frequently this concerns the institute or universitywhere the accused researcher works. These institutionsshould have a standing committee that dealswith misconduct, or establish an ad hoc committeein case a serious allegation is brought forward.4. Reported by N. Steneck at the ESF-ORI first World Conference onResearch Integrity, Fostering Responsible Research. Lisbon, Portugal,16-19 Sept., 2007. The same increase of misconduct was generallyobserved by European Academy Presidents in a survey conductedin 2007, and reported by P.J.D. Drenth (Strengths and weaknesses ofcurrent policies and practices) at the same Lisbon conference.11The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity

12The European Code of Conduct for Research IntegrityFurthermore, there is a general consensus on theneed for a due and fair process, that is uniform andsufficiently rapid, and leads to proper outcomes andsanctions. A coordinating committee for facilitatinginternational research misconduct investigationsof the OECD has formulated a number of overarchingprinciples for investigating research misconductin international collaborative projects, that can beadopted for general application. Annex I containsrecommended principles that follow the main linesof the OECD recommendations.Responses will depend on the seriousness ofthe research misconduct. In this respect the levelof intent of the misconduct, the consequences ofthe behaviour, and other aggravating and mitigatingfactors should be considered. It has to be shownthat the misconduct was committed intentionally,knowingly, or recklessly. As standard proof for theculpability of a suspected researcher ‘preponderanceof evidence’ should be applied. It should be stipulatedthat research misconduct does not includehonest errors or differences in opinion.It should be recognised that the demarcationline between unacceptable and still acceptablebehaviour is not always clear and beyond academicdebate. Where does one draw the line betweenverification on a too small sample and the illustrationof an argument with ‘case’ data? Whereis the boundary between plagiarism and carelesscitation? Was an incorrect, but ‘favourable’ statisticaltechnique truly chosen deliberately? Was abiased selection of data meant to start a scientificdiscussion or intended to present a full review ofthe evidence?In the literature another class of misconductis discussed, the ‘questionable research practices’(QRP). Three groups of misbehaviour fall withinQRP: Firstly: personal misconduct: intimidation ofstudents, harassment, discrimination, insensitivityto social or cultural norms in doing research, misuseof funds, etc. Although we deal with undesirableand, at times, unacceptable conduct here it is not‘scientific misconduct’, since it does not affect theintegrity of the research record. Much of this misbehaviouris subject to generally applicable legal andsocial penalties that apply to everyone.Secondly: a varied group of bad research practices,such as bad data management, incorrectresearch procedures, or some publication relatedmisconduct. Bad practices are not acceptable andoften harmful to the public’s trust in science. Theyneed correction indeed, but are not necessarily basicinfringements of scientific integrity. The next sectionwill deal with this category.In the third place minor misdemeanours thatmay not lead to formal allegations and investigations,but are just as damaging given their probablefrequency: some ‘adjustment’ of data, cutting a corner,omitting an unwelcome observation… It shouldbe clear that here we deal with unacceptable violationsof the principles of scientific integrity: itis falsification in statu nascendi. If it occurs withstudents or junior scientists, it should be correctedthrough proper supervision and mentorship. Withmore experienced researchers, especially if seen tobe repeated, it should be treated more seriously.It should be emphasised that the principles discussedin the previous section and the infringementsdefined in this section refer to fundamental anduniversal norms for responsible conduct in research.There is no need for cultural or regional adaptationsor compromises in a Code of Conduct that encompassesthese principles and infringements.2.2.5 Good practicesIn addition to fabrication, falsification and plagiarismmany other forms of objectionable practices inscientific research deserve attention. Some of themhave serious moral or legal consequences, othersmay create nuisance, discontent or procedural dissension.Many of them may undermine public trustin science same as basic infringements of scientificintegrity, and should therefore be taken seriously bythe scientific community. The following categoriesmay be distinguished:1. Data practices, including data management andstorage, placing data at the disposal of colleagueswho want to replicate the findings, adequatepreservation of original data.2. Research procedures. Deviations from desiredpractices include insufficient care for researchsubjects5, insufficient respect to human subjects,animals, the environment, or culturalheritage; violation of protocols; failure to obtaininformed consent; insufficient privacy protection;improper use of laboratory animals; orbreach of trust (e.g. confidentiality). Improperresearch design, carelessness in experimentationand calculations that lead to gross errors, mayalso be classified under this heading, althoughthe partition-wall between incompetence anddishonesty may be rather thin here.3. Publication-related conduct, including authorshippractices. It is unacceptable to claim or grantundeserved authorship and to deny deserved5. The treatment of human subjects in research is in many countriesregulated by law.

