Responsible Conduct Of Research Education Research Articles

A tale of two formats: Graduate students’ perceptions and preferences of interactivity in Responsible conduct of research education

ABSTRACT Background The significance of Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) education in higher education is well-acknowledged. However, the lack of interactivity in online RCR courses remains a concern for course designers and instructors. This research aims to identify types of interactivity embedded in RCR courses and examine graduate students’ perceived interactivity in different course formats (online versus face-to-face) by two distinct samples. Methods/Materials Study one, involving 191 participants, identified the model construct of the Learner Perceptions of Interactivity Scale for RCR. The result indicated a 15-item scale characterized by three factors: self-control, human-interaction, and information-access. Study two, involving a sample of 390 individuals who received both formats of RCR instruction, confirmed the instrument’s reliability and explored students’ perceptions of interactivity types within the two formats. Results Notably, students in Study 2 perceived a higher degree of human interaction in the face-to-face format while attributing more significance to self-control and information access in the online course. Approximately 80% of the students expressed a preference for a fully online course if given another opportunity to choose or recommend a format. This preference was attributed to their inclination toward more control and access, underscoring the significance of these elements in shaping their learning experiences.

Evaluating empowerment towards responsible conduct of research in a small private online course

Teaching Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) has gained recognition in recent years, with various organizations emphasizing the need to take responsibility in training their researchers in RCR. However, differing perspectives on RCR education result in a variety of practices, making it unclear what approach is most effective. As part of two European projects on research integrity education, we have developed an empowerment perspective on RCR education and incorporated this in an online course design. This paper presents the design and qualitative evaluation of a Small Private Online Course (SPOC) that aims to empower participants towards RCR. Results show the course enhanced individual aspects of empowerment, but it proved difficult to stimulate social aspects of empowerment in researchers day-to-day work.

The Contribution of Moral Case Deliberation to Teaching RCR to PhD Students

Teaching responsible conduct of research (RCR) to PhD students is crucial for fostering responsible research practice. In this paper, we show how the use of Moral Case Deliberation—a case reflection method used in the Amsterdam UMC RCR PhD course—is particularity valuable to address three goals of RCR education: (1) making students aware of, and internalize, RCR principles and values, (2) supporting reflection on good conduct in personal daily practice, and (3) developing students’ dialogical attitude and skills so that they can deliberate on RCR issues when they arise. What makes this method relevant for RCR education is the focus on values and personal motivations, the structured reflection on real experiences and dilemmas and the cultivation of participants’ dialogical skills. During these structured conversations, students reflect on the personal motives that drive them to adhere to the principles of good science, thereby building connections between those principles and their personal values and motives. Moreover, by exploring personal questions and dilemmas related to RCR, they learn how to address these with colleagues and supervisors. The reflection on personal experiences with RCR issues and questions combined with the study of relevant normative frameworks, support students to act responsibly and to pursue RCR in their day-to-day research practice in spite of difficulties and external constraints.

A Model Program for RCR Instruction for Early-Career Faculty Investigators with NIH K-Awards

National Institutes of Health’s policies for Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) instruction for individual career development awards (K-awards) stress appropriateness to the career stage and tailoring to the individual’s needs. Early-career faculty have unique needs for RCR instruction. While our institution requires RCR education for ALL graduate students and postdoctoral trainees, we found that many K-awardees 1) are early-career faculty not eligible to participate in postdoc programs, and 2) many had received formal RCR instruction at only basic or intermediate levels. We identified 45 K-award recipients with active grants, 26 of whom needed RCR instruction. We developed a program specifically designed for early-career faculty researchers. Through the first three iterations of the course, we had a total of 24 participants, ranging from senior postdoctoral and clinical fellows to instructor-level and assistant professors. This paper describes our experience and challenges in developing and conducting this course.

What Does it Mean to Teach “RCR”?

