Scientific Integrity Training

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

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.