authorship, or to inadequately allocate credit.Breaching of publishing rules, such as repeatedpublication, salami-slicing of publication, no ora too long delay in publication, or insufficientacknowledgement of contributors or sponsors,fall within this category as well.4. Reviewing and editorial issues, including independenceand conflict of interests, personal biasand rivalry, appropriation of ideas. 6Again, the dividing line between acceptable and notacceptable practices is somewhat vague, and mayvary over nations, regions or disciplines. But thereis also a thin borderline between some violations ofthese practices and the serious types of misconduct,as discussed in section 2.2.4. Unjustified claimedauthorship and ghost authorship are forms of falsification,purloining ideas as an editor or revieweris plagiarism, causing pain or stress to researchparticipants or to expose them to hazards withoutinformed consent is certainly ethically unacceptablebehaviour. But in general these ‘good practices’ referto practical rules and arrangements in conducting,administering and reporting research.Unlike the fundamental principles of scientificintegrity and the violating of these principlesthrough fabrication, falsification or plagiarism,which have a universal character, good practicesas outlined above may be subject to cultural differences:definitions, traditions, legislative regulationsand institutional provisions may vary over nations orregions, sometimes also over disciplines. A requiredsystem of regulations of good practices in researchshould, therefore, not be part of a universal Code ofConduct. It should rather be developed in the formof national or institutional Good Practice Rules, recognisingthe legitimate differences between national,disciplinary or institutional systems. Neverthelessa list of issues to be addressed in such Rules (seesub 2.3 below) should be provided, including recommendationson how to deal with them. In generalsuch recommendations are based on general assent,but, as said, rules of procedure must allow fornational differences and cannot claim catholicity.6. A number of suggestions with respect to headings 3 and 4 in theRules of Procedure are extracted from the excellent publication ofthe Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Guidelines on goodpublication practice. We are also grateful for the Committee’scomments on an earlier version of this proposal.2.3 Guidelines for Good PracticeRulesIn these guidelines the following categories of goodpractices in scientific and scholarly research are distinguished:proper data practices, proper (technicalas well as responsible) research procedures, well-consideredpublication-related conduct and responsiblereviewing and editorial procedures.Each country should adopt, amend or supplementthese recommendations in accordance with itslegislative requirements or traditions and composean own set of Good Practice Rules. Then the scientificsociety will require all its members to adhereto these Rules, and will also ask its institutes andscientific organisations to require their own membersto comply.1. Good data practices: availability and access– All primary and secondary data should bestored in a secure and accessible form.– Original scientific or scholarly research datashould be documented and archived for a substantialperiod (at least 5 years, and preferably10 years).– Research data should be placed at the disposalof colleagues who want to replicate the study orelaborate on its findings.– Freedom of movement of scientists, the right topeaceably and voluntarily associate with otherscientists, and the freedom of expression andcommunication should be guaranteed.2. Proper research procedures– All research should be designed and carriedout in a careful and well considered manner;negligence, haste, carelessness, and inattentionshould be avoided, so as to prevent humanerrors.– Researchers should try to deliver what has beenpromised in the application for support or funding.– Researchers must seek to minify any harmfulimpact on the environment, and should beaware of the need for sustainable managementof resources; this implies an efficient deploymentof the (financial and other) resources, andminimisation of waste.– Clients and/or sponsors should be alerted to theethical and legal obligations of the researcher,and to the possible restrictions this may imply.– Clients and/or sponsors should be made awareof the vital importance of publication of theresearch findings.13The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity

