Parachute Environmental Science and Engineering

NSF Fellows' perceptions about incentives, research misconduct, and scientific integrity in STEM academia

There is increased concern about perverse incentives, quantitative performance metrics, and hyper-competition for funding and faculty positions in US academia. Recipients of the prestigious National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowships (n = 244) from Civil and Environmental Engineering (45.5%) and Computer Science and Engineering (54.5%) were anonymously surveyed to create a baseline snapshot of their perceptions, behaviors and experiences. NSF Fellows ranked scientific advancement as the top metric for evaluating academics followed by publishing in high-impact journals, social impact of research, and publication/citation counts. The self-reported rate of academic cheating was 16.7% and of research misconduct was 3.7%. Thirty-one percent of fellows reported direct knowledge of graduate peers cheating, and 11.9% had knowledge of research misconduct by colleagues. Only 30.7% said they would report suspected misconduct. A majority of fellows (55.3%) felt that mandatory ethics trainings left them unprepared for dealing with ethical issues. Fellows stated academic freedom, flexible schedules and opportunity to mentor students were the most positive aspects of academia, whereas pressures for funding, publication, and tenure were cited as the most negative aspects. These data may be useful in considering how to better prepare STEM graduate trainees for academic careers.

A Guide for Successful Research Collaborations between Zoos and Universities

Zoos offer university researchers unique opportunities to study animals that would be difficult or impractical to find in the wild. However, the different cultures, goals, and priorities of these institutions can be a source of conflict. How can researchers build mutually beneficial collaborations with their local zoo? In this article, we present the results of a survey of 117 personnel from 59 zoos around the United States, where we highlight best practices spanning all phases of collaboration, from planning to working alongside the zoo and maintaining contact afterward. Collaborations were not possible if university personnel did not appreciate the zoo staff's time constraints as well as the differences between zoo animals and laboratory animals. We include a vision for how to improve zoo collaborations, along with a history of our own decade-long collaborations with Zoo Atlanta. A central theme is the long-term establishment of trust between institutions.