1
|
Pizzolato D, Labib K, Skoulikaris N, Evans N, Roje R, Kavouras P, Aubert Bonn N, Dierickx K, Tijdink J. How can research institutions support responsible supervision and leadership? Account Res 2024; 31:173-195. [PMID: 35975399 DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2022.2112033] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/15/2022]
Abstract
Supervisors, PhD candidates and research leaders are expected to be the primary persons responsible for maintaining a high research integrity standards. However, research institutions should support them in this effort, by promoting responsible supervision and leadership practices. Although it is clear that institutions play a crucial role in this, there is a lack of institutional guidelines focusing on these topics. The development of the experience-based guidelines presented in this article consisted of a multi-step, iterative approach. We engaged 16 experts in supervision and research integrity in four workshops to co-create institutional guidelines for responsible supervision and leadership. To revise the guidelines and make them operational, we formed a dedicated working group and consulted experts in the field of supervision. This resulted in three guidelines focusing on what institutions can do to support: responsible supervision, PhD candidates during their PhD trajectory, and responsible leadership. The recommendations focus on the rights and responsibilities of the three targeted stakeholder groups, and institutions' responsibilities for the personal development and well-being of supervisors, PhD candidates and research leaders. The three guidelines can be used by institutions to foster responsible supervision and leadership by supporting researchers to conduct research with integrity.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daniel Pizzolato
- KU Leuven, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Krishma Labib
- Amsterdam UMC, VrijeUniversiteit Amsterdam, Department of Ethics, Law and Humanities, Amsterdam Public Health Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherland
| | - Niko Skoulikaris
- Amsterdam UMC, VrijeUniversiteit Amsterdam, Department of Ethics, Law and Humanities, Amsterdam Public Health Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherland
| | - Natalie Evans
- Amsterdam UMC, VrijeUniversiteit Amsterdam, Department of Ethics, Law and Humanities, Amsterdam Public Health Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherland
| | - Rea Roje
- Department of Research in Biomedicine and Health, University of Split School of Medicine, Split, Croatia
| | - Panagiotis Kavouras
- RNanoLab, Department of Materials Science and Engineering, School of Chemical Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, Athens, Greece
| | - Noémie Aubert Bonn
- Amsterdam UMC, VrijeUniversiteit Amsterdam, Department of Ethics, Law and Humanities, Amsterdam Public Health Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherland
| | - Kris Dierickx
- KU Leuven, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Joeri Tijdink
- Amsterdam UMC, VrijeUniversiteit Amsterdam, Department of Ethics, Law and Humanities, Amsterdam Public Health Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherland
- Department of Philosophy, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Crean D, Gordijn B, Kearns AJ. Impact and Assessment of Research Integrity Teaching: A Systematic Literature Review. SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING ETHICS 2024; 30:30. [PMID: 39042336 PMCID: PMC11266247 DOI: 10.1007/s11948-024-00493-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/27/2023] [Accepted: 06/14/2024] [Indexed: 07/24/2024]
Abstract
Presented here is a systematic literature review of what the academic literature asserts about: (1) the stages of the ethical decision-making process (i.e. awareness, reasoning, motivation, and action) that are claimed to be improved or not improved by RI teaching and whether these claims are supported by evidence; (2) the measurements used to determine the effectiveness of RI teaching; and (3) the stage/s of the ethical decision-making process that are difficult to assess. Regarding (1), awareness was the stage most claimed to be amenable to improvement following RI teaching, and with motivation being the stage that is rarely addressed in the academic literature. While few, some sources claimed RI teaching cannot improve specific stages. With behaviour (action) being the stage referenced most, albeit in only 9% of the total sources, for not being amenable to improvement following RI teaching. Finally, most claims were supported by empirical evidence. Regarding (2), measures most frequently used are custom in-house surveys and some validated measures. Additionally, there is much debate in the literature regarding the adequacy of current assessment measures in RI teaching, and even their absence. Such debate warrants caution when we are considering the empirical evidence supplied to support that RI teaching does or does not improve a specific stage of the decision-making process. Regarding (3), only behaviour was discussed as being difficult to assess, if not impossible. In our discussion section we contextualise these results, and following this we derive some recommendations for relevant stakeholders in RI teaching.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daniel Crean
- School of Veterinary Medicine, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland.
