A Primer on Ethics Education for Stem Cell and Biomedical Scientists

Navigating ethical challenges in the development and translation of biomaterials research

Biomaterials--from implanted iron teeth in the second century to intraocular lenses, artificial joints, and stents today--have long been used clinically. Today, biomaterials researchers and biomedical engineers are pushing beyond these inert synthetic alternatives and incorporating complex multifunctional materials to control biological interactions and direct physiological processes. These advances are leading to novel strategies for targeted drug delivery, drug screening, diagnostics and imaging, gene therapy, tissue regeneration, and cell transplantation. While the field has survived ethical transgressions in the past, the rapidly expanding scope of biomaterials science, combined with the accelerating clinical translation of this diverse field calls for urgent attention to the complex and challenging ethical dilemmas these advances pose. This perspective responds to this call, examining the intersection of research ethics -- the sets of rules, principles and norms guiding responsible scientific inquiry -- and ongoing advances in biomaterials. While acknowledging the inherent tensions between certain ethical norms and the pressures of the modern scientific and engineering enterprise, we argue that the biomaterials community needs to proactively address ethical issues in the field by, for example, updating or adding specificity to codes of ethics, modifying training programs to highlight the importance of ethical research practices, and partnering with funding agencies and journals to adopt policies prioritizing the ethical conduct of biomaterials research. Together these actions can strengthen and support biomaterials as its advances are increasingly commercialized and impacting the health care system.

Best Practice to Order Authors in Multi/Interdisciplinary Health Sciences Research Publications

Misunderstanding and disputes about authorship are commonplace among members of multi/interdisciplinary health research teams. If left unmanaged and unresolved, these conflicts can undermine knowledge sharing and collaboration, obscure accountability for research, and contribute to the incorrect attribution of credit. To mitigate these issues, certain researchers suggest quantitative authorship distributions schemes (e.g., point systems), while others wish to replace or minimize the importance of authorship by using "contributorship"-a system based on authors' self-reporting contributions. While both methods have advantages, we argue that authorship and contributorship will most likely continue to coexist for multiple ethical and practical reasons. In this article, we develop a five-step "best practice" that incorporates the distribution of both contributorship and authorship for multi/interdisciplinary research. This procedure involves continuous dialogue and the use of a detailed contributorship taxonomy ending with a declaration explaining contributorship, which is used to justify authorship order. Institutions can introduce this approach in responsible conduct of research training as it promotes greater fairness, trust, and collegiality among team members and ultimately reduces confusion and facilitates resolution of time-consuming disagreements.