Teaching research ethics: it takes more than good science to make a good scientist

Abstract

As educators of graduate and postdoctoral students in analytical and bioanalytical chemistry, we recognize our responsibility to instill in our students a love of science and respect for its traditions. Without question, this includes an introduction to the scientific method, a broad scientific background, deep understanding of theoretical principles, instrumentation, experimental methods, statistical treatment of data, and so on. However, we may not recognize or acknowledge our responsibility to convey, with the same attention to detail, the moral and ethical standards of our profession. Over the last decade, there has been a growing emphasis on ethical training in the undergraduate chemistry curriculum [1–5]. The American Chemical Society (ACS) Committee on Professional Training has developed guidelines [6] and many colleges and universities have already implemented these recommended programs and practices. However, the students who enter our graduate programs or pursue postdoctoral studies are not homogeneous in terms of culture or educational preparation. So there can be no expectation or reliance on prior experience and knowledge of ethical issues. Moreover, as most university research is performed by graduate and postdoctoral students, ethical instruction is essential to maintain the integrity and quality of the research enterprise. Several federal agencies, including the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) and National Science Foundation (NSF), have encouraged such training in the responsible conduct of research (RCR). There is often a resistance or reluctance among scientific faculty members to the general concept of teaching research ethics. One common argument is that ethics cannot be taught. Students either have moral principles or they do not, and there is little we can do at this late stage to alter their essential character. However, this argument is lacking in foundation. Although the most widely publicized cases of scientific misconduct can be attributed to people who are routinely and pathologically unethical in their behavior, these are not the most common cases. Rather, most instances of misconduct originate from ordinary people under ordinary circumstances who make uninformed or poor ethical decisions. Both of these deficiencies can be addressed by appropriate instruction in research ethics. Uninformed decisions can be precluded by providing information on the expected standards of behavior; poor decisions can be averted by providing an opportunity to develop and exercise logical ethical thought. Another objection is that faculty members in chemistry do not have training in teaching research ethics. However, it is important to point out that most of us do not have formal training in teaching any subject—including chemistry! We have learned to teach chemistry by example, that is, by observing our own professors and colleagues, imitating their strengths and avoiding their weaknesses. We can learn to teach ethics in the same way. With sufficient motivation, together with some basic training, ideas, and resources, chemistry faculty members are fully qualified to convey the ethical standards of our profession. Moreover, we may be the very best teachers of this subject because we are likely to make the subject practical, relevant, and not overly abstract. The teaching of ethics also focuses our own attention and awareness on this important subject, so that we more consciously “practice what we preach”. Anal Bioanal Chem (2008) 390:1209–1215 DOI 10.1007/s00216-007-1800-3