14The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity– Confidentiality of data or findings should berespected by the researcher when it is legitimatelyrequired by the client or employer.– Proper account will be given to the sponsor incase a grant or co-funding was received for theresearch.3. Responsible research procedures– All research subjects, be they human, animal,cultural, biological, environmental or physical,should be handled with respect and care.– The health, safety or welfare of the community,or of collaborators and others connected withthe research, should not be compromised.– Sensitivity to age, gender, culture, religion, ethnicorigin and social class of research subjectsshould be evinced.– Human subject protocols should not be violated:this implies complying with the requirementof informed consent on the basis of adequateand appropriate information, and to voluntaryagreement to participate, treating personalinformation with highest possible confidentiality,avoiding unnecessary deception, and usingthe obtained information only for the purposeof the investigation.– The use of animals in research is acceptable onlyif alternative ways to achieve the results havebeen investigated and have been found inadequate;any harm or distress to be inflicted onan animal must be outweighed by the realisticexpected benefits and must be minimised asmuch as possible.4. Publication-related conduct– Researchers should publish the results andinterpretations of their research in an open,honest, transparent and accurate manner.– Researchers should strive to ensure the earliestpossible publication of the results of theirresearch, unless commercial or intellectualproperty considerations (e.g. patent application)justify delay.– Authorship should only be based on a creativeand significant contribution to the research (i.e.contribution to the design, data collection, dataanalysis, or reporting, not for general supervisionof a research group or editing of text).Guest authorship (i.e. listing authors who donot qualify) or ghost authorship (i.e. omittingindividuals who meet authorship criteria) arenot acceptable. All authors are fully responsiblefor the content of the publication, unlessit is specified they are responsible only for aspecific part of the study and publication.– Sequence of authors should be agreed by allauthors, ideally at the start of the project or theinitiation of the article/monograph, and mayfollow national and/or disciplinary codes. Thecriteria for deciding the order of authors shouldbe agreed at the start of the project or writing.– The work and contribution of collaborators andassistants should be acknowledged if appropriate,with their permission.– All authors should declare any relevant conflictof interest, which may be financial, commercial,personal, academic, or political.– Important work and intellectual contributionsof others that have influenced the reportedresearch should be appropriately acknowledged.Related work should be correctly cited.References should be restricted to (paper orelectronically) printed publications and publications‘in print’.– In communication with the general public andin popular media the same standards of honestyand accuracy should be maintained; anyattempt to exaggerate the importance andpractical applicability of the findings shouldbe resisted.– Publication of the same (or substantial parts ofthe same) work in different journals is acceptableonly with the consent of the editors of thejournals and where proper reference is made tothe first publication. In the author’s CV suchrelated articles must be mentioned as one item.– Financial or other types of support for theresearch and its publication should be properlymentioned and acknowledged.5. Reviewing and editorial issues– An editor or reviewer who has a relevant potentialconflict of interest – which may be personal,academic, political, commercial or financial –should, ideally, withdraw from involvementin any publication decision. If the conflict isconsidered minor or unavoidable it should bedisclosed to the readership.– Reviewers should provide thorough, accurate,objective, and justifiable assessments in a timelymanner.– In the review of a manuscript, confidentialitymust be maintained.– Reviewers and editors shall not make any useof the data or interpretations presented insubmitted manuscripts without the author’spermission.– The same standards and rules apply in the

eview process with regard to projects or programmessubmitted for funding, rewards orreconnaissance purposes.– The same standards and rules apply in thereview process of individuals or institutionsfor appointments, promotion, awards or otherforms of recognition.2.4 International CollaborativeResearchInternational scientific collaboration is increasingsharply, not only because of the growth of internationalfunding and the stimulation of moderncommunication technology, but also because scienceitself has developed into a truly collaborativeand international activity. Common agreement onstandards of scientific integrity, and on rules andprocedures to deal with cases of misconduct, is ofcrucial importance in international research as well.This is the main argument for an internationallyaccepted Code of Conduct.In international collaboration partners shouldagree to conduct their research according to thestandards of research integrity as developed inthis document, and