The Responsible Conduct of Bioethics Research

The responsible conduct of research in the biomedical and behavioral sciences has received significant attention since the late 1980s. However, very little has been written about the responsible conduct of bioethics research. Bioethics is an interdisciplinary field and brings together divergent ethical standards and practices which may be the source of tension or conflict. This article argues that bioethicists should reflect more on ethical issues in the responsible conduct of bioethics research through examination of authorship practices and peer review. I also outline three possible approaches to promote research integrity in bioethics.     

Team-Based Learning Instruction for Responsible Conduct of Research Positively Impacts Ethical Decision-Making

Common practices for responsible conduct of research (RCR) instruction have recently been shown to have no positive impact on and possibly to undermine ethical decision-making (EDM). We show that a team-based learning (TBL) RCR curriculum results in some gains in decision ethicality, the use of more helpful metacognitive reasoning strategies in decision-making, and elimination of most negative effects of other forms of RCR instruction on social–behavioral responses. TBL supports the reasoning strategies and social mechanisms that underlie EDM and ethics instruction, and may provide a more effective method for RCR instruction than lectures and small group discussion.     

Responsible Conduct of Research Measure: Initial Development and Pilot Study

Although much discussion has been focused on research misconduct (RM) and questionable research practices, to date no self-report measures exist to examine this phenomenon. To help fill this void, the authors developed the Responsible Conduct of Research Measure (RCRM) through multiple pilot study waves involving researchers in the social and behavioral sciences. Preliminary results reveal adequate validity and reliability. The authors discuss limitations of the study as well as some possible directions for future research on this topic.     

Articulating a Role for Program Evaluation in Responsible Conduct of Research Programs

Since Integrity in Scientific Research: Creating an Environment That Promotes Responsible Conduct was released in 2001, there has been increased interest in evaluating programs designed to foster the responsible conduct of research (RCR). The field of program evaluation is designed to determine the worth or value of programs and can serve as a resource for institutions interested in evaluating their RCR programs. This article provides a very brief overview of program evaluation, demonstrates how it can be applied to RCR, and provides key reference information. Evaluating RCR programs can promote institutional accountability for the resources that are used in supporting those programs.     

Ethics Instruction Increases Graduate Students' Responsible Conduct of Research Knowledge but not Moral Reasoning

The purpose of this study was to assess the short-term effectiveness of ethics courses in enhancing responsible conduct of research (RCR) knowledge and moral judgment among graduate students in health-related disciplines. Forty-eight graduate students completed a questionnaire about research experience, knowledge and judgments about appropriate research practices, and a standardized test of moral judgment at the beginning and end of a semester-long ethics course. Knowledge about RCR but not moral judgment increased significantly in some areas. The results are discussed in terms of implications for RCR instruction and of future research designed to improve RCR instruction.     

Rescuing Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) Education

Responsible conduct of research (RCR) education requirements, resources, and research have proliferated over the past twenty years, but evidence and experience highlight shortcomings in many domains: goals, audience, content, teaching tools, use of the Internet for instruction, instructors, allocation of responsibility for education, education requirements, and sources of funding. Revised approaches and suggested roles and responsibilities are proposed to meet these challenges. The unifying theme for these recommendations is to shift the focus from RCR education to RCR culture building.     

Education in the Responsible Conduct of Research in Psychology: Methods and Scope

In this mixed-method study of education in the responsible conduct of research (RCR) in psychology, phase one survey respondents (n?=?141) reported that faculty and students were familiar with RCR standards and procedures to educate them were believed to be adequate. However, educational methods varied widely. In phase two, seven survey respondents completed in-depth interviews assessing RCR training and education and research review procedures. Educational methods through which RCR content was presented included the following ones: traditional (lectures), technical (web-based), and experiential (internships), but RCR was often minimally considered in the formal curriculum. Our results suggest that psychology training programs might benefit from more formal consideration of RCR education and training in the curriculum.     

Research as Profession and Practice: Frameworks for Guiding the Responsible Conduct of Research

Programs in the responsible conduct of research (RCR) vary between institutions, demonstrated by disparate structures and goals. These variations may be attributed to the absence of grounding frameworks within which to examine research and RCR education programs. This article examines research as a practice and a profession, using these frames to draw out defining features of research and the moral obligations entailed. Situating research within virtue ethics can clarify how researchers might cultivate the virtues necessary for meeting its obligations and aims. By elucidating these features, these perspectives can serve to guide the development of RCR education programs.     

Expanding the Scope of Responsible Conduct of Research Instruction

We argue that responsible conduct research (RCR) instruction should be extended beyond students and trainees funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) or National Science Foundation (NSF) to include all students, trainees, faculty, and research staff involved in research. Extending the scope of RCR instruction can help institutions develop and maintain an environment that promotes ethical research conduct. Universities and scientific organizations have objected to expanding the scope of RCR instruction on the grounds that it would be a major undertaking that would require the expenditure of additional institutional resources. We argue, however, that expanding the scope of RCR instruction can be done efficiently without placing undue burdens on institutions.     

Awareness of Publication Guidelines and the Responsible Conduct of Research

We have conducted a longitudinal survey of NIH-funded F32 postdoctoral fellows to determine if mandated instruction in the responsible conduct of research (RCR) has measurable effects on awareness of, attentiveness to, and behavioral judgments about research ethics and authorship and publication. Of 418 F32 fellows participating in the study, 50% were aware of and had referred to guidelines on authorship and publication practices while 50% were either unaware of or had not referred to guidelines. Groups were similar with regard to total number of peer-reviewed publications and total number of first author publications, years of research experience, years since completing their doctoral degree, and receipt of RCR training. The equal distribution of guideline awareness and use, and group similarities with regard to career development and achievement provided us with an opportunity to consider whether awareness of and use of guidelines is associated with broader judgments about author roles and responsibilities. The findings suggest that awareness and utilization of guidelines are, at best, only modestly associated with more ethically appropriate judgments and attitudes about author roles and responsibilities among novice F32’s.     

Teaching and Learning Responsible Research Conduct: Influences of Prior Experiences on Acceptance of New Ideas

Despite requirements for Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) training, little is known about how much this training actually influences the thinking and behaviors of participants. Interview-based qualitative research methods were used to study the reactions of Ph.D. students and postdoctoral fellows to what was taught in an RCR course. For trainees with limited prior RCR experience, or who agreed with what was taught, it was relatively easy to influence their attitudes and how they thought they would use the new information in the future. However, if their prior experiences or existing knowledge conflicted with what was taught they resisted and often rejected new ideas that were presented. Interviews also revealed the tremendously complex process trainees must undergo trying to resolve or integrate all of the different perspectives they receive on RCR from other sources. These results revealed the importance of viewing RCR training from the perspective of learning theory and how prior knowledge influences what people learn. The results also support the need for periodic rather than one-time RCR training to counter the often conflicting views and practices young scientists experience in real-life research settings.     

Emphasizing the experiences of researchers after RCR instructions: Introduction to Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) in Malaysia

The purpose of this study is to highlight the experiences of individuals who participate in the Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) training program held at various universities in Malaysia. In response to a mailing request sent to 40 individuals who had undertaken a RCR training program, 15 participants agreed to be interviewed. The results of the study showed that the three main reasons for participating in the training were as follows: anticipation for knowledge gained; personal experience with research misconduct; and establishing a new network of researchers. In terms of the positive effects gained from undertaking the training, the participants highlighted an increased awareness of the issues and problems related to research misconduct; the need to promote integrity in research conduct; a change in the way they conduct their research; and a change in the way they confront and address misconduct. The findings of this study should be valuable for policy makers and those involved in the management of research programs and ethics, as it demonstrated the importance of RCR training in equipping researchers with the necessary knowledge to conduct research responsibly, and to avoid research misconduct.     

Assessing the Awareness of Egyptian Medical Students about Responsible Conduct of Research and Research Ethics: Impact of an Educational Campaign

This is a quasi-experimental pre-post assessment study utilizing an anonymous self-administered questionnaire to assess Egyptian medical students’ awareness about responsible conduct of research (RCR) and research ethics. Students’ were assessed before and after an RCR awareness campaign. Our results showed that most of the pre-campaign respondents were not familiar with the basic principles and terms of RCR. An increase in the awareness about RCR across all discussed topics was noted following the campaign. We concluded that an educational awareness campaign is effective in increasing medical students’ awareness about RCR and should be incorporated into current medical school curricula in Egypt.     

Validation and Use of a Predictive Modeling Tool: Employing Scientific Findings to Improve Responsible Conduct of Research Education

Although recent evidence suggests ethics education can be effective, the nature of specific training programs, and their effectiveness, varies considerably. Building on a recent path modeling effort, the present study developed and validated a predictive modeling tool for responsible conduct of research education. The predictive modeling tool allows users to enter ratings in relation to a given ethics training program and receive instantaneous evaluative information for course refinement. Validation work suggests the tool’s predicted outcomes correlate strongly (r = 0.46) with objective course outcomes. Implications for training program development and refinement are discussed.     

Promoting Responsible Conduct of Research: A Canadian Perspective

This article compares the current Canadian and American approaches to governing the responsible conduct of research. The Canadian Secretariat on Responsible Conduct of Research acts on behalf of Canada's three federal research agencies to implement their Framework on Responsible Conduct of Research. It operates not on the basis of regulatory authority, like its U.S. counterpart, the Office of Research Integrity, but rather on the basis of making compliance a condition of eligibility for funding. Both offices are dedicated to promoting good research practices and to enforcing good standards of research practice.     

Mapping responsible conduct in the uncharted field of research-creation: A scoping review

This scoping review addresses the issues of responsible conduct of research (RCR) that can arise in the practice of research-creation (RC), an emergent, interdisciplinary, and heterogeneous field at the interface of academic research and creative activities. Little is yet known about the nature and scope of RCR issues in RC, so our study examined three questions: (1) What are the specific issues in RC in relation to RCR? (2) How does the specificity of RC influence the understanding and practice of RCR? (3) What recommendations could help address the issues highlighted in the literature? To answer these questions, we conducted a scoping review of the academic literature (n = 181 texts) dealing with RCR in RC. We found that researcher-creators faced some very different RCR challenges in comparison with their colleagues in the rest of academia. Addressing these issues is important for both the RCR and RC communities in order to ensure that the rapid development of this field occurs in line with the norms of RCR which, nonetheless, should be adapted to respect the particularities of RC and allow its contributions to the academic world.     

Leading for research excellence and integrity: A qualitative investigation of the relationship-building practices of exemplary principal investigators

We conducted semi-structured, telephone interviews with 52 federally funded researchers nominated as exemplars for their integrity and professional conduct, and their scientific achievements. The aim was to identify the practices they report utilizing to build respectful relationships in their teams. We found four practices, holding meetings, providing supervision and guidance, encouraging shared ownership, and expressing values, which were also important to performing high-quality, compliant research, were essential to fostering relationships. The most common practice described for building relationships was actively and deliberately cultivating a positive team environment. Additionally, exemplars described the need to lead by example, tailor their approach to the needs of individuals, address interpersonal conflict, and hire team members cautiously. We also identified practices the exemplars reported as important to managing the demands of their work and found that encouraging shared ownership and tailoring to individuals supported this goal. Additional strategies related to prioritization and planning, seeking advice, engaging in self-care, and managing emotional reactions. Finally, we identified priorities guiding the exemplars’ practices. Key priorities included providing outstanding mentoring, building collaborations and relationships, and engaging in discovery and innovation. Investigators require exceptional leadership skills but receive limited systematic leadership training. Addressing this gap would advance research excellence and integrity.     

A Brief History of RCR Education

Responsible conduct of research (RCR) education is now common throughout the United States, primarily in response to federal requirements beginning with the National Institutes of Health in 1989. Despite this long history, RCR education programs remain highly disparate, often with ill-defined content, format, and goals, and minimal evidence for effectiveness. However because it is widely believed that such programs can have value, it is hoped that a review of what is available, and how that came to pass, will highlight what has been done well and where gaps still remain.     

Making Professional Decisions in Research: Measurement and Key Predictors

The professional decision-making in research (PDR) measure was administered to 400 National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded and industry-funded investigators, along with measures of cynicism, moral disengagement, compliance disengagement, impulsivity, work stressors, knowledge of responsible conduct of research (RCR), and socially desirable response tendencies. Negative associations were found for the PDR and measures of cynicism, moral disengagement, and compliance disengagement, while positive associations were found for the PDR and RCR knowledge and positive urgency, an impulsivity subscale. PDR scores were not related to socially desirable responding, or to measures of work stressors and the remaining impulsivity subscales. In a multivariate logistic regression analysis, lower moral disengagement scores, higher RCR knowledge, and identifying the United States as one’s nation of origin emerged as key predictors of stronger performance on the PDR. The implications of these findings for understanding the measurement of decision-making in research and future directions for research and RCR education are discussed.     

Best Practice to Order Authors in Multi/Interdisciplinary Health Sciences Research Publications

Misunderstanding and disputes about authorship are commonplace among members of multi/interdisciplinary health research teams. If left unmanaged and unresolved, these conflicts can undermine knowledge sharing and collaboration, obscure accountability for research, and contribute to the incorrect attribution of credit. To mitigate these issues, certain researchers suggest quantitative authorship distributions schemes (e.g., point systems), while others wish to replace or minimize the importance of authorship by using “contributorship”—a system based on authors’ self-reporting contributions. While both methods have advantages, we argue that authorship and contributorship will most likely continue to coexist for multiple ethical and practical reasons. In this article, we develop a five-step “best practice” that incorporates the distribution of both contributorship and authorship for multi/interdisciplinary research. This procedure involves continuous dialogue and the use of a detailed contributorship taxonomy ending with a declaration explaining contributorship, which is used to justify authorship order. Institutions can introduce this approach in responsible conduct of research training as it promotes greater fairness, trust, and collegiality among team members and ultimately reduces confusion and facilitates resolution of time-consuming disagreements.