The Professional Ethics Charter

Last updated on: 10/02/2009

The National Cancer Institute is a national health and science agency acting under the joint authority of the Ministers of Health and Research. In this capacity, the Institute in its totality, including all its internal and external collaborators, has been entrusted with a public service mission.

This professional ethics charter defines the ethical framework for the Institute’s activities. It is binding on the whole Institute, its internal and external collaborators and its directors. Everyone must apply the principles of this charter to the work they perform on the Institute’s behalf, without exception, both inside and outside the Institute.

They must adhere to the professional ethics and compliance rules in the fulfilment of their assignments:

• Duty of Integrity
• Duty of Independance
• Duty of Impartiality
• Duty of Confidentiality
• Duty of Professionalism
• Duty of Restraint

 

This charter is public and is available on the National Cancer Institute’s website. This document must be shown to all collaborators both inside and outside the Institute, who must declare that they have understood it.
An ethics committee reporting to the Board of Directors of the National Cancer Institute monitors compliance with the ethics charter.

ETHICS AND COMPLIANCE RULES

Duty of Integrity

Total honesty is mandatory in the performance of duties. It is prohibited to receive cash or other benefits in exchange for influence over the work performed by INCa.

 

Duty of Independance

INCa operates under the authority of the ministers in charge of health and research but it is acknowledged to be independent in determining its overall strategy in the fight against cancer.
All internal and external collaborators shall avoid situations of material dependence which could call their independence into question.
Thus, from the moment a collaborator begins working with the Institute, the collaborator shall minimise, as far as possible, associations which could result in a conflict of interests or a third-party suspicion of a conflict of interests (sale of shares in a company, abandonment of certain competing professional projects). Any existing associations must be declared.
It is the Institute’s duty to prevent conflicts of interest in order to safeguard the credibility of experts, public confidence in science and the scientific community and individual and institutional reputations.
Within the framework of an expert’s report or assessment, the expert shall examine and declare in all conscience whether any past or present associations might bias the expert’s judgement. Once associations have been identified, the main issue is not so much the actual existence of bias but rather the suspicion of its existence by third parties. Transparency enables everyone to fulfil their duties in full, and in an atmosphere of mutual trust.
Moreover, the Institute must be irreproachable in its relations with outside organisations, particularly those from the corporate sector.

 

Duty of Impartiality

The duty of impartiality requires that issues be handled with the greatest possible degree of neutrality, basing decisions on arguments and a scientific methodology, while forbidding any influence from personal opinions. The slightest hint of partiality can invalidate all of a collaborator’s accomplishments, discredit all of the projects in which the collaborator participated and/or even discredit other work done by the Institute.
The Institute is bound ethically to the findings of the experts commissioned. As long as the work was performed in accordance with this charter, the Institute can neither ignore nor reject the findings without providing a clear explanation of its position with detailed justification.

 

Duty of Professionalism

Assignments must be carried out by the expert.
All collaborators inside and outside the Institute are appointed personally for their specific skills. It is not permitted to delegate an assignment to a third party.
In the context of an evaluation or an expert's report, the expert shall speak in his or her own name. The opinions expressed during or at the end of the assignment and with respect to it can only be in the name of the collaborator’s organisation if the collaborator was commissioned as a representative of that organisation.

Obligation of Means

All collaborators inside and outside of the Institute are obligated to make their best efforts to devote themselves to their assignment with the resources made available to them. This is an obligation of means and not an obligation of results.
Thus, the assignment shall be carried out applying the full rigour of the scientific method. It is vital to thoroughly document the manner in which the assignment is performed, in particular with document versions that are successively dated and numbered. In the event of a litigation, this will establish that the assignment was carried out according to the latest standards in the field.
For its part, the Institute is responsible for archiving all factors involved in a decision.

Conflict of Commitment

All collaborators inside and outside the Institute shall remain vigilant against conflicts of commitment.
A conflict of commitment is when a collaborator engages in activities which interfere or may interfere with the fulfilment of the assignments from the Institute in their entirety, even if these activities could offer added value for the Institute or contribute to professional development and skills. Collaborators must afford themselves the means to dedicate the time needed to complete the assignment.

Duty of Confidentiality

Professional confidentiality shall be observed for all information designated as confidential by INCa or its representatives which collaborators become aware of during the fulfilment of their duties. Examples of this kind of information would be medical, industrial and/or commercial secrets.
The required obligation of confidentiality is general and absolute, even if some or all of the confidential information should become public in whole or in part, whether by lawful or unlawful means.
A confidentiality agreement shall be signed as soon as external collaborators receive non-public information from the Institute within the framework of the work performed by the Institute. In particular, this is the case for evaluators and reviewers during competitive evaluations of proposals. For its part, the Institute shall, in principle, seek to ensure the assessor’s anonymity with respect to everyone except for the review committee to which the assessor reports and the members of the Institute managing the assessor's assignment. This anonymity can be lifted in certain cases with the consent of the expert or at the expert’s request.
Work produced by external collaborators, whether individually or in collaboration, is also strictly confidential unless deemed otherwise by the Institute. Findings that have been public by the Institute can be presented by external collaborators, but with a duty of restraint still applicable after publication in all cases. On the other hand, the intermediate documents, the arguments and the opinions of all members of the work groups shall remain confidential.
Professional discretion forbids public disclosure of information which may harm the Institute’s operations, whether or not formally covered by professional confidentiality.

 

Duty of Restraint

The duty of restraint does not restrict freedom of opinion but does impose restrictions on freedom of expression.
No collaborators inside or outside the Institute can make statements in the name of the Institute, including with regard to their assignments, unless duly authorised. However, a collaborator can become the Institute’s spokesperson on a topic in their assignment’s field at the Institute’s request.
All statements to the press made by Institute collaborators are subject to prior approval by the Institute. This approval will only be granted for predefined content. Any written work that makes reference to this collaboration (in particular, publications relating to an evaluation made at the Institute's request) must be submitted to the Institute in advance. It may be necessary to add a statement to the effect that the work only expresses a personal opinion and does not necessarily reflect the views of the Institute.
Within the framework of an expert’s report or an evaluation, the experts participating in the various debates can present their findings once they have been made public by the Institute. Thus, experts must make an explicit distinction between information approved by the Institute and their own positions which may follow from the former but which do not necessarily reflect the views of the INCa.
Any collaborators inside and outside the Institute who participate as individuals in public debates regarding their assignments must refrain from making any critical valuations or statements of position which could undermine the public service in which they are collaborating.