to bring any suspected deviationfrom these standards, in particular allegedresearch misconduct, to the immediate attention ofthe project leader(s) and senior responsible officer inthe university or research institute (employer). Sucha case should be investigated according to the policiesand procedures of the partner with the primaryresponsibility for the project, while respecting thelaws and sovereignty of the States of all participatingparties.In formal, large scale, and often externallyfunded international research projects there may bequestions as to which country should conduct theinvestigation if allegations of misconduct are raised,and how; and, even more importantly, what is tohappen when the relevant national policies are atodds with each other. The Coordinating Committeeof the OECD Global Science Forum, referred tosub 2.2.5, recommends the establishment of anagreement for collaborative research that addressesthe promotion of responsible conduct in researchand describes the procedures for the investigationof allegations of research misconduct within theproject. The Committee has produced a boilerplatetext for International Agreements, which should beembodied in the formal documents that establishthe collaborative project. This boilerplate text isincluded under Annex II.2.5 AnnexesAnnex I:Recommended Principles for InvestigatingResearch MisconductIntegrity of the process• Investigations into research misconduct allegationsmust be fair, comprehensive and conductedexpediently but without compromising accuracy,objectivity, and thoroughness.• Those parties involved in the procedure mustensure that any interests they have which mightconstitute a conflict of interest are disclosed andmanaged.• Detailed and confidential records will be maintainedon all aspects of the procedure.Uniformity• Procedures for dealing with misconduct shouldbe spelled out in sufficient detail so that the transparencyof the process and uniformity within onedomain of jurisdiction from one case to anotheris ensured.Fairness• Investigation of research misconduct allegationsshould be conducted in a manner that is fair to allparties and in accordance with relevant laws.• Persons accused of research misconduct mustbe given full details of the allegation(s) in writingand allowed a fair process for responding toallegations, asking questions, presenting evidence,calling witnesses, and providing responses toinformation presented.• Allow witnesses to be accompanied by or seekadvice and assistance from anyone of their choosing.• Proportionate action should be taken againstpersons found to have committed research misconduct.• Any action(s) taken should be subject to appeal.Of course, there should be an authority issuingthe final decision.Confidentiality• The procedure should be conducted as confidentiallyas possible, in order to protect those involvedin the investigation. Such confidentiality shouldbe maintained provided this does not compromisethe investigation of the allegation, health andsafety, or the safety of participants in research.• Where possible any disclosure to third partiesshould be made on a confidential basis.15The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity

• If the organisation and/or its staff have legalobligations to inform third parties of researchmisconduct allegations, those obligations mustbe fulfilled at the appropriate time through thecorrect mechanisms.No detriment• Anyone accused of research misconduct is presumedinnocent.• No person should suffer any unnecessary penaltywhen accused of research misconduct before theallegation is proven.• No person should suffer any penalty for makingan allegation of research misconduct in good faith,but action should be taken against persons foundto have made allegations in bad faith.16The European Code of Conduct for Research IntegrityAnnex II:Boilerplate text for International Agreements,as suggested by the OECD Global ScienceForum Coordinating Committee for facilitatinginternational misconduct investigationsWe, the parties, agree:• to conduct our research according to the standardsof research integrity, as defined in the ‘GuidanceNotes for Developing Procedures to InvestigateResearch Misconduct Allegations in InternationalCollaborative Research Project’ (www.oecd.org/sti/gsf) and other appropriate documents, including:(specify the national codes of conduct and disciplinaryor national ethical guidelines that apply);• that any suspected deviation from these standards,in particular alleged research misconduct, will bebrought to the immediate attention of (all designatedcontact point(s)) and investigated accordingto the policies and procedures of (to be filled inwith the body with primary responsibility), whilerespecting the laws and sovereignty of the Statesof all participating parties;• to cooperate in and support any such investigations;and• to accept (subject to any appeal process) the conclusionsof any such investigation and to takeappropriate actions.

3.ESF Member OrganisationForum on Research Integrityl l lThe ESF Member Organisation Forum on ResearchIntegrity was established in 2008 following the FirstWorld Conference on Research Integrity held inLisbon in September 2007 for which the ESF actedas co-organiser with the US Office of ResearchIntegrity. It was clear that there had to be substantialfollow-up at the European level to the whole issue ofresearch integrity.This Forum was set up with the objectives toserve as a platform for the exchange of informationon good practice, to support and encourage thoseorganisations which did not yet have the appropriatesupport to develop such structures, to learn fromothers and initiate debates in their respective communities.The members of the Forum are formedby 31 research funding and performing organisationsfrom 22 countries. Honorary President PieterDrenth represented ALLEA in the MO Forum and ledWorking Group 2 (Code of Conduct).The outcomes of this ESF Member OrganisationForum on Research Integrity and of the work of theALLEA Standing Committee on Science and Ethicswere channelled as the European input to the secondWorld Conference on Research Integrity in Singaporein July 2010.It was envisaged that the Forum would integrateits conclusions into a comprehensive proposal forpromoting and safeguarding integrity in scientificresearch and practice at the national and Europeanlevels. These conclusions are published in a fullreport ‘Fostering Research Integrity in Europe’ andits Executive Report that can be found at http://www.esf.org/activities/mo-fora/research-integrity.html.For the implementation of this proposal, anagreement in principle was reached on a division oflabour between research councils, research performingorganisations, Academies, and research integrityofficers.17The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity

ESF MO Forum on Research Integrity – List of members18The European Code of Conduct for Research IntegrityMember Organisation CountryJean-Pierre Alix National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) FranceEmilio Bossi Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences SwitzerlandCinzia Caporale National Research Council (CNR) ItalyTommy Dahlén Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research (fas) SwedenThomas Dantes Max Planck Society (MPG) GermanyGlyn Davies Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC)/RCUK United KingdomWim de Haas Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW) The NetherlandsDirk de Hen Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW)/ENRIO The NetherlandsUmberto Dosselli Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare (INFN) ItalyPieter Drenth (Chair WG 2)Charlotte ElverdamFrej Sorento DichmannAll European Academies (ALLEA)Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation (FIST)DenmarkSonia Ftacnikova (Chair WG 1) Slovak Research and Development Agency (APVV) SlovakiaPilar GoyaConsejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC)SpainPere PuigdomènechSaulius Grybkauskas Research Council of Lithuania (LMT) LithuaniaMichelle Hadchouel French National Institute of Health and Medical Research (Inserm) FranceMaura Hiney (Chair WG 3) Health Research Board (HrB) IrelandKirsten Hüttemann Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) GermanyCihan KiziltanThe Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey Turkey(TÜBITAK)Elisabeth Kokkelkoren Fund for Scientific Research (FRS-FNRS) BelgiumTomas Kopriva Czech Science Foundation (GAČR) Czech RepublicPavel Kratochvil Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic (ASCR) Czech RepublicMilda Naujokaite Lithuanian State Science and Studies Foundation LithuaniaLivia Puljak (Chair WG 4)National Foundation for Science, Higher Education andCroatiaTechnological Development of the Republic of CroatiaClaire Ribrault École Normale Supérieure FranceMarkus Roethlisberger Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) SwitzerlandAsael RoubyNational Research Fund (FNR)LuxembourgFrank BingenMichèle Salathé Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences SwitzerlandAki Salo Academy of Finland FinlandJan Stålhammar Swedish Research Council (VR) SwedenKrista VarantolaDelegation of the Finnish Academies of Science and Letters FinlandEero VuorioUlrike Varga Austrian Science Fund (FWF) AustriaEvie Vereecke Research Foundation Flanders (FWO) BelgiumTorkild VintherGro Elisabeth Maehle HelgesenResearch Council of NorwayNorwayAlan DonnellyRüdiger KleinLaura MarinEuropean University Association (EUA)All European Academies (ALLEA)European Science Foundation (ESF)Forum Working Groups:WG 1: raising awareness and sharing information • WG 2: code of conduct •WG 3: check list for setting up national structures • WG 4: research on research integrity

