Abstract
German medical students are not sufficiently introduced to the ethical principles and pitfalls of scientific work. Therefore, a compulsory course on good scientific practice (GSP) has been developed and implemented into the curriculum of medical students, with the goal to foster scientific integrity and prevent scientific misconduct. Students’ knowledge and attitudes towards GSP were evaluated by a pre-post-teaching questionnaire survey (n = 239). Most participants initially had startling knowledge gaps in the field. Moreover, they were not acquainted with core institutions on GSP, the office of ombudsperson and the nationally binding guidelines on GSP. The pre-post-teaching comparison showed statistically significant improvement in all areas tested; moreover, after the course participants confided more trust in GSP institutions. Applying ethical rules into practice can be challenging; therefore, students need to learn to work independently with guidelines on GSP and should be introduced to institutions providing further guidance. As our study has shown, students are very willing to pursue a scientific career based on integrity and honesty, however, they lack the knowledge how to do so. In light of our results, we therefore recommend to integrate courses on GSP already at an early time into the mandatory curriculum of medical students.
Highlights
In 1997, Germany was shaken by a research scandal: Between 1988 and 1996 cancer researcher Friedhelm Herrmann from Ulm University and laboratory head Marion Brach had both forged own data and claimed ideas and results of others as their own (König 1997)
We developed teaching units and materials for a 180-min compulsory course addressed at medical students in their 3rd year, with the aim to foster scientific integrity and prevent scientific misconduct from the very start of their scientific training (Fuerholzer et al 2019)
The overall aim of the course was to familiarize students with abstract norms of good scientific practice (GSP) (“scientific integrity,” “scientific misbehavior,” “scientific self-control”), to sensitize them for scientific realms where adhering to said norms is of particular importance (“scientific publishing,” “intellectual property,” “empirical data”), and to familiarize them with central institutions and guidelines they can consult in case they fear to perpetrate the principles of GSP or observe poor research conduct in others (Table 1)
Summary
In 1997, Germany was shaken by a research scandal: Between 1988 and 1996 cancer researcher Friedhelm Herrmann from Ulm University and laboratory head Marion Brach had both forged own data and claimed ideas and results of others as their own (König 1997). In reaction to this scandal, the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, DFG), Germany’s central self-governing organization for research, appointed a taskforce with the mandate to (1) explore causes of dishonesty in sciences, (2) discuss preventive measures, and (3) make recommendations on how to safeguard mechanisms of professional self-regulation in sciences. Both the course and the questionnaire survey were tested in a pilot phase
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
