Nine steps to achieve research integrity and build trust

Demonstrating research integrity is increasingly a demand for institutions receiving funding. However, whilst hundreds of articles have been written on the topic, precisely what this consists of is less clear. In this piece, George Gaskell presents the findings of a large Horizon 2020 study which distilled research integrity into: three areas, nine topics, and many actions. They argue that the current challenges to research integrity are real. Procedures and policies are needed, and to ensure these work as intended, institutions need a comprehensive plan that ensures that the broad goals don’t get lost. The research system must demonstrate to society that it and its contributions are trustworthy

Social representations: a revolutionary paradigm?

Against the prevailing view that progress in science is characterized by the progressive accumulation of knowledge, Thomas Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions of 1962 introduced the idea of revolutionary paradigm shifts. For Kuhn, everyday science is normal science in which scientists are engaged in problem solving activities set in the context of a widely accepted paradigm that constitutes a broad acceptance of a fundamental theoretical framework, an agreement on researchable phenomena and on the appropriate methodology. But, on occasions normal science throws up vexing issues and anomalous results. In response, some scientists carry on regardless, while others begin to lose confidence in the paradigm and look to other options, namely rival paradigms. As more and more scientists switch allegiance to the rival paradigm, the revolution gathers pace, supported by the indoctrination of students through lectures, academic papers and textbooks. In response to critics, including Lakatos who suggested that his depiction reduced scientific progress to mob psychology, Kuhn offered a set of criteria that contributed to the apparent ‘gestalt switch’ from the old to the new paradigm. But that is another story, as indeed is Kuhn’s claim that the social sciences are pre-paradigmatic – in other words, that the only consensus is that there is no consensus

Is vaping a low-risk substitute for cigarettes or an emerging epidemic?

In deciding how to regulate vaping and its advertising, policymakers face a conundrum due to the competing priorities of attracting long-term smokers to less harmful products and of preventing children and young people from taking up vaping. George Gaskell and Francisco Lupianez-Villanueva look at research findings that seek to determine the broader impact of vaping in the future

Utilising applied behavioural research to execute subsidy reform in Kuwait

The Kuwait government is highly dependent on oil revenues; its fiscal position is exposed to fluctuations in crude oil prices. Reducing expenditures will make Kuwait’s government more fiscally robust in the context of volatile oil markets. Reforming subsides is one way by which the government can reduce expenditures. Electricity and water subsidies in Kuwait represent about 11–20 percent of fiscal expenditures. The goal of this paper is to identify behavioural interventions, ‘nudges’, that could help save electricity in the household sector, which consumes 50 percent of electricity produced. We developed the nudges by first, reviewing relevant behavioural literature; second, conducting focus group interviews; third, comparing Kuwait to other Gulf Cooperation Council countries; and last, testing the cultural appropriateness of the nudges. The first nudge we propose is making the government subsidy more salient for citizens. The second is activating social norms. The third is framing, adding a message that makes subscribers care for future generations. Lastly, there is the recognition of saving efforts through a reward system

Who should take responsibility for integrity in research?

Reflecting on comparisons with the US and the results of the recent International Research Integrity Survey (IRIS), George Gaskell, Nick Allum, Miriam Bidoglia and Abigail-Kate Reid argue that robust research integrity cultures depend on support from different institutions across the research ecosystem

Public views on gene editing and its uses

Rapid advances in genome editing and its potential application in medicine and enhancement have been hotly debated by scientists and ethicists. Although it has been proposed that germline gene editing be discouraged for the time being1, the use of gene editing in somatic human cells in the clinical context remains controversial, particularly for interventions aimed at enhancement2. In a report on human genome editing, the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS; Washington, DC) notes that “important questions raised with respect to genome editing include how to incorporate societal values into salient clinical and policy considerations”3. We report here our research that opens a window onto what the public thinks about these issues

Labels as nudges? An experimental study of car eco-labels

This article presents the results of a laboratory experiment and an online multi-country experiment testing the effect of motor vehicle eco-labels on consumers. The laboratory study featured a discrete choice task and questions on comprehension, while the ten countries online experiment included measures of willingness to pay and comprehension. Labels focusing on fuel economy or running costs are better understood, and influence choice about money-related eco-friendly behaviour. We suggest that this effect comes through mental accounting of fuel economy. In the absence of a cost saving frame, we do not find a similar effect of information on CO2 emissions and eco-friendliness. Labels do not perform as well as promotional materials. By virtue of being embedded into a setting designed to capture the attention, the latter are more effective. We found also that large and expensive cars tend to be undervalued once fuel economy is highlighted