Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 2, Issue 1, pp 89–114 | Cite as

Ethical issues in biomedical research: Perceptions and practices of postdoctoral research fellows responding to a survey

  • Susan Eastwood
  • Pamela Derish
  • Evangeline Leash
  • Stephen Ordway


We surveyed 1005 postdoctoral fellows by questionnaire about ethical matters related to biomedical research and publishing; 33% responded. About 18% of respondents said they had taken a course in research ethics, and about 31% said they had had a course that devoted some time to research ethics. A substantial majority stated willingness to grant other investigators, except competitors, access to their data before publication and to share research materials. Respondents’ opinions about contributions justifying authorship of research papers were mainly consistent but at variance with those of many biomedical journal editors. More than half said they had observed what they considered unethical research practices. To increase the chances of getting a grant funded, 27% said they were willing to select or omit data to improve their results; to make publication of their work more likely or to benefit their career, 15% would select or omit data and 32% would list an undeserving author. Of respondents who thought they had been unfairly denied authorship on a paper, or been listed with or asked to list an undeserving author, 75% said they would be willing to list an undeserving author (P<0.001). Having taken a course dealing with research ethics had no effect on stated willingness to select or omit data or to fabricate data in the future, but was positively associated with willingness to grant undeserved authorship (P<0.04). Although these results do not controvert research demonstrating the effectiveness of ethics courses during professional education, they indicate that the research environment is a powerful component of a trainee’s experience and ethical development.


