1
|
Solomon ED, Antes AL, Cheng SY, Crollard N, Chiu YL, DuBois JM, McIntosh T. Seeking help as a strategy for ethical and professional decision-making in research: Perspectives of researchers from East Asia and the United States. Account Res 2024:1-23. [PMID: 38828607 DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2024.2360945] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/02/2023] [Accepted: 05/23/2024] [Indexed: 06/05/2024]
Abstract
Background: A person's cultural background shapes how they interpret and navigate problems. Given that large numbers of international researchers work and train in the U.S. we sought to better understand how researchers use the decision-making strategy of seeking help to navigate ethical and professional challenges.Methods: Participants (N = 300) were researchers working or training in the U.S. who were born in East Asia (EA) or born in the U.S. They completed a screening survey; then a subset completed think-aloud interviews (n = 66) focused on how they would respond to three hypothetical research scenarios.Results: Thematic analysis of the transcripts showed that seeking help was a commonly endorsed strategy, with some nuances between groups. Themes included seeking help in the form of getting advice, seeking someone to help solve the problem, and gathering information. Endorsement of the seeking help strategy frequently depended on participants' relationships; desiring to seek help from people they trusted. Notably, EA participants tended to prefer seeking help in ways that avoided reputational harm to others.Conclusion: A better understanding of how researchers from different cultural backgrounds use decision-making strategies can inform how to make educational programs more inclusive and comprehensive to more effectively develop researchers' ethical and professional decision-making skills.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Erin D Solomon
- Bioethics Research Center, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
| | - Alison L Antes
- Bioethics Research Center, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
| | - Shih-Ying Cheng
- Bioethics Research Center, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
- Jane Addams College of Social Work, University of Illinois Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Nikia Crollard
- Bioethics Research Center, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
| | - Yi-Lun Chiu
- Bioethics Research Center, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
| | - James M DuBois
- Bioethics Research Center, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
| | - Tristan McIntosh
- Bioethics Research Center, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
De Peuter S, Dierickx K, Meganck M, Lerouge I, Vandevelde W, Storms G. Mismatch in perceptions of the quality of supervision and research data management as an area of concern: Results from a university-wide survey of the research integrity culture at a Belgian university. Account Res 2024:1-32. [PMID: 38374543 DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2024.2318245] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/01/2023] [Accepted: 02/09/2024] [Indexed: 02/21/2024]
Abstract
Researchers of KU Leuven, a large Belgian university, were invited to complete a bespoke questionnaire assessing their attitudes toward research integrity and the local research culture, with specific emphasis on the supervision of junior researchers. A total of 7,353 invitations were sent via e-mail and 1,866 responses were collected (25.3% response rate), of which 1,723 responses are reported upon here. Some of the findings are relevant to the broader research community. Whereas supervisors evaluated their supervision of junior researchers almost unanimously as positive, fewer supervisees evaluated it as such. Data management emerged as an area of concern, both in terms of reviewing raw data and of data storage. More female than male professors emphasized open communication and supported their supervisees' professional development and personal well-being. At the same time, fewer female professors felt safe to speak up than male professors. Finally, researchers who obtained their master's degree outside Europe evaluated their supervision and KU Leuven's research culture more positively than researchers with a master's degree from KU Leuven. The results of the survey were fed back to the university's board and several bodies and served as input to update the university's research policy. Faculties and departments received a detailed report.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Steven De Peuter
- Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - K Dierickx
- Faculty of Medicine, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - M Meganck
- Faculty of Engineering Technology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - I Lerouge
- Research Coordination Office, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - W Vandevelde
- Research Coordination Office, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - G Storms
- Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Haven T, Bouter L, Mennen L, Tijdink J. Superb supervision: A pilot study on training supervisors to convey responsible research practices onto their PhD candidates. Account Res 2023; 30:574-591. [PMID: 35475492 DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2022.2071153] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/18/2022]
Abstract
One way to strengthen research integrity, is through supervision. According to previous research, a supervisor should be well-versed in responsible research practices (RRPs) and possess the necessary interpersonal skills to convey RRPs. We developed a 3-day pilot training for PhD supervisors that combined RRPs and interpersonal skills. Our aim was to assess: perceptions regarding supervision skills (before and after the pilot) and participants' views on combining RRPs and interpersonal skills. Before and after the pilot, we sent the Research Supervision Quality Evaluation survey to the participating PhD supervisors and their PhD candidates. The pilot was concluded with a focus group where participants deliberated over the combination of training in interpersonal skills and RRPs and whether such training should become compulsory. Both supervisors and PhD candidates were more positive about the supervisor's interpersonal skills and the ability to foster RRPs after the training. Participants were enthusiastic about the training's dual focus but believed that making the training compulsory would be undesirable. The results highlight the potential of RRPs training for supervisors. However, caution is warranted, as the results regard a small sample of volunteering supervisors, underscoring the need for larger programs to foster responsible supervision that are rigorously evaluated.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tamarinde Haven
- QUEST Center for Responsible Research, Berlin Institute of Health at Charité - Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Lex Bouter
- Department of Philosophy, Faculty of Humanities, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Louise Mennen
- Mennen Training & Consultancy, Haarlem, The Netherlands
| | - Joeri Tijdink
- Department of Philosophy, Faculty of Humanities, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Ethics, Law and Humanities, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
van den Hoven M, Lindemann T, Zollitsch L, Prieß-Buchheit J. A Taxonomy for Research Intergrity Training: Design, Conduct, and Improvements in Research Integrity Courses. SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING ETHICS 2023; 29:14. [PMID: 37097508 PMCID: PMC10129911 DOI: 10.1007/s11948-022-00425-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/08/2021] [Accepted: 12/10/2022] [Indexed: 06/19/2023]
Abstract
Trainers often use information from previous learning sessions to design or redesign a course. Although universities conducted numerous research integrity training in the past decades, information on what works and what does not work in research integrity training are still scattered. The latest meta-reviews offer trainers some information about effective teaching and learning activities. Yet they lack information to determine which activities are plausible for specific target groups and learning outcomes and thus do not support course design decisions in the best possible manner. This article wants to change this status quo and outlines an easy-to-use taxonomy for research integrity training based on Kirkpatrick's four levels of evaluation to foster mutual exchange and improve research integrity course design. By describing the taxonomy for research integrity training (TRIT) in detail and outlining three European projects, their intended training effects before the project started, their learning outcomes, teaching and learning activities, and their assessment instruments, this article introduces a unified approach. This article gives practitioners references to identify didactical interrelations and impacts and (knowledge) gaps in how to (re-)design an RI course. The suggested taxonomy is easy to use and enables an increase in tailored and evidence-based (re-)designs of research integrity training.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Tom Lindemann
- European Network of Research Ethics Committees, Bonn, Germany
| | - Linda Zollitsch
- Zentrum für Konstruktive Erziehungswissenschaft e.V., Kiel, Germany
| | | |
Collapse
|
5
|
Buedo P, Odziemczyk I, Perek-Białas J, Waligora M. How to embed ethics into laboratory research. Account Res 2023:1-19. [PMID: 36648202 PMCID: PMC10835673 DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2023.2165916] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/13/2022] [Accepted: 01/04/2023] [Indexed: 01/18/2023]
Abstract
Health-related innovation in biotechnology requires anticipating potential bioethical implications. In this article, we present a strategy to embed ethics in a group of early-stage researchers performing research in gene therapy and regenerative medicine in the laboratory phase. We conducted a series of focus group meetings with early-stage researchers who work in biotechnology laboratories. The objective was to reflect on the bioethical challenges of their own work and to promote the integration of research ethics with laboratory practice. The activity was assessed with questionnaires completed by the researchers before and after the meetings, and the analyses of the focus groups' content. As a result of the focus group series, all participants changed their perspectives about ethical issues regarding their planned research, developed the ability to reflect and debate on research ethics and had increased awareness of ethical issues in their own research activities. Half of them made changes in their research work. The study provides a concrete strategy to embed ethics and to strengthen responsibility in laboratory research. It is a strategy that allows to perform ethics reflection "on site" and in "real time" and complements the classic strategy of ethics assessment of the research protocol before starting the research procedure.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Paola Buedo
- Research Ethics in Medicine Study Group (REMEDY), Jagiellonian University Medical College, Krakow, Poland
| | - Idalina Odziemczyk
- Doctoral School in the Social Sciences (Sociological Sciences), Jagellonian University, Cracow, Poland
| | - Jolanta Perek-Białas
- Institute of Sociology, Center for Evaluation and Public Policies Analysis, Jagiellonian University, Cracow, Poland
| | - Marcin Waligora
- Research Ethics in Medicine Study Group (REMEDY), Jagiellonian University Medical College, Krakow, Poland
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Identifying barriers and enablers to rigorous conduct and reporting of preclinical laboratory studies. PLoS Biol 2023; 21:e3001932. [PMID: 36603053 PMCID: PMC9888705 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3001932] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/20/2022] [Revised: 01/31/2023] [Accepted: 11/24/2022] [Indexed: 01/06/2023] Open
Abstract
Use of rigorous study design methods and transparent reporting in publications are 2 key strategies proposed to improve the reproducibility of preclinical research. Despite promotion of these practices by funders and journals, assessments suggest uptake is low in preclinical research. Thirty preclinical scientists were interviewed to better understand barriers and enablers to rigorous design and reporting. The interview guide was informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework, which is a framework used to understand determinants of current and desired behavior. Four global themes were identified; 2 reflecting enablers and 2 reflecting barriers. We found that basic scientists are highly motivated to apply the methods of rigorous design and reporting and perceive a number of benefits to their adoption (e.g., improved quality and reliability). However, there was varied awareness of the guidelines and in implementation of these practices. Researchers also noted that these guidelines can result in disadvantages, such as increased sample sizes, expenses, time, and can require several personnel to operationalize. Most researchers expressed additional resources such as personnel and education/training would better enable the application of some methods. Using existing guidance (Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW); Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project implementation strategies), we mapped and coded our interview findings to identify potential interventions, policies, and implementation strategies to improve routine use of the guidelines by preclinical scientists. These findings will help inform specific strategies that may guide the development of programs and resources to improve experimental design and transparent reporting in preclinical research.
Collapse
|
7
|
Greene D, Palmer MJ, Relman DA. Motivating Proactive Biorisk Management. Health Secur 2023; 21:46-60. [PMID: 36633603 PMCID: PMC9940813 DOI: 10.1089/hs.2022.0101] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/15/2022] [Revised: 10/29/2022] [Accepted: 11/03/2022] [Indexed: 01/13/2023] Open
Abstract
Scholars and practitioners of biosafety and biosecurity (collectively, biorisk management or BRM) have argued that life scientists should play a more proactive role in monitoring their work for potential risks, mitigating harm, and seeking help as necessary. However, most efforts to promote proactive BRM have focused on training life scientists in technical skills and have largely ignored the extent to which life scientists wish to use them (ie, their motivation). In this article, we argue that efforts to promote proactive BRM would benefit from a greater focus on life scientists' motivation. We review relevant literature on life scientists' motivation to practice BRM, offer examples of successful interventions from adjacent fields, and outline ideas for possible interventions to promote proactive BRM, along with strategies for iterative development, testing, and scaling.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daniel Greene
- Daniel Greene, PhD, is a Senior Analyst, Biosafety, Biosecurity & Emerging Technologies, Gryphon Scientific, Takoma Park, MD. Daniel Greene is also a Postdoctoral Fellow, Center for International Security and Cooperation; Stanford University, Stanford, CA
| | - Megan J. Palmer
- Megan J. Palmer, PhD, is Executive Director, Bio Policy & Leadership Initiatives, and an Adjunct Professor, Department of Bioengineering; Stanford University, Stanford, CA
| | - David A. Relman
- David A. Relman, MD, is a Senior Fellow, Center for International Security and Cooperation; Stanford University, Stanford, CA. David A. Relman is also the Thomas C. and Joan M. Merigan Professor, Departments of Medicine, and of Microbiology and Immunology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Ethics and society review: Ethics reflection as a precondition to research funding. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2021; 118:2117261118. [PMID: 34934006 PMCID: PMC8719852 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2117261118] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 11/04/2021] [Indexed: 01/18/2023] Open
Abstract
Researchers in areas as diverse as computer science and political science must increasingly navigate the possible risks of their research to society. However, the history of medical experiments on vulnerable individuals influenced many research ethics reviews to focus exclusively on risks to human subjects rather than risks to human society. We describe an Ethics and Society Review board (ESR), which fills this moral gap by facilitating ethical and societal reflection as a requirement to access grant funding: Researchers cannot receive grant funding from participating programs until the researchers complete the ESR process for their proposal. Researchers author an initial statement describing their proposed research's risks to society, subgroups within society, and globally and commit to mitigation strategies for these risks. An interdisciplinary faculty panel iterates with the researchers to refine these risks and mitigation strategies. We describe a mixed-method evaluation of the ESR over 1 y, in partnership with a large artificial intelligence grant program at our university. Surveys and interviews of researchers who interacted with the ESR found 100% (95% CI: 87 to 100%) were willing to continue submitting future projects to the ESR, and 58% (95% CI: 37 to 77%) felt that it had influenced the design of their research project. The ESR panel most commonly identified issues of harms to minority groups, inclusion of diverse stakeholders in the research plan, dual use, and representation in datasets. These principles, paired with possible mitigation strategies, offer scaffolding for future research designs.
Collapse
|
9
|
Abstract
Researchers must conduct research responsibly for it to have an impact and to safeguard trust in science. Essential responsibilities of researchers include using rigorous, reproducible research methods, reporting findings in a trustworthy manner, and giving the researchers who contributed appropriate authorship credit. This "how-to" guide covers strategies and practices for doing reproducible research and being a responsible author. The article also covers how to utilize decision-making strategies when uncertain about the best way to proceed in a challenging situation. The advice focuses especially on graduate students, but is appropriate for undergraduates and experienced researchers. It begins with an overview of responsible conduct of research, research misconduct, and ethical behavior in the scientific workplace. The takeaway message is that responsible conduct of research requires a thoughtful approach to doing research in order to ensure trustworthy results and conclusions, and that researchers receive fair credit. © 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alison L Antes
- Department of Medicine, Division of General Medical Sciences, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
| | - Leonard B Maggi
- Department of Medicine, Division of Molecular Oncology, Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Laas K, Taylor S, Miller CZ, Brey EM, Hildt E. Views on ethical issues in research labs: A university-wide survey. Account Res 2021; 29:178-201. [PMID: 33780303 DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2021.1910503] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/21/2022]
Abstract
In this article, we summarize the key findings of an exploratory study in which students and faculty completed a survey that sought to identify the most important ethical issues in STEM fields, how often these issues are discussed in research groups, and how often these ethical issues come up in the daily practice of research. Participants answered a series of open-ended and Likert-scale questions to provide a detailed look at the current ethical landscape at a private research university in the Midwest. The survey also looked at potential differences between faculty and undergraduate and graduate students' perceptions in answering these questions. The results indicate that while all community members tended to view issues that can be classified as research misconduct as the most important activities to avoid in STEM-related research, the level of discussion and actual witnessing of these practices was relatively low. The study points to a consensus among students and faculty about the important ethical issues in STEM and the need for more discussion and attention to be paid to communication, collaboration, and interpersonal relationships in the research environment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kelly Laas
- Center for the Study of Ethics in the Professions, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago IL, USA
| | - Stephanie Taylor
- Center for the Study of Ethics in the Professions, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago IL, USA
| | | | - Eric M Brey
- Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Texas, San Antonio TX, USA
| | - Elisabeth Hildt
- Center for the Study of Ethics in the Professions, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago IL, USA
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Assessment of Factors Causing Bias in Marketing- Related Publications. PUBLICATIONS 2020. [DOI: 10.3390/publications8040045] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
The present paper aims at revealing and ranking the factors that most frequently cause bias in marketing-related publications. In order to rank the factors causing bias, the authors employed the Analytic Hierarchy Process method with three different scales representing all scale groups. The data for the study were obtained through expert survey, which involved nine experts both from the academia and scientific publishing community. The findings of the study confirm that factors that most frequently cause bias in marketing related publications are sampling and sample frame errors, failure to specify the inclusion and exclusion criteria for researched subjects and non-responsiveness.
Collapse
|