Cross-Field Comparison of Ethics Education: Golden Rules and Particulars

Research misconduct negatively impacts the scientific community and society in general. Providing training in the responsible conduct of research (RCR) to researchers is one viable approach to minimizing research misconduct. Although recent evidence suggests ethics training can indeed be effective, little empirical work has examined the similarities and differences across fields. In the present study, we analyzed 62 empirical studies in engineering, biomedical science, social science, and mixed fields. The findings suggest certain instructional principles, or “golden rules,” apply generally to all fields. These golden rules include maintaining a field-specific or field-general approach and emphasizing processes in training. The findings also suggest that content areas contributing to instructional effectiveness vary as a function of field. Generally, it appears that all fields may benefit from taking a multi-pronged approach to ethics education wherein the salient field issues are covered. Implications for RCR education are discussed.     

Credit and authorship practices: educational and environmental influences

A survey on credit issues of academic chemists in U.S. Ph.D.-granting institutions was conducted. The respondents rated 15 criteria for authorship of scientific publications; core intellectual contributions received the highest ratings although making a single suggestion that was essential to the successful completion of the project was rated very low. Acquisition of data was also rated highly. The respondents rated eight potential influences on their own "policy" toward giving credit; doing what "seems to be the right thing" was the highest rated influence followed by graduate educational experiences; professional society or other responsible conduct of research (RCR) institutional policies were rated, by far, the lowest.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Credit and Authorship Practices: Educational and Environmental Influences

A survey on credit issues of academic chemists in U.S. Ph.D.-granting institutions was conducted. The respondents rated 15 criteria for authorship of scientific publications; core intellectual contributions received the highest ratings although making a single suggestion that was essential to the successful completion of the project was rated very low. Acquisition of data was also rated highly. The respondents rated eight potential influences on their own “policy” toward giving credit; doing what “seems to be the right thing” was the highest rated influence followed by graduate educational experiences; professional society or other responsible conduct of research (RCR) institutional policies were rated, by far, the lowest.     

RCR Online Course: Build an Online Course to Augment RCR Training Using Evidenced-Based Learning Theory

This article demonstrates how to apply evidenced-based instructional design principles to develop a supplemental, online Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) course. The supplement RCR course may serve to appropriately augment the National Institutes of Health (NIH) required RCR training. The way to ensure that an online RCR course is effective is to incorporate evidence-based learning theories into the development of the course content. This article specifically demonstrates application of Bloom's taxonomy and Gagne's Nine Instructional Events to a research misconduct course. At the conclusion, the reader will be able to apply evidence-based learning theories to the development of any online course.     

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.     

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.     

Ethical consideration of the research proposal and the informed-consent process: An online survey of researchers and ethics committee members in Thailand

Researchers designing and conducting studies using human data should consider the values and principles of ethical conduct. Research ethics committees (RECs) typically evaluate the ethical acceptability of research proposals. Sometimes, differences arise between how researchers and RECs interpret ethical principles, and how they decide what constitutes ethical conduct. This study aimed to explore the opinions of these two groups about the importance of core ethical issues in the proposal and in the informed-consent process. An anonymous online questionnaire was distributed to a target population in health-related academic/research institutes across Thailand; 219 researchers and 72 REC members participated. Significantly, more REC members than researchers attributed the highest importance to three core ethical considerations – risk/benefit, vulnerability, and confidentiality/privacy. For the informed-consent process, significant differences were found for communication of risks, decision-making authority for consent, process for approaching study participants, and availability of a contact for study deviations/violations. The different ratings indicate differences in the groups’ perspectives on ethical principles, which may affect focal congruence on ethical issues in the proposal. Communication of these findings should help close gaps between REC and researcher perceptions. Further study should investigate how RECs and researchers perceive equivocal ethics terms.     

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.     

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.     

Teaching Ethical Aptitude to Graduate Student Researchers

Limited time dedicated to each training areas, irrelevant case-studies, and ethics “checklists” have resulted in bare-bones Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) training for present biomedical graduate student researchers. Here, we argue that science graduate students be taught classical ethical theory, such as virtue ethics, consequentialist theory, and deontological theory, to provide a basic framework to guide researchers through ethically complex situations and examine the applicability, implications, and societal ramifications of their research. Using a relevant biomedical research example to illustrate this point, we argue that proper ethics training for graduate student researchers not only will enhance current RCR training, but train more creative, responsible scientists.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Implementation of a responsible conduct of research education program at Duke University School of Medicine

Academic medical centers rarely require all of their research faculty and staff to participate in educational programs on the responsible conduct of research (RCR). There is also little published evidence of RCR programs addressing high-profile, internal cases of misconduct as a way of promoting deliberation and learning. In the wake of major research misconduct, Duke University School of Medicine (DUSoM) expanded its RCR education activities to include all DUSoM faculty and staff engaged in research. The program included formal deliberation of the Translational Omics misconduct case, which occurred at Duke. Over 5,000 DUSoM faculty and staff participated in the first phase of this new program, with a 100% completion rate. The article reports on the program’s development, challenges and successes, and future directions. This experience at Duke University illustrates that, although challenging and resource intensive, engagement with RCR activities can be integrated into programs for all research faculty and staff. Formal, participatory deliberation of recent cases of internal misconduct can add a novel dimension of reflection and openness to RCR educational activities.     

Guiding the Next Generation of NIH Investigators in Responsible Conduct of Research: The Role of the Mentor

National Institutes of Health (NIH) K award recipients and their mentors were surveyed to investigate the role of the mentor. We found that a majority of mentors provided guidance in responsible research conduct (RCR), and that most of these relationships were deemed helpful. Mentors also responded that they played a greater importance in RCR training of their mentees than the mentees reported. Our results suggest both mentors and mentees report that mentors ideally should play a more important role in RCR training than was actually the case. For conflicting interests, subjects' protection, and misconduct, approximately 50% of K recipients found the mentor to be not at all important or only somewhat important for these areas of RCR training. We conclude the mentor's role is important but not optimal based on the results of our study cohort.