- Conway Institute of Biomolecular and Biomedical Science, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
- Institute of Ethics, School of Theology, Philosophy, and Music, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland.
| | - Bert Gordijn
- Institute of Ethics, School of Theology, Philosophy, and Music, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland
| | - Alan J Kearns
- Institute of Ethics, School of Theology, Philosophy, and Music, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Pizzolato D, Dierickx K. The Mentor's Role in Fostering Research Integrity Standards Among New Generations of Researchers: A Review of Empirical Studies. SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING ETHICS 2023; 29:19. [PMID: 37160826 DOI: 10.1007/s11948-023-00439-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/24/2021] [Accepted: 04/19/2023] [Indexed: 05/11/2023]
Abstract
Promoting research integrity practices among doctoral candidates and early career researchers is important for creating a stable and healthy research environment. In addition to teaching specific technical skills and knowledge, research supervisors and mentors inevitably convey research practices, both directly and indirectly. We conducted a scoping review to summarise the role of mentors in fostering research integrity practices, mentors' responsibilities and the role that institutions have in supporting good mentorship. We searched five different databases and included studies that used an empirical methodology. After searching, a total of 1199 articles were retrieved, of which 24 were eligible for analysis. After snowballing, a total of 35 empirical articles were selected. The review discusses various themes such as the importance of good mentorship, poor mentorship practices, virtues and qualities of mentors, responsibilities and activities of mentors, group mentoring and responsibilities of the institution in supporting good mentorship. This review demonstrates the importance of mentors instilling responsible research practices and attitudes, and promoting research integrity among their mentees. Mentors are responsible for providing explicit guidance and for acting as good role models. The review highlights how poor mentorship can have a bad impact on the research climate. In addition, the review highlights the important influence that institutions can have in supporting mentorship.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daniel Pizzolato
- Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, KU Leuven, B-3000, Leuven, Belgium.
| | - Kris Dierickx
- Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, KU Leuven, B-3000, Leuven, Belgium
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Pizzolato D, Dierickx K. Research Integrity Supervision Practices and Institutional Support: A Qualitative Study. JOURNAL OF ACADEMIC ETHICS 2022; 21:1-22. [PMID: 36573209 PMCID: PMC9772598 DOI: 10.1007/s10805-022-09468-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/25/2022] [Revised: 12/14/2022] [Accepted: 12/16/2022] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Abstract
Scientific malpractice is not just due to researchers having bad intentions, but also due to a lack of education concerning research integrity practices. Besides the importance of institutionalised trainings on research integrity, research supervisors play an important role in translating what doctoral students learn during research integrity formal sessions. Supervision practices and role modelling influence directly and indirectly supervisees' attitudes and behaviour toward responsible research. Research supervisors can not be left alone in this effort. Research institutions are responsible for supporting supervisors in being more aware of their RI function, and in supporting responsible supervision practices to have a positive cascading effect on supervisees' research practices. We interviewed 22 European research supervisors to investigate how they perceive their role as research integrity trainers and their real-life supervision practices. Moreover, we investigated their points of view concerning the role of research institutions in supporting supervision practices. Although there are different commonalities in supervisors' perception of their research integrity-related role, differences are emphasised depending on the supervisors' characteristics such as academic domain, seniority, working country and gender. In addition, supervisors' way of mentoring depend also on supervisees' learning curve. Overall, all supervisors agreed on institutions playing an important role in support their supervision effort and practices. This study aims to be a starting point for better understanding research integrity supervision practices and the role of institutions in supporting them. Moreover, it puts the basis to further investigate differences in supervision practices depending on supervisors' characteristics. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10805-022-09468-y.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daniel Pizzolato
- Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, KU Leuven, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium
| | - Kris Dierickx
- Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, KU Leuven, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Pizzolato D, Dierickx K. Stakeholders' perspectives on research integrity training practices: a qualitative study. BMC Med Ethics 2021; 22:67. [PMID: 34049556 PMCID: PMC8161563 DOI: 10.1186/s12910-021-00637-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/27/2021] [Accepted: 05/21/2021] [Indexed: 11/25/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Even though research integrity (RI) training programs have been developed in the last decades, it is argued that current training practices are not always able to increase RI-related awareness within the scientific community. Defining and understanding the capacities and lacunas of existing RI training are becoming extremely important for developing up-to-date educational practices to tackle present-day challenges. Recommendations on how to implement RI education have been primarily made by selected people with specific RI-related expertise. Those recommendations were developed mainly without consulting a broader audience with no specific RI expertise. Moreover, the academic literature lacks qualitative studies on RI training practices. For these reasons, performing in-depth focus groups with non-RI expert stakeholders are of a primary necessity to understand and outline how RI education should be implemented. METHODS In this qualitative analysis, different focus groups were conducted to examine stakeholders' perspectives on RI training practices. Five stakeholders' groups, namely publishers and peer reviewers, researchers on RI, RI trainers, PhDs and postdoctoral researchers, and research administrators working within academia, have been identified to have a broader overview of state of the art. RESULTS A total of 39 participants participated in five focus group sessions. Eight training-related themes were highlighted during the focus group discussions. The training goals, timing and frequency, customisation, format and teaching approach, mentoring, compulsoriness, certification and evaluation, and RI-related responsibilities were discussed. Although confirming what was already proposed by research integrity experts in terms of timing, frequency, duration, and target audience in organising RI education, participants proposed other possible implementations strategies concerning the teaching approach, researchers' obligations, and development an evaluation-certification system. CONCLUSIONS This research aims to be a starting point for a better understanding of necessary, definitive, and consistent ways of structuring RI education. The research gives an overview of what has to be considered needed in planning RI training sessions regarding objectives, organisation, and teaching approach.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daniel Pizzolato
- Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, KU Leuven, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
| | - Kris Dierickx
- Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, KU Leuven, 3000, Leuven, Belgium
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Lema YY, Gamo NJ, Yang K, Ishizuka K. Trait and state biomarkers for psychiatric disorders: Importance of infrastructure to bridge the gap between basic and clinical research and industry. Psychiatry Clin Neurosci 2018; 72:482-489. [PMID: 29687938 DOI: 10.1111/pcn.12669] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 04/18/2018] [Indexed: 12/30/2022]
Abstract
To further improve clinical activities in psychiatry by early diagnosis and early intervention with novel mechanism-guided treatments, there is a great need for biomarkers that reflect 'trait' and 'state' in major mental disorders. Stable trait biomarkers would allow early diagnosis, prognosis, and hopefully early intervention in these disorders, while dynamic state markers that reflect symptomatic changes would help to develop treatments that target these molecular mechanisms. However, in the search for such biomarkers, and eventually translating them to the clinic and industry, challenges currently exist at multiple levels, from basic scientific understanding, patient sample collection, and sample and data management, to bridging the gap between basic and clinical research and industry. To address these challenges, we propose an infrastructure that emphasizes: (i) a research and educational framework to facilitate translation between basic neuroscience, clinical research, and industry; (ii) patient recruitment and collection of disease-relevant samples to study trait and state biomarkers; and (iii) a comprehensive database to integrate patient and sample information with biological and clinical data. We believe that such an approach would bolster: research into the biological mechanisms of psychiatric disorders; and collaboration among the laboratory, clinic, and industry to translate these findings into successful treatments.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yukiko Y Lema
- Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, USA
| | - Nao J Gamo
- Department of Biomedical Engineering, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, USA
| | - Kun Yang
- Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, USA
| | - Koko Ishizuka
- Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, USA
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Gamo NJ, Birknow MR, Sullivan D, Kondo MA, Horiuchi Y, Sakurai T, Slusher BS, Sawa A. Valley of death: A proposal to build a "translational bridge" for the next generation. Neurosci Res 2017; 115:1-4. [PMID: 27876581 PMCID: PMC5477974 DOI: 10.1016/j.neures.2016.11.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 29] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/23/2016] [Revised: 11/04/2016] [Accepted: 11/10/2016] [Indexed: 11/19/2022]
Abstract
There is a great need for novel drug discovery for major mental illnesses, but multiple levels of challenges exist in both academia and industry, spanning from scientific understanding and institutional infrastructure to business risk and feasibility. The "valley of death," the large gap between basic scientific research and translation to novel therapeutics, underscores the need to restructure education and academic research to cultivate the fertile interface between academia and industry. In this opinion piece, we propose strategies to educate young trainees in the process of drug discovery and development, and prepare them for careers across this spectrum. In addition, we describe a research framework that considers the disease trajectory and underlying biology of mental disorders, which will help to address the core pathophysiology in novel treatments, and may even allow early detection and intervention. We hope that these changes will increase understanding among academia, industry, and government, which will ultimately improve the diagnosis, prognosis and treatment of mental disorders.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nao J Gamo
- Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21287, United States
| | | | - Danielle Sullivan
- Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21287, United States
| | - Mari A Kondo
- Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21287, United States
| | - Yasue Horiuchi
- Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21287, United States
| | - Takeshi Sakurai
- Department of Drug Discovery Medicine, Medical Innovation Center, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto, Japan
| | - Barbara S Slusher
- Department of Neurology, Johns Hopkins Drug Discovery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21205, United States
| | - Akira Sawa
- Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21287, United States.
| |
Collapse
|