Formal instruction in the responsible conduct of research (RCR) has been a component of research training in the basic and biomedical sciences for over 30 years, due in large part to federal requirements for RCR education in research training programs funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and National Science Foundation (NSF). With the increasing complexity of basic and biomedical science, federal guidance on the scope of RCR education has likewise evolved to include more and more topics. In 2022, both NIH and NSF significantly expanded the subject matter included in federal policy on RCR instruction, raising concerns among RCR educators about what is required in teaching “RCR”. This article examines the topic lists from key professional recommendations and subsequent federal policies on required RCR instruction. Careful analysis of these historical and contemporary documents helps to resolve the challenge of what “must” be taught to trainees today.

Status of Education in Responsible Conduct of Research

Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) education has been part of the US research landscape for nearly 35 years. Although at least in part a response to cases of research misconduct, RCR requirements and implementations by instructors often repurpose RCR to focus on many different possible conceptions of “responsible conduct.” In reviewing today’s landscape, it is clear that interventions vary widely with respect to goals, audience, topics covered, settings in which education is delivered, pedagogical approaches used, and institutional commitment. Surveying the status quo in each of these areas is taken here as a starting point for a series of recommendations to better promote RCR. A case is made for shifting from hoping RCR education will directly decrease research misconduct (unlikely) or using NIH recommended topics as a checklist, but instead supporting researchers to engage in conversations about the ethical challenges present in their practice of research.

Taiwanese and American Graduate Students' Misconceptions Regarding Responsible Conduct of Research: A Cross-National Comparison Using a Two-Tier Test Approach.

Individual researchers may interpret responsible conduct of research (RCR) in various ways, especially given the diversity of research personnel in modern science. Therefore, understanding individuals' RCR-related misconceptions is important, as it can help RCR instructors customize their lessons to target learners' incorrect and incomplete ideas. In this vein, this study aimed to explore whether Taiwanese and American graduate students differ in their perceptions and misconceptions regarding RCR-related concepts and, if so, to determine these differences. A diagnostic assessment, the Revised RCR Reasoning Test (rev-RCRRT), was developed to pursue the intended goal. The rev-RCRRT is a two-tier test capable of diagnosing whether a student's justifications of ethical acceptance in relation to specific RCR-related concepts are based on incorrect or incomplete ideas of RCR. The current results indicated that, first, participating graduate students' test performances dropped drastically between the first- and second-tier items, suggesting that they were able to judge the ethical acceptability of given RCR-specific scenarios but lacked the advanced knowledge required to explain their judgments. Second, in general, American students achieved significantly better scores on the rev-RCRRT than Taiwanese students. Third, the two groups held different RCR-related misconceptions centered around various RCR topics. Specifically, Taiwanese students' misconceptions involved concepts related to authorship, piecemeal publication, and human-subject protection. However, American students sometimes misjudged the issues regarding duplicate submissions and publication and the reproducibility of research and replication of ideas. In summary, through a cross-national comparative method, this study not only suggests that graduate students from different national backgrounds interpret RCR differently but also provides substantial evidence for the employment of a two-tier test approach in RCR-specific contexts. The implications of the current findings for future research and the utility of using two-tier tests in RCR instruction are also discussed in this article.

A Quality Checklist for Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) Education: A proposal to complement the Predictive Modeling Tool

ABSTRACT This article presents a Quality Checklist for Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) education. The Checklist is a tool for teachers and educational developers in RCR education containing the results of eleven reviews on the impact of RCR education. It makes these data accessible in a layered way, such that users can quickly find the information that they are interested in. The tool can complement the Predictive Modeling Tool , which allows users to fill out information about a course and provides recommendations on how the course’s efficacy can be improved. We present our approach to developing the Quality Checklist prototype tool, the tool itself and how it can be used. We compare it to the PMT and discuss the added value of the Quality Checklist prototype tool, as well as its limitations. Finally, we indicate some of the ways in which the prototype tool could be further improved.

Implementation of a responsible conduct of research education program at Duke University School of Medicine

ABSTRACTAcademic medical centers rarely require all of their research faculty and staff to participate in educational programs on the responsible conduct of research (RCR). There is also little published evidence of RCR programs addressing high-profile, internal cases of misconduct as a way of promoting deliberation and learning. In the wake of major research misconduct, Duke University School of Medicine (DUSoM) expanded its RCR education activities to include all DUSoM faculty and staff engaged in research. The program included formal deliberation of the Translational Omics misconduct case, which occurred at Duke. Over 5,000 DUSoM faculty and staff participated in the first phase of this new program, with a 100% completion rate. The article reports on the program’s development, challenges and successes, and future directions. This experience at Duke University illustrates that, although challenging and resource intensive, engagement with RCR activities can be integrated into programs for all research faculty and staff. Formal, participatory deliberation of recent cases of internal misconduct can add a novel dimension of reflection and openness to RCR educational activities.

Integration of RCR and Ethics Education into Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experiences in the Biological Sciences: A Needed Discussion.

Course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) have been identified as a promising vehicle to broaden novices’ participation in authentic scientific opportunities. While recent studies in the bioeducation literature have focused on the influence of CUREs on cognitive and non-cognitive student outcomes (e.g., attitudes and motivation, science process skills development), few investigations have examined the extent to which the contextual features inherent in such experiences affect students’ academic and professional growth. Central among these factors is that of ethics and the responsible conduct of research (RCR)—essential cornerstones of the scientific enterprise. In this article, we examine the intersectionality of ethics/RCR instruction within CURE contexts through a critical review of existing literature that details mechanisms for the integration of ethics/RCR education into undergraduate laboratory experiences in the science domains. Building upon this foundation, we propose a novel, evidence-based framework that seeks to illustrate posited interactions between core ethics/RCR principles and unique dimensions of CUREs. It is our intent that this framework will inform and encourage open dialogue around an often-overlooked aspect of CURE instruction—how to best prepare ethically responsible scholars for entrance into the global scientific workforce.

America COMPETES at 5\xa0years: An Analysis of Research-Intensive Universities\u2019 RCR Training Plans

This project evaluates the impact of the National Science Foundation's (NSF) policy to promote education in the responsible conduct of research (RCR). To determine whether this policy resulted in meaningful RCR educational experiences, our study examined the instructional plans developed by individual universities in response to the mandate. Using a sample of 108 U.S. institutions classified as Carnegie “very high research activity”, we analyzed all publicly available NSF RCR training plans in light of the consensus best practices in RCR education that were known at the time the policy was implemented. We found that fewer than half of universities developed plans that incorporated at least some of the best practices. More specifically, only 31% of universities had content and requirements that differed by career stage, only 1% of universities had content and requirements that differed by discipline; and only 18% of universities required some face-to-face engagement from all classes of trainees. Indeed, some schools simply provided hand-outs to their undergraduate students. Most universities (82%) had plans that could be satisfied with online programs such as the Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative's RCR modules. The NSF policy requires universities to develop RCR training plans, but provides no guidelines or requirements for the format, scope, content, duration, or frequency of the training, and does not hold universities accountable for their training plans. Our study shows that this vaguely worded policy, and lack of accountability, has not produced meaningful educational experiences for most of the undergraduate students, graduate students, and post-doctoral trainees funded by the NSF.

Mentoring for Responsible Research: The Creation of a Curriculum for Faculty to Teach RCR in the Research Environment.

Despite more than 25years of a requirement for training in the responsible conduct of research (RCR), there is still little consensus about what such training should include, how it should be delivered, nor what constitutes "effectiveness" of such training. This lack of consensus on content, approaches and outcomes is evident in recent data showing high variability in the development and implementation of RCR instruction across universities and programs. If we accept that one of the primary aims of instruction in RCR/research ethics is "to foster a community of social responsibility" (Antes et al. 2009: 398), then it makes sense to consider the research environment itself-where learning one's science happens where one also engages in social interaction around that science. In order to take the best advantage of that already existing/naturally occurring research environment, the authors, through a deliberative, collaborative, and integrative process, crafted a workshop curriculum meant to arm research faculty with concrete and specific tools to effectively introduce research ethics in the context of the research environment.

Cross-Field Comparison of Ethics Education: Golden Rules and Particulars

ABSTRACTResearch misconduct negatively impacts the scientific community and society in general. Providing training in the responsible conduct of research (RCR) to researchers is one viable approach to minimizing research misconduct. Although recent evidence suggests ethics training can indeed be effective, little empirical work has examined the similarities and differences across fields. In the present study, we analyzed 62 empirical studies in engineering, biomedical science, social science, and mixed fields. The findings suggest certain instructional principles, or “golden rules,” apply generally to all fields. These golden rules include maintaining a field-specific or field-general approach and emphasizing processes in training. The findings also suggest that content areas contributing to instructional effectiveness vary as a function of field. Generally, it appears that all fields may benefit from taking a multi-pronged approach to ethics education wherein the salient field issues are covered. Implications for RCR education are discussed.

Validation and Use of a Predictive Modeling Tool: Employing Scientific Findings to Improve Responsible Conduct of Research Education

ABSTRACTAlthough recent evidence suggests ethics education can be effective, the nature of specific training programs, and their effectiveness, varies considerably. Building on a recent path modeling effort, the present study developed and validated a predictive modeling tool for responsible conduct of research education. The predictive modeling tool allows users to enter ratings in relation to a given ethics training program and receive instantaneous evaluative information for course refinement. Validation work suggests the tool’s predicted outcomes correlate strongly (r = 0.46) with objective course outcomes. Implications for training program development and refinement are discussed.

Responsible Conduct of Research Education (What, Why, and Does It Work?).

Responsible Conduct of Research Education (What, Why, and Does It Work?).

Modeling the Instructional Effectiveness of Responsible Conduct of Research Education: A Meta-Analytic Path-Analysis

Predictive modeling in education draws on data from past courses to forecast the effectiveness of future courses. The present effort sought to identify such a model of instructional effectiveness in scientific ethics. Drawing on data from 235 courses in the responsible conduct of research (RCR), structural equation modeling techniques were used to test a predictive model of RCR course effectiveness. Fit statistics indicated the model fit the data well, with the instructional characteristics included in the model explaining approximately 85% of the variance in RCR instructional effectiveness. Implications for using the model to develop and improve future RCR courses are discussed.

Research as Profession and Practice: Frameworks for Guiding the Responsible Conduct of Research

ABSTRACTPrograms in the responsible conduct of research (RCR) vary between institutions, demonstrated by disparate structures and goals. These variations may be attributed to the absence of grounding frameworks within which to examine research and RCR education programs. This article examines research as a practice and a profession, using these frames to draw out defining features of research and the moral obligations entailed. Situating research within virtue ethics can clarify how researchers might cultivate the virtues necessary for meeting its obligations and aims. By elucidating these features, these perspectives can serve to guide the development of RCR education programs.

Making Professional Decisions in Research: Measurement and Key Predictors

ABSTRACTThe professional decision-making in research (PDR) measure was administered to 400 National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded and industry-funded investigators, along with measures of cynicism, moral disengagement, compliance disengagement, impulsivity, work stressors, knowledge of responsible conduct of research (RCR), and socially desirable response tendencies. Negative associations were found for the PDR and measures of cynicism, moral disengagement, and compliance disengagement, while positive associations were found for the PDR and RCR knowledge and positive urgency, an impulsivity subscale. PDR scores were not related to socially desirable responding, or to measures of work stressors and the remaining impulsivity subscales. In a multivariate logistic regression analysis, lower moral disengagement scores, higher RCR knowledge, and identifying the United States as one’s nation of origin emerged as key predictors of stronger performance on the PDR. The implications of these findings for understanding the measurement of decision-making in research and future directions for research and RCR education are discussed.

Pedagogical Support for Responsible Conduct of Research Training

The number of training programs for the responsible conduct of research (RCR) has increased substantially over the past few decades as the importance of research ethics has received greater attention. It is unclear, however, whether the proliferation of RCR training programs has improved researcher integrity or the public's trust in science. Rather than training researchers simply to comply with regulations, we could use the opportunity to develop researchers' ability to understand and appreciate the ethical ideals that inform the regulations in order to help them integrate ethical decision-making into their work on a regular basis. Incorporating ethical principles into research training requires a new way of teaching RCR and the development of support materials to facilitate its adoption. The Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues, a panel established to advise the President on bioethical issues arising from advances in biomedicine and related areas of science and technology, developed and provides pedagogical materials based on its published reports to facilitate the integration of ethics education across the curriculum and in support of RCR and general bioethics education.

Ethics and Responsible Conduct of Research within the Chemical Community. Ideas and Experiences Worth Sharing

This open-access issue of Accountability in Research is intended to serve as a special resource. There is little need to justify providing resources that can be useful in the instruction of scholarship in Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) for readers of Accountability in Research. At present, there are no specific, detailed, line-by-line RCR requirements for institutions that apply for research grants from the U.S. National Science Foundation or the National Institutes of Health. Both NSF and NIH have implemented Section 7009 of the American Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science Act (42 U.S.C. 1862o-1) (Federal Register, 2009; National Institutes of Health (NIH), 2011). For example, “the Act requires that ‘each institution that applies for financial assistance from the Foundation for science and engineering research or education describe in its grant proposal a plan to provide appropriate training and oversight in the responsible and ethical conduct of research to undergraduate students, graduate students, and postdoctoral researchers participating in the proposed research project’” (Federal Register, 2009). For the past several years, I have given lectures on RCR at a number of academic institutions around the world, including RCR workshops in my own university. Sometimes, my lectures are part of the institution’s mandated RCR training program. Other times, I speak about my own research in RCR (House and Seeman, 2010; Seeman and House, 2010a,b) and history and sociology of chemistry as they relate to RCR (for example, see Seeman, 2007). While there are many valuable resources available for use in RCR educational programs, including a number of excellent texts (Beach, 1996; Committee on Assessing Integrity in Research Environments, 2002; Panel on Scientific Responsibility and the Conduct of Research, 1992; Panel on Scientific Responsibility and the Conduct of Research, 1993; Lock and Wells, 1996; Macrina, 2014; Resnik, 1998; Seebauer and Barry, 2001; Shamoo and Resnik, 2015; Steneck, 2007), there is only one that specifically focused on the chemical community—the book The Ethical Chemist: Professionalism and Ethics in Science (Kovac, 2004). More than coincidentally, this book was written by one of the authors of an article in this project. My idea was to publish a single, permanently open-access issue of Accountability in Research with articles written by chemists and articles devoted to ethics and RCR in chemistry. However, the articles were also intended to provide meaning and useful information throughout the research communities. In addition to speaking to the most controversial areas of RCR (i.e., fabrication, falsification and plagiarism), the articles were to make clear that “RCR is simply good citizenship applied to professional life” (Steneck, 2007). True, this special issue of Accountability in Research was designed to serve as a resource in chemistry departments to meet the federally-mandated education in RCR referred to above. Nonethelesss, the articles were to be of interest and value to the broadest range of readers, from the general public to government policy makers to those professionals who work in the fields of RCR and ethics. I proposed this idea to Professor Adil E. Shamoo, Editor in Chief, who immediately and enthusiastically said “yes.” The Innovative Project Grant Program of the American Chemical Society approved my grant proposal to fund the issue’s open access feature. And a number of chemists agreed to and have provided their articles. The articles in this special issue are: “Ethics in Science: The Unique Consequences of Chemistry” by Jeffrey D. Kovac (Department of Chemistry, University of Tennessee) “Tension in Chemistry and Its Contents” by Roald Hoffmann (Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology, Cornell University) “Authorship Issues and Conflict in the U.S. Academic Chemical Community,” by Jeffrey I. Seeman (Department of Chemistry, University of Richmond) and Mark C. House (Giant Steps Research, Gainesville, FL) “Social Media, Peer Review, and Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) in Chemistry: Trends, Pitfalls, and Promises,” by Ashutosh S. Jogalekar (Cambridge, MA) “Ethics and the Responsible Conduct of Research in the Chemical Community: The Unique Role and Challenges of the News Media” by William G. Schulz (Chemical & Engineering News, American Chemical Society) The titles and authors of these five articles illustrate another goal of the project: to obtain a wide diversity of subjects, written by authors who are themselves researchers and experts in the subjects covered. I thank the authors for participating in this project and the Division of Professional Relations of the American Chemical Society (Dr. Joseph Stoner, Chair) for supporting the proposal and encouraging this project. Time will tell whether we––all the authors and many others who participated in the project, as well as the American Chemical Society—have provided a resource that is used by students of RCR and ethics within and outside the chemical community. We hope so.