A Room with a View of Integrity and Professionalism: Personal Reflections on Teaching Responsible Conduct of Research in the Neurosciences
- 299 Downloads
Neuroscientists are increasingly put into situations which demand critical reflection about the ethical and appropriate use of research tools and scientific knowledge. Students or trainees also have to know how to navigate the ethical domains of this context. At a time when neuroscience is expected to advance policy and practice outcomes, in the face of academic pressures and complex environments, the importance of scientific integrity comes into focus and with it the need for training at the graduate level in the responsible conduct of research (RCR). I describe my experience teaching RCR in a graduate neuroscience program and identify three personal reflections where further dialogue could be warranted: (1) mobilizing a common set of competencies and virtues standing for professionalism in the neurosciences; (2) tailoring RCR for the neurosciences and empowering students through the active engagement of mentors; (3) soliciting shared responsibility for RCR training between disciplines, institutions and governmental or funding agencies.
KeywordsResponsible conduct of research Professionalism Neuroscience Neuroethics Education
I would like to thank Dr. Cynthia Forlini, Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the University of Queensland Centre for Clinical Research (UQCCR) for thoughtful comments on the manuscript. I also extend thanks to the staff, students and leadership of the Integrated Program in Neuroscience at McGill University and to Dr. Eric Racine.
- Dubois, J. M., & Dueker, J. M. (2009). Teaching and assessing the responsible conduct of research: A delphi consensus panel report. The Journal of Research Administration, 40(1), 49–70.Google Scholar
- Jones, N. L. (2007). A code of ethics for the life sciences. Science and Engineering Ethics, 13(1), 25–43.Google Scholar
- Jones, N. L., Peiffer, A. M., Lambros, A., Guthold, M., Johnson, A. D., Tytell, M., et al. (2010). Developing a problem-based learning (PBL) curriculum for professionalism and scientific integrity training for biomedical graduate students. Journal of Medical Ethics, 36(10), 614–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Marcus, S. J. (2002). Neuroethics: Mapping the field, Conference Proceedings, The Dana Foundation.Google Scholar
- National Institutes of Health, Advisory Committee to the Director (2013). Charge of the Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Working Group, http://www.nih.gov/science/brain/acd-charge.pdf. Accessed 16 December 2013.
- Panel on Responsible Conduct of Research (2011). Tri-agency framework: Responsible Conduct of Research, http://www.rcr.ethics.gc.ca/eng/policy-politique/framework-cadre/. Accessed 16 December 2013.
- The Royal Society (2012). Brain Waves Module 3: Neuroscience, conflict and security. London, http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/projects/brain-waves/2012-02-06-BW3.pdf. Accessed 16 December 2013.
- Zimmerman, E., & Racine, E. (2012). Ethical issues in the translation of social neuroscience: A policy analysis of current guidelines for public dialogue in human research. Accountability in Research, 19(1), 27–46.Google Scholar