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.     

Stewardship of research resources

Most accounts of research ethics focus on the importance of a handful of ethical and epistemological norms for the conduct of science, such as honesty, integrity, transparency, accountability, objectivity, collegiality, fairness, social responsibility, but have little to say about another, less well-known norm that also deserves attention: stewardship of research resources. Many of the behaviors and practices that are widely regarded as unethical or ethically questionable involve wasting or misusing money, time, and other resources. While good stewardship of resources may not be as crucial to the ethics of science as other norms, it is an important consideration that scientists should keep in mind when managing their own resources or mentoring students and trainees in the responsible conduct of research. Additional investigation into the ethics of stewardship may help us better understand how this norm interacts with other research norms and guides scientific conduct.     

Ethical Beliefs of Social Work Researchers

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to examine the beliefs of social work researchers about ethical practices. Surveys were mailed to a random sample of 240 members of the Society for Social Work and Research (SSWR) to elicit their views about ethical practices in social work research. Responses from 160 members (67% response rate) yielded information regarding the appropriateness of dual relationships, authorship practices, informed consent procedures, and other conduct in social work research. Age, gender, educational level, years of social work research experience, and current teaching of social work research were related to respondents' ethical views about practices with students and sexual relationships with research subjects. The need for additional resources on ethics in social work research is highlighted.     

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.     

To Tell or Not to Tell? The Ethical Dilemma of the Would-Be Whistleblower

Despite the growing emphasis placed on the responsible conduct of research, little attention has been devoted to the question of what an individual should do upon discovering research misconduct. This article takes seriously the dilemma of a would-be whistleblower. It identifies ethical considerations that can be taken into account in moral decision-making about reporting research misconduct. It also offers rough guidelines about the moral significance of each consideration in the decision-making process based on the facts of the case in question. The article, therefore, offers tools for a would-be whistleblower to use to arrive at a defensible resolution to a difficult dilemma.     

Researcher Perceptions of Ethical Guidelines and Codes of Conduct

Ethical codes of conduct exist in almost every profession. Field-specific codes of conduct have been around for decades, each articulating specific ethical and professional guidelines. However, there has been little empirical research on researchers’ perceptions of these codes of conduct. In the present study, we interviewed faculty members in six research disciplines and identified five themes bearing on the circumstances under which they use ethical guidelines and the underlying reasons for not adhering to such guidelines. We then identify problems with the manner in which codes of conduct in academia are constructed and offer solutions for overcoming these problems.     

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.     

Current ethical issues in synthetic biology: where should we go from here?

Synthetic biology (SynBio) is an emerging scientific field which has quickly established momentum and visibility. Although no single definition of SynBio prevails, the field broadly encompasses the application of engineering principles to biology, redesigning biological materials and using them as new substrates to create products and entities not otherwise found in nature. This article first reviews SynBio, highlighting the novel aspects of this technology. It then synthesizes ethical issues highlighted in the literature to date and makes some initial claims that research on the ethical aspects of SynBio should: avoid creating a new subtype of bioethics, concentrate on novel concepts and problems, and be situated within a context of cooperative interdisciplinary investigation.     

A theoretical basis for accepting undergraduate academic record as a predictor of success in a research career. Implications for the validity of peer review

We have studied postdoctoral trainees funded by NIH F32 fellowship awards in order to test the effectiveness of responsible conduct of research (RCR) education in the areas of authorship and publication practices. We used a 3-wave telephone and on-line survey design, conducted over a period of two years, in order to test for individual change before and after completing RCR education. Overall the responses of the subjects suggested a clear awareness of standards and practices in publication. However, our results failed to suggest that RCR education in this group significantly increased the level of ethically appropriate behavioral responses measured in the study. Similarly we saw no significant effect on increasing awareness of or attention to ethical guidelines about authorship and publication practices. Our interpretation of these null findings was influenced by the significant publication experience of our cohort of subjects. We forward possible explanations for these null findings in this context. Most importantly, we do not suggest that our results argue against continued instruction in RCR education. Instead, we believe our data reinforce the importance of careful articulation of course goals and objectives with attention to the background and experience of the student audience when developing RCR curricula.     

Authorship and publication practices: evaluation of the effect of responsible conduct of research instruction to postdoctoral trainees

We have studied postdoctoral trainees funded by NIH F32 fellowship awards in order to test the effectiveness of responsible conduct of research (RCR) education in the areas of authorship and publication practices. We used a 3-wave telephone and on-line survey design, conducted over a period of two years, in order to test for individual change before and after completing RCR education. Overall the responses of the subjects suggested a clear awareness of standards and practices in publication. However, our results failed to suggest that RCR education in this group significantly increased the level of ethically appropriate behavioral responses measured in the study. Similarly we saw no significant effect on increasing awareness of or attention to ethical guidelines about authorship and publication practices. Our interpretation of these null findings was influenced by the significant publication experience of our cohort of subjects. We forward possible explanations for these null findings in this context. Most importantly, we do not suggest that our results argue against continued instruction in RCR education. Instead, we believe our data reinforce the importance of careful articulation of course goals and objectives with attention to the background and experience of the student audience when developing RCR curricula.     

Disciplining Bioethics: Towards a Standard of Methodological Rigor in Bioethics Research

Contemporary bioethics research is often described as multi- or interdisciplinary. Disciplines are characterized, in part, by their methods. Thus, when bioethics research draws on a variety of methods, it crosses disciplinary boundaries. Yet each discipline has its own standard of rigor-–so when multiple disciplinary perspectives are considered, what constitutes rigor? This question has received inadequate attention, as there is considerable disagreement regarding the disciplinary status of bioethics. This disagreement has presented five challenges to bioethics research. Addressing them requires consideration of the main types of cross-disciplinary research, and consideration of proposals aiming to ensure rigor in bioethics research.     

