A randomized trial of a lab-embedded discourse intervention to improve research ethics.

We report a randomized trial of a research ethics training intervention designed to enhance ethics communication in university science and engineering laboratories, focusing specifically on authorship and data management. The intervention is a project-based research ethics curriculum that was designed to enhance the ability of science and engineering research laboratory members to engage in reason giving and interpersonal communication necessary for ethical practice. The randomized trial was fielded in active faculty-led laboratories at two US research-intensive institutions. Here, we show that laboratory members perceived improvements in the quality of discourse on research ethics within their laboratories and enhanced awareness of the relevance and reasons for that discourse for their work as measured by a survey administered over 4 mo after the intervention. This training represents a paradigm shift compared with more typical module-based or classroom ethics instruction that is divorced from the everyday workflow and practices within laboratories and is designed to cultivate a campus culture of ethical science and engineering research in the very work settings where laboratory members interact.

Intervention to Promote Responsible Conduct of Research Mentoring.

Although much of the focus on responsible conduct in research has been defined by courses or online training, it is generally understood that this is less important than what happens in the research environment. On the assumption that providing faculty with tools and resources to address the ethical dimensions of the practice of research would be useful, a new workshop was convened ten times across seven academic institutions and at the annual meeting of a professional society. Workshops were attended by 91 faculty, 71 (78% response rate) of whom completed evaluations strongly supportive of the value of the workshop. Surveys of trainees identified by the faculty allowed for invitations to complete an online survey before and 6 months after the workshops, respectively resulting in response rates of 43 and 51%. Faculty and trainees were highly supportive of the feasibility, relevance, and effectiveness of the implementation by the faculty of one or more of the five strategies featured in the workshop. However, surprisingly over 70% of the trainees reported use of one or more of those strategies prior to faculty participation in the workshops. In sum, the workshops for faculty were successful, and the proposed strategies were deemed of value, but it is likely that the faculty voluntarily choosing to participate in these workshops were perhaps not surprisingly faculty who are already engaging in some of these strategies. This model is likely a useful adjunct to encouraging a culture of ethics, but it is not by itself sufficient to do so.

Mentoring for Responsible Research: The Creation of a Curriculum for Faculty to Teach RCR in the Research Environment.

Despite more than 25 years of a requirement for training in the responsible conduct of research (RCR), there is still little consensus about what such training should include, how it should be delivered, nor what constitutes "effectiveness" of such training. This lack of consensus on content, approaches and outcomes is evident in recent data showing high variability in the development and implementation of RCR instruction across universities and programs. If we accept that one of the primary aims of instruction in RCR/research ethics is "to foster a community of social responsibility" (Antes et al. 2009: 398), then it makes sense to consider the research environment itself-where learning one's science happens where one also engages in social interaction around that science. In order to take the best advantage of that already existing/naturally occurring research environment, the authors, through a deliberative, collaborative, and integrative process, crafted a workshop curriculum meant to arm research faculty with concrete and specific tools to effectively introduce research ethics in the context of the research environment.

Research Agenda: The Effects of Responsible-Conduct-of-Research Training on Attitudes.

Requirements for training in responsible conduct of research have significantly increased over the past 25 years, despite the absence of evidence for a substantial impact. One of the challenges has been to choose among the many possible goals that might define outcomes. Although much of the focus of research has been on changes in knowledge or skills, a case can be made that attitudes and perceptions are at least as important. Based on a recently completed pilot study, the authors propose several areas for research to clarify not only what but also how attitudes and perceptions would be usefully assessed.

