Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Anestidou L. (2002). Research Ethics education: the view from below. American Journal of Bioethics 2(4): W5.

    Google Scholar 

  3. NIH: Training grant requirement.(1989). NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts. 18 (45).

  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〉.

  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〉.

  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〉.

  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〉.

  8. Richman K. (2002). Responsible conduct of research is all well and good. American Journal of Bioethics 2(4): 61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bertolami CN. (2004). Why our ethics curricula don’t work. Journal of Dental Education 68(4): 414–25.

    Google Scholar 

  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. Rhodes R. (2002). The pressing need for postdoctoral research ethics education. American Journal of Bioethics 2(4): 1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Sharp R. (2002). Teaching old dogs new tricks: continuing education in research ethics. American Journal of Bioethics 2(4): 55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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〉.

  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〉.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Research Ethics Program, 0612, University of California, 92093-0612, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA

    Dena K. Plemmons, Suzanne A. Brody & Michael W. Kalichman

  2. the Child & Adolescent Services Research Center (CASRC) at Children’s Hospital San Diego, CA

    Dena K. Plemmons

Authors
  1. Dena K. Plemmons
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Suzanne A. Brody
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michael W. Kalichman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael W. Kalichman.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Plemmons, D.K., Brody, S.A. & Kalichman, M.W. Student perceptions of the effectiveness of education in the responsible conduct of research. SCI ENG ETHICS 12, 571–582 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-006-0055-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-006-0055-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation