Advertisement

Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 20, Issue 4, pp 885–896 | Cite as

Standards of Scientific Conduct: Are There Any?

  • Michael KalichmanEmail author
  • Monica Sweet
  • Dena Plemmons
Original Paper

Abstract

The practice of research is full of ethical challenges, many of which might be addressed through the teaching of responsible conduct of research (RCR). Although such training is increasingly required, there is no clear consensus about either the goals or content of an RCR curriculum. The present study was designed to assess community standards in three domains of research practice: authorship, collaboration, and data management. A survey, developed through advice from content matter experts, focus groups, and interviews, was distributed in November 2010 to U.S. faculty from 50 graduate programs for each of four different disciplines: microbiology, neuroscience, nursing, and psychology. The survey addressed practices and perceived standards, as well as perceptions about teaching and learning. Over 1,300 responses (response rate of 21 %) yielded statistically significant differences in responses to nearly all questions. However the magnitude of these differences was typically small, leaving little reason to argue for community consensus on standards. For nearly all questions asked, the clear finding was that there was nothing approaching consensus. These results may be useful not so much to teach what the standards are, but to increase student awareness of the diversity of those standards in reported practice.

Keywords

Responsible conduct of research Research ethics Standards Authorship Collaboration Data management 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Many individuals provided invaluable perspectives at each stage of this study, but the authors particularly want to thank the following for their expertise and guidance: Daniel Cabrera (Northern Illinois University), Paul Friedman (UC San Diego), Elizabeth Heitman (Vanderbilt University), Francis Macrina (Virginia Commonwealth University), Joan Sieber (California State University East Bay), Connie Ulrich (University of Pennsylvania), David Urban (Virginia Commonwealth University), and Daniel Vasgird (West Virginia University). The authors also particularly thank Paul Friedman for his thoughtful and useful editing of the manuscript, and thank Tiffany Lagare and Kelli Wing for their assistance in collecting names and e-mail addresses for faculty surveyed in this study. This project was supported by NIH NR009962, UL1RR031980, and UL1TR000100.

Supplementary material

11948_2013_9500_MOESM1_ESM.doc (66 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 65 kb)
11948_2013_9500_MOESM2_ESM.doc (28 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOC 28 kb)

References

  1. AAMC. (1982). The maintenance of high ethical standards in the conduct of research, AAMC ad hoc committee on the maintenance of high ethical standards in the conduct of research. Washington, DC: AAMC.Google Scholar
  2. AAMC. (2006). Compact between postdoctoral appointees and their mentors. https://members.aamc.org/eweb/upload/CompactBetweenPostdoctorl2006.pdf. Accessed October 25, 2013.
  3. AAMC. (2008). Compact between biomedical graduate students and their mentors. https://members.aamc.org/eweb/upload/CompactBetweenBiomedicalGraduate.pdf. Accessed October 25, 2013.
  4. 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
  5. Antes, A. L., Murphy, S. T., Waples, E. P., Mumford, M. D., Brown, R. P., Connelly, S., et al. (2009). A meta-analysis of ethics instruction effectiveness in the sciences. Ethics and Behavior, 19(5), 379–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. DuBois, J. M., & Dueker, J. M. (2009). Teaching and assessing the responsible conduct of research: A Delphi consensus panel report. Journal of Research Administration, 40(1), 49–70.Google Scholar
  7. Groves, R. M. (2006). Nonresponse rates and nonresponse bias in household surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 70, 646–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Groves, R. M., & Peytcheva, E. (2008). The impact of nonresponse rates on nonresponse bias: A meta-analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72, 167–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Heitman, E., & Bulger, R. E. (2005). Assessing the educational literature in the responsible conduct of research for core content. Accountability in Research, 12(3), 207–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. ICMJE. (2013). 2. Who is an author? Roles and responsibilities of authors, contributors, reviewers, editors, publishers, and owners: Defining the role of authors and contributors, recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals, international committee of medical journal editors. http://icmje.org/roles_a.html. Accessed October 25, 2013.
  11. IOM. (1989). The responsible conduct of research in the health sciences. Washington, DC: National Academies of Science. http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=1388. Accessed October 25, 2013.
  12. Kalichman, M. W., & Friedman, P. J. (1991). A pilot study of biomedical trainees’ perceptions concerning research ethics. Academic Medicine, 67, 769–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kalichman, M. W., & Plemmons, D. K. (2007). Reported goals for responsible conduct of research courses. Academic Medicine, 82(9), 846–852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Keeter, S., Kennedy, C., Dimock, M., Best, J., & Craighill, P. (2006). Gauging the impact of growing nonresponse on estimates from a national RDD telephone survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 70, 759–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Keeter, S., Miller, C., Kohut, A., Groves, R. M., & Presser, S. (2000). Consequences of reducing nonresponse in a large national telephone survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 64, 125–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mastroianni, A. C., & Kahn, J. P. (1999). Encouraging accountability in research: A pilot assessment of training efforts. Accountability in Research, 7(1), 85–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. NIH. (1989). Requirements for programs on the responsible conduct of research in national research service award institutional training programs. Guide for Grants and Contracts, 18(45), 1. http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/historical/1989_12_22_Vol_18_No_45.pdf. Accessed October 25, 2013.
  18. NIH. (2009). Update on the requirement for instruction in the responsible conduct of research. Notice Number: NOT-OD-10-019. http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/not-od-10-019.html. Accessed October 25, 2013.
  19. NSF. (2010). B. Responsible conduct of research in grantee standards. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf10_1/aag_4.jsp#IVB. Accessed October 25, 2013.
  20. PHS. (2000). Announcement of final PHS policy on instruction in the responsible conduct of research. Notice Number: NOT-OD-01-007. http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/Notice-files/NOT-OD-01-007.html. Accessed October 25, 2013.
  21. Steneck, N. H., & Bulger, R. E. (2007). The history, purpose, and future of instruction in the responsible conduct of research. Academic Medicine, 82(9), 829–834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Visser, P. S., Krosnick, J. A., Marquette, J., & Curtin, M. (1996). Mail surveys for election forecasting? An evaluation of the Columbus Dispatch poll. Public Opinion Quarterly, 60, 181–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Kalichman
    • 1
    Email author
  • Monica Sweet
    • 2
  • Dena Plemmons
    • 1
  1. 1.Research Ethics ProgramUniversity of California San DiegoLa JollaUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of California, San DiegoLa JollaUSA

Personalised recommendations