scientific misconduct research ethics graduate education medical education 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Committee on the Responsible Conduct of Research, Institute of Medicine (1989)The Responsible Conduct of Research in the Health Sciences. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. [Available from National Academy of Sciences, 2101 Constitution Avenue, Washington, DC 20418.]Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    National Institutes of Health (1992) Reminder and update: requirement for instruction in the responsible conduct of research in National Research Service Award institutional training grants.NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts 21:2–3.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Office of Research Integrity — US Public Health Service (1993) NIH strengthens responsible conduct of research requirement in training grant applications.ORI Newsletter 1:1,8.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Friedman P J (1992) On misunderstanding scientific misconduct.Knowledge 14:153–156.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kalichman M W & Friedman P J (1992) A pilot study of biomedical trainees’ perceptions concerning research ethics.Academic Medicine 67:767–773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fischbach R, ed (1994)Educating for the Responsible Conduct of Research. NIH Policy and Other Mandates, PRIM&R, Boston.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Korenman S G & Shipp A C (1994)Teaching the Responsible Conduct of Research Through a Case Study Approach: A Handbook for Instructors. American Association of Medical Colleges, Washington DC.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Swazey J, Bird S J (1996) Teaching and learning research ethics.Professional Ethics Journal: Ethics in Scientific and Engineering Research Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Self D J, Wolinsky F D & Baldwin D C Jr (1989) The effect of teaching medical ethics on medical students’ moral reasoning.Academic Medicine 64:755–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Swazey J P (1993) Teaching ethics: needs, opportunities, and obstacles. Findings from the Acadia Institute project on professional values and ethical issues in the graduate education of scientists and engineers. In:Ethics, Values, and the Promise of Science. Proceedings of the Sigma Xi Forum, San Francisco (CA) Feb. 25–26: 233–242. [Available from Sigma Xi, PO Box 13975, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709.]Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Krulwich T A & Friedman P J (1993) Integrity in the education of researchers.Academic Medicine 68 (supplement): S14-S18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Friedman P J (1990) Research ethics: a teaching agenda for academic medicine.Academic Medicine 65: 32–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Panel on Scientific Responsibility and the Conduct of Research, Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine (1992)Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process, Volume 1. National Academy Press, Washington DC.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Petersdorf R G (1986) The pathogenesis of fraud in medical science.Annals of Internal Medicine 104:252–254.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Swazey J P, Anderson M S & Lewis K S (1993) Ethical problems in academic research.American Scientist 81: 542–553.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (1991) Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals (fourth edition).New England Journal of Medicine 324:424–428 andBritish Medical Journal 301:338–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Huth E J (1990)How to Write and Publish Papers in the Medical Sciences (second edition). Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sigma Xi (1986)Honor in Science, Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society, Research Triangle Park, NC.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Alberts B M (1985) Limits to growth in biology: small science is good science.Cell 41: 337–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shapiro D W, Wenger N S & Shapiro M F (1994) The contributions of authors to multiauthored biomedical research papers.Journal of the American Medical Association 271: 438–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Goodman N W (1994) Survey of fulfilment of criteria for authorship in published medical research.British Medical Journal 309: 1482.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Conrad C C (1990) Authorship, acknowledgment, and other credits. In: Editorial Policy Committee, Council of Biology Editors (1990)Ethics and Policy in Scientific Publication, pp 184–187. Council of Biology Editors, Bethesda MD [Available from Council of Biology Editors, 60 Revere Drive, Suite 500, Northbrook IL 60062, USA.]Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hart R G (1992) Correspondence: on authorship and acknowledgments (letter).New England Journal of Medicine 326:1084.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Panel on Scientific Responsibility and the Conduct of Research, Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine (1993)Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process. Volume II. National Academy Press, Washington DC.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Relman A S (1990) Responsible science—responsible authorship: discussion. In: Editorial Policy Committee, Council of Biology Editors (1990)Ethics and Policy in Scientific Publication, p 199. Council of Biology Editors, Bethesda, MD.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Fields K L & Price A R (1993) Problems in research integrity arising from misconceptions about the ownership of research.Academic Medicine 68 (September supplement): S60-S64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Marshall E (1990) Data sharing: a declining ethic.Science 248: 952–957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nowak R (1994) Problems in clinical trials go far beyond misconduct.Science 264: 1538–1541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Nowak R (1994) Ignorance is not bliss.Science 264: 1538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kish L (1994) Statistical medicine (letter).Science 265: 591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bailar J C III (1986) Science, statistics, and deception.Annals of Internal Medicine 104: 259–260.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, National Academy of Sciences (1995)On Being a Scientist: Responsible Conduct in Research (second edition). National Academy Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Malone T, Holton G, Chalk R, Blair C & Fischbach R (1994) Panel I: The responsible conduct of research: the historical underpinnings, the current NIH policy, definitions of terms and the value of virtue. In: Fischbach R, ed (1994)Educating for the Responsible Conduct of Research. NIH Policy and Other Mandates. PRIM&R, Boston: 19–54.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rennie D (1989) How much fraud? Let’s do an experimental audit.AAAS Observer (6 Jan). American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington DC: 4.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Jamieson D, Zigmond M J, Rabins M J, Sieber J E, Weil V (1994) Ethics in the Science Curriculum (abstracts). In:AAAS ’94: Science and a Changing World (Annual Meeting Program/Abstracts, San Francisco, 18–23 February). American Association for the Advancement of Science. Washington DC: 54.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hoshiko T (1993) Responsible conduct of scientific research: a one-semester course for graduate students.American Journal of Physiology 264: S8-S10.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Bebeau M J (1991) Can ethics be taught? A look at the evidence.Journal of the American College of Dentists 58: 5, 10–15.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Rest J R (1986) Moral development in young adults. In: Mines R A & Kitchener K S, eds.Adult Cognitive Development: Methods and Models. Praeger, New York.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Rest J R (1988) Can ethics be taught in professional schools? The psychological research.Ethics, Easier Said Than Done, Winter: 22–26.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Opragen Publications 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Susan Eastwood
    • 1
    • 2
  • Pamela Derish
    • 1
    • 2
  • Evangeline Leash
    • 1
    • 2
  • Stephen Ordway
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Neurological Surgery M-777School of Medicine, University of California, San FranciscoSan FranciscoUSA
  2. 2.Department of Stomatology, School of DentistryUCSFSan Francisco

Personalised recommendations