Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 12, Issue 3, pp 571–582 | Cite as

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

  • Dena K. Plemmons
  • Suzanne A. Brody
  • Michael W. Kalichman
Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

attitudes authorship behavior ethics knowledge responsible conduct of research skills whistleblowing 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Eissen A, Berry R. (2002). The Absent Professor: Why we don’t teach ethics and what to do about it. American Journal of Bioethics 2(4): 38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anestidou L. (2002). Research Ethics education: the view from below. American Journal of Bioethics 2(4): W5.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    NIH: Training grant requirement.(1989). NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts. 18 (45).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    NIH: Reminder and update: Requirement for instruction in the responsible conduct of research in National Research Service Award institutional training grants. (1992). NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts. 21(43). 〈http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/not92-236.html〉.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    NIH: Required education in the protection of human research participants. Notice OD-00-039, June 5, 2000. 〈http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-00-039.html〉.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Public Health Service: PHS policy on instruction in the responsible conduct of research. December 1, 2000. 〈http://ori.hhs.gov/policies/RCR_Policy.shtml〉.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Steneck NH. (2000). Assessing the Integrity of Publicly Funded Research. Proceedings of the First ORI Research Conference on Research Integrity. 〈http://ori.hhs.gov/documents/proceedings_rri.pdf〉.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Richman K. (2002). Responsible conduct of research is all well and good. American Journal of Bioethics 2(4): 61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bertolami CN. (2004). Why our ethics curricula don’t work. Journal of Dental Education 68(4): 414–25.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lewin LO, Olson CA, Goodman KW, Kokotailo PK. (2004). UME-21 and teaching ethics: a step in the right direction. Family Medicine 36(January suppl): 36–42.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rhodes R. (2002). The pressing need for postdoctoral research ethics education. American Journal of Bioethics 2(4): 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sharp R. (2002). Teaching old dogs new tricks: continuing education in research ethics. American Journal of Bioethics 2(4): 55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kalichman M, Paik A. (2004). Instructor Perceptions of Goals for Teaching Responsible Conduct of Research. Proceedings of the Third ORI Research Conference on Research Integrity. 〈http://ori.hhs.gov/documents/rri_abstracts_2004.pdf〉.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Committee on Assessing Integrity in Research Environments (2002). Integrity in Scientific Research: Creating an Environment That Promotes Responsible Conduct. Board on Health Sciences Policy and Division of Earth and Life Studies, Institute of Medicine and National Research Council of the National Academies, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. 〈http://www.nap.edu/books/0309084792/html〉.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Opragen Publications 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dena K. Plemmons
    • 1
    • 2
  • Suzanne A. Brody
    • 1
  • Michael W. Kalichman
    • 1
  1. 1.Research Ethics Program, 0612University of CaliforniaSan Diego, La JollaUSA
  2. 2.the Child & Adolescent Services Research Center (CASRC) at Children’s Hospital San Diego

Personalised recommendations