Advertisement

Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 13, Issue 4, pp 387–394 | Cite as

Collective Openness and Other Recommendations for the Promotion of Research Integrity

  • Melissa S. AndersonEmail author
Commentary

Research integrity is essentially a matter of behavior. It is embodied in the actions and decisions of scientists, rather than in the standards, codes, regulations and norms that aim to shape that behavior. Misconduct and other questionable research behaviors stand in sharp contrast to research integrity. Measures intended to promote research integrity should therefore be held to a behavioral standard. If they promote right behavior, they can be judged successful; if they show no association with proper or improper conduct, or if, paradoxically, they show evidence of increasing the likelihood of misconduct by scientists, then they are not successful.

This behavioral criterion is both simpler and tougher than more common evaluative criteria. Instruction in the responsible conduct of research (RCR) often relies on assessments of students’ reactions to hypothetical situations, or their understanding of ethical principles, or their knowledge of policies and rules. It is not often judged in...

Keywords

Responsible Conduct Group Mentor Research Integrity Senior Scientist Collective Openness 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The author gratefully acknowledges helpful comments from Nicholas H. Steneck, Brian C. Martinson and Raymond De Vries on some of the ideas in this article, but accepts sole responsibility for the content and recommendations.

References

  1. 1.
    World conference on research integrity. (2007). [website]. Available at: http://www.esf.org/activities/esf-conferences/details/confdetail242/conference-information.html. Accessed October 10, 2007.
  2. 2.
    Anderson, M. S, Horn, A, Risbey, K. R., Ronning, E. A., De Vries, R., & Martinson, B. C. (2007). What do mentoring and training in the responsible conduct of research have to do with scientists’ misbehavior?: Findings from a national survey of NIH-funded scientists. Academic Medicine, 82, 853–860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Office of research integrity. (2007). [website]. Available at: http://ori.dhhs.gov/. Accessed October 10, 2007.
  4. 4.
    Steneck, N. H. (2004). ORI Introduction to the Responsible Conduct of Research. Washington, D.C.: U.S Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kalichman, M. W. (2007). Responding to challenges in educating for the responsible conduct of research. Academic Medicine, 82(9), 870–875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bird, S. J. (1999). Including ethics in graduate education in scientific research. In J. M. Braxton & M. F. Fox (Eds.), Perspectives on scholarly misconduct in the sciences (pp. 174–188). Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Macrina, F. L. (2005). Scientific integrity: Text and cases in responsible conduct of research, 3rd ed. Washington, D.C.: American Society for Microbiology Press.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bulger, R. E., Heitman, E., Reiser, S. J. (Eds.). (2002). The ethical dimensions of the biological and health sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shamoo, A. E., & Resnik, D. B. (2003). Responsible conduct of research. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Braunschweiger, P., & Goodman K. W. (2007). The CITI program: An international online resource for education in human subjects protection and the responsible conduct of research. Academic Medicine, 82(9), 861–864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bird, S. J., & Sieber, J. E. (2005). Teaching ethics in science and engineering: Effective online education. Science and Engineering Ethics, 11(3), 323–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sieber, J. E. (2005). Misconceptions and realities about teaching online. Science and Engineering Ethics, 11(3), 329–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    De Vries, R., Anderson, M. S., & Martinson, B. C. (2006). Normal misbehavior: Scientists talk about the ethics of research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 1(1), 43–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Heitman, E. (2000). Ethical values in the education of biomedical researchers. The Hastings Center Report, 30(4), S40–S44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Anderson, M. S., Ronning, E. A., de Vries, R., & Martinson, B. C. (2007) The perverse effects of competition on scientists’ work and relationships, Science and Engineering Ethics 13(4).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gunsalus, C. K. (1998). Preventing the need for whistleblowing: Practical advice for university administrators. Science and Engineering Ethics, 4(1), 75–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Grinnell, F. (2002). The impact of ethics on research. Chronicle of Higher Education, 49(6), B15.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Educational Policy and AdministrationUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations