More Haste, Less Speed

Supporting researchers to maintain rigour and integrity in COVID-19 research.

In this, the latest of our occasional series of members’ blogs, Simon Kolstoe of the University of Portsmouth discusses the challenges of maintaining rigour and integrity in research at a time of intense political and public pressure.

Research is key to defeating the Coronavirus pandemic. Perhaps never before has so much money been focussed on a specific research agenda. But, producing good research is not easy. Clear expectations and plenty of funding certainly removes some barriers, but the challenge of formulating good research questions, identifying suitable methods, and then conducting the research rigorously and with integrity still remains. Given the social and political necessity of finding solutions to the COVID-19 crisis quickly, there is a real danger that rushed research may lead to bad research that in the long term causes more harm than good.

Defining Good

I chair research ethics committees for the NHS and MOD, and oversee the research ethics, integrity and governance processes at my University. Over the last few years I have reviewed thousands of research protocols representing the very best, and some truly shocking, examples of research. Good research is rigorous and reliable, producing results that are not only interesting, but are practical, useful and in some cases transformative. Good research is also reported clearly, transparently and in the context of previous studies. But producing good research comes at a cost. Much of society thinks of cost in terms of dollars and pounds, and indeed mindful of their own survival, scientists and researchers are always going to lobby for more investment. But, while it is indeed very helpful to have the funds to order any reagents that are needed, access highly specialised equipment, or pay others to conduct specialist experiments (I spent ten years working in a well-funded pre-clinical drug discovery group), one must never underestimate the time needed to design really good research. Indeed one of the strengths of the much maligned research funding process is the way it forces researchers to really think about their experiments while writing and reviewing grants.

Good research takes time

Increased focus and easier funding does not overcome this need to spend time thinking about the design of research and what the results might mean. The sad and frustrating truth about biomedical research is that the majority of experiments do not work because the subject being studied is so horrendously complex. To make progress researchers have to slow down, look at the evidence, and think very carefully before deciding on next steps.

One worrying aspect of the current situation is the urgent need for research and researchers to come up with solutions for COVID-19 almost immediately. There is a worrying increase in researchers submitting extremely short and hastily constructed protocols to research ethics committees and then publishing their data quickly using pre-print servers that are not subject to rigorous checks. Similarly University and company press departments are very quick to promote the activity of their researchers, but this effectively short-cuts tried and tested methods for ensuring research quality and rigour. There are also a number of examples of Universities creating charities and special research funds to support the COVID research by their own academics, but then handing the money out almost instantly without the rigorous competitions that normally ensure only the best projects get funded.

How to support researchers

So what can we do that may be more helpful? The world clearly needs scientific and medical answers to the current pandemic as soon as possible. However, there needs to be recognition that it takes time to develop really good answers, and initially we may only find partial answers. It is very unlikely that someone will produce a vaccine that prevents COVID-19 anytime soon. Instead a variety of partial successes will be combined until eventually a full solution is found. There may even be some blind-alleys with promising, but ultimately futile, treatment ideas. This is not a failure of research, or misuse of resources, it is just the nature of researching a very complicated thing. No matter how well motivated researchers are, or how hard they try to conduct the best experiments, there will be a significant time lag before enough evidence is produced, and analysed carefully, to determine the transformative course of action. It is critical that this message is communicated clearly and widely. Over enthusiasm in promoting our own Universities must not lead to misleading headlines or promises that simply cannot be fulfilled.

All of us involved in research (or supporting researchers) want to see success, but it is vital to understand what components are needed for this success. Social or institutional pressure must not be put on researchers to work outside their competencies. Likewise research governance and ethics processes must not be compromised, and perhaps more importantly staff should not be bullied of pressurised just “because COVID”. Of course we should always be looking for ways to reduce bureaucracy and stream-line processes, but rather than put in place special measures to support the immediate need, the present situation may instead represent a good opportunity to critically evaluate our governance systems. If there is a temptation to drop processes so as to support the COVID agenda, a broader question should be asked as to whether these processes are really necessary normally. However, if the conclusion is that they are needed “normally”, then maybe they shouldn’t really be dropped for COVID research because perhaps they represent important safeguards that are needed to ensure that COVID research is also good research.

A much- edited version of this blog post was published in The Conversation on 4^th May 2020

Would you like to write a short Blog for ARMA? Send a brief precis to enquiries@arma.ac.uk and we may well be in touch!