Reported goals of instructors of responsible conduct of research for teaching of skills.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) training grant requirement to provide training in the responsible conduct of research (RCR) is now more than 20 years old. Implicit in the requirement is that this training will have an impact not only on what trainees know, but on what they know how to do. There is, however, a range of responses about what skills are seen to be necessary for the ethical practice of science. As part of a larger, earlier study examining RCR instructors' overall goals in teaching RCR, we asked 50 RCR instructors from 37 different institutions what their goals were for teaching skills in their RCR courses. The responses about what constituted necessary skills were wide ranging, from a focus on teaching the skill of ethical decision making to the perceived importance of ensuring that trainees understand the importance of the community in some research relationships. This diversity in responses about what skills should be taught in RCR courses is not especially surprising, given the variation in instructors, formats, instruction, goals, and outcome measures for RCR courses, but it does reinforce the necessity of giving more thought to what goals are to be achieved. This is true not only of skills to be learned, but of any other objectives one might have for research ethics teaching and learning.

Reported goals for responsible conduct of research courses.

PURPOSE: To identify existing responsible conduct of research (RCR) instructors' goals for RCR education. METHOD: E-mail requests were sent to the 116 recipients of National Institutes of Health (NIH) training grants awarded in 2000. Contacts were successfully made with 92 of the recipients, and 84 (91%) identified one or more RCR instructors for their grants. Of the 115 named instructors, 67 were correctly identified as RCR instructors and responded to our e-mail messages. RESULTS: Of the 67 instructors, 50 (75%) from 37 different institutions were interviewed. The reported goals were diverse: over 50 distinct goals were volunteered by the instructors. A secondary finding is that, despite having been identified by training grant directors as teachers of required RCR courses, nearly 25% of these individuals reported that they were not actually RCR instructors, and 22% of those interviewed were not aware that NIH trainees were required to take their courses. Further, whereas 80% of the respondents reported that RCR instruction was required for individuals other than NIH trainees, only 1 of the 50 reported that her/his course was required for all researchers within the institution. CONCLUSIONS: Identifying effective strategies for RCR education depends on first defining measurable outcomes based on well-defined goals. The findings of this study suggest a lack of consensus about those goals. In addition, the confusion about who teaches RCR courses and the rare expectation that RCR education is required for all researchers are disappointing reminders that RCR education is not universally viewed as central to research.

Reported Goals For Knowledge to be Learned in Responsible Conduct of Research Courses.

EDUCATION IN RESPONSIBLE CONDUCT OF RESEARCH (RCR) has been a required part of training for students on U. S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) training grants for over 15 years. However, there is little evidence of commonly accepted goals for RCR instruction, making it difficult to assess effectiveness. As part of a larger study examining RCR instructors' goals for RCR education, this report focuses on those reported goals categorized as knowledge. To identify RCR instructors, e-mail requests were sent to the 116 recipients of NIH training grants awarded in 2000. Of 67 verified RCR instructors, 50 (75% response rate) from 37 different institutions were successfully interviewed. Despite a shared sense of the basics to be taught in RCR courses, these instructors were diverse in their views and understanding of goals for RCR education. This diversity suggests a challenge to be overcome not only for improving the effectiveness of RCR education, but also for attempts to assess that effectiveness.

Student perceptions of the effectiveness of education in the responsible conduct of research.

Responsible conduct of research (RCR) courses are widely taught, but little is known about the purposes or effectiveness of such courses. As one way to assess the purposes of these courses, students were surveyed about their perspectives after recent completion of one of eleven different research ethics courses at ten different institutions. Participants (undergraduate and graduate students, post-doctoral fellows and faculty, staff and researchers) enrolled in RCR courses in spring and fall of 2003 received a voluntary, anonymous survey from their instructors at the completion of the course. Responses were received from 268 participants. Seventy-seven percent of open-ended responses listed specific kinds of information learned; only a few respondents talked about changes in skills or attitudes. The perception that courses did more to provide information than to foster skills or attitudes was verified in quantitative responses (P<0.0001). Over 75% of the respondents specifically noted that courses were useful in preparing them to recognize, avoid, and respond to research misconduct. The two principal findings of this multi-institutional study are that respondents reported: (1) a wide variety of positive outcomes for research ethics courses, but that (2) the impact on knowledge was greater than that for changes in skills or attitudes.