Disciplining bioethics: towards a standard of methodological rigor in bioethics research

Contemporary bioethics research is often described as multi- or interdisciplinary. Disciplines are characterized, in part, by their methods. Thus, when bioethics research draws on a variety of methods, it crosses disciplinary boundaries. Yet each discipline has its own standard of rigor--so when multiple disciplinary perspectives are considered, what constitutes rigor? This question has received inadequate attention, as there is considerable disagreement regarding the disciplinary status of bioethics. This disagreement has presented five challenges to bioethics research. Addressing them requires consideration of the main types of cross-disciplinary research, and consideration of proposals aiming to ensure rigor in bioethics research.     

The Ethical Challenges of Socially Responsible Science

Social responsibility is an essential part of the responsible conduct of research that presents difficult ethical questions for scientists. Recognizing one’s social responsibilities as a scientist is an important first step toward exercising social responsibility, but it is only the beginning, since scientists may confront difficult value questions when deciding how to act responsibly. Ethical dilemmas related to socially responsible science fall into at least three basic categories: 1) dilemmas related to problem selection, 2) dilemmas related to publication and data sharing, and 3) dilemmas related to engaging society. In responding to these dilemmas, scientists must decide how to balance their social responsibilities against other professional commitments and how to avoid compromising their objectivity. In this article, we will examine the philosophical and ethical basis of social responsibility in science, discuss some of the ethical dilemmas related to exercising social responsibility, and make five recommendations to help scientists deal with these issues.     

How do researchers perceive research misbehaviors? A transcultural case study of Chinese and Flemish researchers

China has achieved a dramatic development in scientific research over the last few decades. However, just like many other countries, it has also seen a surge of scientific misconducts. With its expansion of international publications, retractions due to suspected research misconduct are also on the rise. A transcultural case study was conducted by investigating the perception of research misbehaviors by Chinese researchers compared to their Belgian Flemish colleagues. The study was designed to find out variation in research practices in different countries and to see how research was shaped and influenced by cultural contexts. An online questionnaire was sent to 3,236 researchers by e-mails and it received a response rate of 13.09%. They were asked to score 32 research misbehaviors on a 5-point scale. The findings suggested that compared to Flemish respondents, the Chinese had a significantly higher acceptance toward most research misbehaviors. To be more specific, the Chinese respondents felt less unacceptable toward behaviors violating such values as honesty, fairness, and verifiability than the Flemish, while their perceptions of behaviors that violated such values as responsibility, objectivity, and truth were not different compared to the Flemish. This case study implies that the Chinese research community is in an urgent need of training in responsible conduct of research and strong as well as sound guidelines for responsible research practices in place.     

Ethical Virtues in Scientific Research

Most approaches to promoting integrity in research are principle-based in that they portray ethical conduct as consisting of adherence to ethical rules, duties, or responsibilities. Bruce MacFarlane has recently criticized the principle-based approach to promoting integrity in research and offered a virtue-based alternative. MacFarlane argues that principle-based approaches do not provide adequate guidance for ethical decision-making and are not very useful in moral education. In this article, I examine and critique MacFarlane's defense of the virtue-based approach. I argue that virtue-based and principle-based approaches to ethics are complementary and that they both can help promote research integrity.     

Canadian policy on reporting breaches of research integrity: When should Research Ethics Boards be informed?

ABSTRACT

In Canada, institutions that receive research funding from the three federal granting agencies must establish research ethics boards (REBs) to review the ethical acceptability of research involving humans. Institutions are also expected to promote the responsible conduct of research, fostering researchers’ abilities to act with integrity in the conduct of their research. Where a researcher fails to act with integrity in research with humans, institutional policies and procedures of the U15, Canada’s most research-intensive universities, vary in the extent to which they involve their REBs in response to such breaches. Some make no mention of the REB, whereas others state that their REB should be provided with information relating to upheld allegations. In this paper, we argue that when allegations of research integrity breaches are corroborated, the institution’s REB should be identified as a party required to receive that information. Only then can REBs ensure compliance with research ethics standards, which is essential to maintain the public’s trust.     

Effective Practices in the Delivery of Research Ethics Education: A Qualitative Review of Instructional Methods

In order to delineate best practices for courses on research ethics, the goal of the present effort was to identify themes related to instructional methods reflected in effective research ethics and responsible conduct of research (RCR) courses. By utilizing a qualitative review, four themes relevant to instructional methods were identified in effective research ethics courses: active participation, case-based activities, a combination of individual and group approaches, and a small number of instructional methods. Three instructional method themes associated with less effective courses were also identified: passive learning, a group-based approach, and a large number of instructional methods. Key characteristics of each theme, along with example courses relative to each theme, are described. Additionally, implications regarding these instructional method themes and recommendations for best practices in research ethics courses are discussed.     

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.     

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.     

Infusing research integrity principles and practices into a regional master's degree-intensive university: a case study

The need for institutions of higher education to advance research and scholarly integrity across graduate degree programs involves a strong commitment from each institution to develop a comprehensive approach for promoting responsible conduct of research (RCR). In response to this need, one master's-intensive regional university implemented a three-tier model project (focusing, developing, and evaluating/sustaining) for infusing research integrity principles and practices while promoting RCR. Components of the model and implementation strategies are presented as a case study analysis. Implications of the model for promoting the RCR are projected relative to graduate programs focused on applied research.