Chance to discuss health research issues
The Health Research Council of New Zealand (HRC) is the main agency responsible for managing the Government's investment in health research and we do everything we can to remove obstacles to the public hearing about, and benefiting from, the investment we make in research.
We currently support (by way of contracted research investment) about 2500 researchers in New Zealand, including many at the University of Otago.
The HRC works hard to get out of the way of researchers disseminating the knowledge created. We encourage publication - and work hard to reduce barriers.
But what about research commissioned by an organisation because it needs specific information to address a knowledge gap in its service?
Who should own the findings?
Is it reasonable that it wants to get early benefit from the research it commissions?
My own take on this is that at times, the most valuable dissemination of research may well be in the translation of findings into policy, products and services before (or even on occasion instead of) publication in peer review publications.
The key is surely transparency, with both the funding agency and the contracted researchers being clear on the arrangement and making choices (or negotiating, as in the case Prof Langley mentions) based on that information.
Prof Langley's opinion piece raises one of the important issues concerning health research that should be discussed.
The next few months will offer just such an opportunity when the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Business, Employment and Innovation, and the HRC circulate a discussion document to underpin New Zealand's first Health Research Strategy.
There are many questions that matter for our future, including those raised by Prof Langley.
The Health Research Strategy consultation will inform future policies and processes to do with New Zealand health research investment and prioritisation.
The consultation or discussion document specifically invites views on how we can improve dissemination of, and access to, research results.
The good news is that health research in New Zealand has recently been identified as a priority for greater investment and we punch far above our weight, with the quality of our peer-reviewed publications comparing well against international standards.
Publication is important - it's how we build a body of work, with each publication building on the past, each piece of research incrementally expanding our knowledge and our ability to make a difference.
However, are there times when the great brains of our researchers are needed for other outputs, outcomes, impacts?
I suspect so but there is a debate to be had.
The taxpayer funds much of the health research New Zealand researchers undertake and the Health Research Strategy provides an opportunity to contribute to the future of that investment.
Publish and be damned: contracts silence researchers
I was both pleased and disappointed to read the two ODT articles (20.2.16, 5.3.16) on the subject of restrictive publication clauses in health research contracts.
Public airing of this important issue is long overdue. I was disappointed as I gained the impression that despite several scientists publicly expressing their concerns, the University of Otago deputy vice-chancellor for research appeared to have none.
This, however, is consistent with my experiences of research administration at the university.
For 20 years I was the director of the University of Otago's Injury Prevention Research Unit. This unit was entirely dependent on funds from government agencies. Contrary to my expectations, the University of Otago did not pro-actively seek to protect me, or the public, from clauses in draft contracts that placed restrictions on publishing research findings.
Protecting researchers increases the chances that they can serve the public interest, and meet the university's legislated role of being the critic and conscience of society.
I spent a significant amount of time challenging clauses that would allow a government agency to censor a finding it disagreed with, or deny the right to publish work at all.
On a couple of occasions during contract negotiations I was reminded by government agencies that they could purchase the outputs they wanted from other universities or private organisations who would accept the restrictive clauses.
Why would universities be accepting these clauses? I believe a key factor is the importance of, and competition associated with, generating research income. Collectively, NZ's eight publicly funded universities derive about 15% of their income from research contracts.
The success a university has, relative to others, in obtaining external research funds also has a significant role in determining the funding it receives from the government through the Performance Based Research Funding scheme.
Research income is critical to ensuring high-quality research, thereby maintaining and enhancing a university's reputation and thus attracting students, staff, and further funding.
The purchasers of research can use the competition between universities, and researchers, to their advantage in getting restrictive publication clauses accepted. Private research suppliers can accept restrictive publication clauses as they are typically uninterested in publishing in peer-reviewed journals and have no statutory or moral obligation to serve the public interest.
While they would produce a research report for the purchaser, these reports are not frequently published, easy to access, or subject to rigorous quality control, e.g., independent peer review.
It was also my experience that many senior researchers did not care about the restrictive clauses. Why would this be so? Success in attracting research funding is, for most researchers, critical to pursuing their research, producing publications, and to promotion and public recognition.
This behaviour contrasts with Royal Society of New Zealand's (RSNZ) Code of Professional Standards and Ethics in Science, Technology, and the Humanities. Section 8.1 of that code states that members of the society must: ‘‘oppose any manipulation of results to meet the perceived needs or requirements of employers, funding agencies, the media or other clients and interested parties whether this be attempted before or after the relevant data have been obtained''.
I accept the right of a purchaser of research to see an advance copy of any paper for publication and to make any comments on it. But requiring modification beyond correcting factual errors is unacceptable.
Even purchasers suggesting toning down a phrase here and there and putting in some qualifiers is problematic from a purchaser who is concerned to minimise bad publicity that might arise from the paper.
It also places the researchers in a bind. Should they comply? If they don't comply are they putting at risk future research funding from the purchaser? I suggest they might be.
Why deal again with a ‘‘difficult'' group of researchers when you can purchase the work elsewhere? The best approach to this issue is transparency. Make the deliberations between researchers and purchaser accessible to all, as in the open review practised by some scientific journals so readers can trace the discussion.
This approach would not deal with contracts that explicitly prohibit the researchers publishing at all.
The Health Promotion Agency (HPA), a crown entity charged with promoting healthy lifestyles, recently put out a request for proposals (RFP) to assess whether the reduction in trading hours in Wellington has any impact on alcohol-related harm.
The ‘‘indicative'' contract for this RFP stated: ‘‘The Supplier will not publish the results of the Services undertaken pursuant to this Contract.''
Only when challenged did HPA advise that it was a negotiable clause. Potential university researchers interested in bidding for such research should be able to take the ‘‘indicative'' contract as a reflection of the intent of the purchaser.
Irrespective of this, preparing a high-quality research proposal involves significant resources and many researchers would consider it was not worth the effort, given the uncertainty of their right to publish.
In effect, some government purchasers are getting to decide what findings, if any, the public gets to see from research the public has paid for, either by pressuring some universities to accept restrictive clauses or by buying what they want from private suppliers.
Universities of New Zealand, the representative body of New Zealand's eight universities, and the RSNZ need to enter in discussions with Government with a view to ensuring government research RFPs do not impose these restrictions.
Interference with researchers' ability to bid for, execute, and publish research compromises the role universities have as critics and conscience of society.
We need an independent audit of government research contracting to determine to what degree restrictive publication practices and the use of private suppliers is undermining the public's right to be fully informed of the findings of research they have paid for.
●John Langley is a University of Otago emeritus professor.
Background on New Health Research Strategy for NZ
Science and Innovation Minister Steven Joyce and Health Minister Jonathan Coleman announced last year that a new health research strategy will be developed to focus and align the economic and health goals of the health research sector and maximise the contribution of science to New Zealand’s economic growth and wellbeing of New Zealanders.
Development of a health research strategy is a key recommendation of the just completed review of the Health Research Council (HRC).
The Ministry of Health and Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment will lead the development of the health research strategy in collaboration with the HRC.
A public consultation on the health research strategy is expected to begin in early 2016.
Read the Health Research Council Report.