4.ALLEA Standing Committeeon Science and Ethicsl l lALLEA has been working on the issue of scientificand research integrity since the mid-1990’s. Theissue was first broached by Pieter Drenth duringthe ALLEA Conference on ‘European Scientistsbetween Freedom and Responsibility’ in 1996. Eversince, and especially in response to the recommendationscontained in the ESF Science Policy Briefing‘Good Scientific Practice’ (2000) which allotted aspecific role to the Academies in formulating codesof good scientific practices, the ALLEA StandingCommittee on Science and Ethics has been devotingattention to the topic of trust in science. In 2003,ALLEA published the ‘Memorandum on ScientificIntegrity’, which was an adaptation for a Europeanaudience from a Dutch document issued by theRoyal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences,and which subsequently was translated into severallanguages. It has been in use in many countries untiltoday.ALLEA President (and later Honorary President)Pieter Drenth presented the Memorandum onnumerous occasions also outside of Europe andin international organisations (UNESCO), and heparticipated in OECD’s co-ordinating Committeefor facilitating international research misconductinvestigations (2007-2009).More closely related to the ESF activity, ALLEAhosted chairs’ and cross-working group meetings ofthe ESF Member Organisation Forum on ResearchIntegrity and, in June 2009, a consultative meetingwas convened with ca. 30 Member Academies thatdebated in detail and improved in many ways theearlier drafts and ultimately agreed on the Code ofConduct.As a follow-up, ALLEA is engaged in awarenessraising activities among the scientific and scholarlycommunity across Europe. Beyond Europe, ALLEAconvened a workshop with Asian Academies inSingapore in 2010 on ‘Strengthening researchintegrity’ in global research collaboration, and isnow participating, as an European inter-academynetwork, in the development of global recommendations(IAP).19The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity

Academy representatives at and contributors to ALLEA Consultative meeting on Research Integrity, Berne 200920The European Code of Conduct for Research IntegrityMember Organisation CountryGudar Beqiraj Academy of Sciences of Albania AlbaniaJean-Noël MissaAcadémie royale des Sciences, des Lettres et des Beaux-Arts Belgiumde BelgiquePaul van Houtte Royal Flemisch Academie of Sciences and Arts of Belgium BelgiumZvonko Kusic Croatian Academy CroatiaPavel Kratochvil Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic Czech RepublicAin-Elmar Kaasik Estonian Academy of Sciences (ap.) EstoniaKatri Mäkinen Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science and Letters FinlandJean-François Bach Académie des Sciences FranceTamaz Gamkrelidze Georgian National Academy of Sciences GeorgiaLudger Honnefelder Union of the German Academies GermanyLászló Fésüs Hungarian Academy of Sciences HungarySinead Riordan Royal Irish Academy IrelandNathan Sharon Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities IsraelCarlo Di Castro Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (ap.) ItalyRexhep IsmajliKosova Academy of Sciences and ArtsKosovaEqrem BashaVija Klusa Latvian Academy of Sciences (LAS) (ap.) LatviaPerko Vukotic Montenegrin Academy MontenegroPieter DrenthRoyal Netherlands Academy of Arts and SciencesThe NetherlandsWim de HaasAndrzej Gorski Polish Academy of Sciences PolandCanelas Pais Academy of Sciences of Lisbon PortugalPaun Ion OtimanRomanian AcademyRomaniaIonel HaiducMichael Ugrumov Russian Academy of Sciences RussiaMomcilo Spremic Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts SerbiaJán Bakoš Slovak Academy of Sciences SlovakiaBengt Gustafsson Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences SwedenEmilio BossiSwiss AcademiesSwitzerlandMichèle SalathéBeat Sitter-LiverPeter SuterMarkus ZürcherIsmail Hakki Ulus Turkish Academy of Sciences TurkeyRüdiger Klein All European Academies (ALLEA) The NetherlandsCore members of the Committee in 2009Ludger Honnefelder (Chair)Pieter DrenthEne ErgmaAyse ErzanDagfinn FøllesdalHans GaljaardPavel KratochvílIda NicolaisenBeat Sitter-LiverGérard ToulouseJože TronteljEdoardo VesentiniRüdiger KleinUnion of the German Academies of Sciences and HumanitiesRoyal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (Hon. President allea)Estonian Academy of SciencesTurkish Academy of SciencesNorwegian Academy of Science and LettersRoyal Netherlands Academy of Arts and SciencesAcademy of Sciences of the Czech RepublicRoyal Danish Academy of Sciences and LettersSwiss Academy of Humanities and Social SciencesAcadémie des Sciences, FranceSlovenian Academy of SciencesAccademia Nazionale dei Lincei, ItalyAll European Academies, ex officio

European Science Foundation1 quai Lezay-Marnésia • BP 9001567080 Strasbourg cedex • FranceTel: +33 (0)3 88 76 71 00Fax: +33 (0)3 88 37 05 32www.esf.orgALLEAPO Box 19121 • 1000 GC AmsterdamThe NetherlandsTel: +31 20 5510754Fax: +31 20 6204941www.allea.orgISBN: 978-2-918428-37-4March 2011 – Print run: 2 000