Ethical virtues in scientific research

How can research institutions support responsible supervision and leadership?

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.

Exploring Health Research Priority Setting in a South African Province: A Nominal Group Technique Approach

In August 2022, the Free State Provincial Health Research Committee used the online nominal group technique (NGT) for Health Research Priority Setting (HRPS) for the Free State Department of Health (FSDoH) and the research community, considering various stakeholders' perspectives. This paper explores and describes the identified health research priorities. It also assesses their alignment with the National Health Research Strategy. Additionally, it provides an opinion on the feasibility of using the online NGT for collaborative co-creation of provincial-level health research priorities. Most of the identified health research priorities resonate with the national health research priorities identified by the National Health Research Committee. However, research to "strengthen surveillance" was uniquely perceived to be a priority by the participants in the Free State HRPS exercise. A plausible reason for this might be their heightened awareness of the vital role optimal surveillance systems play in coordinating intersectoral responses to pandemics, particularly considering the serious challenges emerging during the initial stages of the COVID-19 outbreak.

Development of consensus on essential virtues for ethics and research integrity training using a modified Delphi approach

Most ethics and research integrity (ERI) training approaches are based on teaching moral rules, duties or responsibilities, often not sufficiently addressing virtue-based ethics. This study aimed to obtain a consensus among relevant experts on the importance of essential virtues for ERI training and their acquisitions. A modified Delphi consensus process was conducted in three rounds; 31 ERI experts participated in Round 1 and 23 in Round 2 and Round 3. Based on findings generated from qualitative data in Round 1, a structured questionnaire with 90 different statements grouped under five domains was developed for Round 2 and Round 3. After the final round, a consensus was achieved on two-thirds of statements included in this study. The experts agreed that virtues are based on learned and reflected attitudes and that the appropriate direction to acquire research virtues is through continuing education using case studies and discussions based on real-life scenarios. Furthermore, the consensus was obtained on 35 scientific virtues that should be stimulated in ERI training, prioritizing honesty, integrity, accountability, criticism and fairness as the most essential scientific virtues for good research practice. These results should be considered in developing or adjusting the ERI training program and materials.

The relationship between personal and professional goals and emotional state in academia: a study on unethical use of artificial intelligence

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a concept that has been a subfield of computer science since the 1950s. In recent years, with its growing development power, AI technologies have made significant progress and are now being used in many fields. Like in all areas, the use of AI technologies in academia has provided convenience to academics while also bringing ethical debates. In the literature part of the study, concepts such as AI, academia, academics and academic progress, ethics, ethical theories, academic ethics, and emotional states have been thoroughly examined and defined. In this study, starting from AI and scientific ethics, ethical issues arising from emotional states in academic research have been identified, and concrete solutions to these ethical issues have been proposed. The aim is to discuss the views of academics in order to determine what types of scientific ethical violations and prevention methods are involved. In this context, the semi-structured interview technique, which is one of the qualitative research methods, was preferred as the method. In the study, in-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with 4 ethics experts and 4 psychology experts selected through snowball sampling technique. The data obtained through semi-structured in-depth interviews will be analyzed using content analysis. Within the context of the literature review and interviews: Ethics is based on the foundation of acting correctly. In this context, scientific ethics can be summarized as acting truthfully and honestly, not distorting data, and not trying to progress unfairly. The use of AI in academia is becoming increasingly widespread. From a positive perspective, this usage significantly contributes to making studies more practical. However, it can lead to problems such as unfair authorship, devaluation of human authorship, and incorrect data. The connection between academics' professional advancement goals and emotional states becomes prominent in this context. The potential of AI to facilitate progression can lead to unethical use. To prevent such situations, it is recommended to organize training sessions to increase professional awareness, internalize ethics personally, establish ethical committees specific to the field of AI, conduct more effective audits by academic publication and promotion committees, and implement specific regulations for AI. Finally, for future academic studies, it is suggested that the usage of AI in academic research be measured and evaluated by ethics experts. For psychologists, conducting surveys with academics to explore how they use AI in the context of their emotional states and professional advancement goals is recommended.

Teaching research integrity as discussed in research integrity codes: A systematic literature review

Presented here is a systematic literature review of how RI teaching is discussed in national and international research integrity (RI) codes. First, we set out to identify the codes that exist, and performed some generic analysis on them. Following a comprehensive search strategy, which included all 193 United Nations member states, we identified 52 national and 14 international RI codes. RI teaching is addressed in 46 national and 10 international codes. We then examined how the codes address RI teaching under the following headings: the aims, the target audience, the ethics approach proposed, the assessment and/or evaluation strategy, and any challenges identified in relation to RI teaching. There is considerable overlap between the aims of RI teaching in the various codes, for example, promoting awareness of RI. Most codes claim RI teaching is for all researchers, but without any in-depth guidance. While educational programmes, training, and mentorship/supervision are proposed for RI teaching, there is insufficient detail to identify the ethics approach to be used in such teaching. Lastly, only few address assessment and/or evaluation or challenges in RI teaching. Here, we analyzed how current codes address RI teaching; we identified some shortfalls, and in our discussion we advance recommendations.

A Survey Study on Knowledge and Attitude Toward the Ethics Committee and Research Ethical Practices Among Researchers From Kuwait

The integrity of research findings and the safety of participants who voluntarily consent to participate in research studies must be assured through ethical approaches. Additionally, ethical guidelines and the ethics committee protect participants from unfair practices by the research team. Therefore, this study aims to assess the knowledge and attitudes toward the ethics committee and research ethical practices among the researchers of a diabetes institute in Kuwait. An anonymous survey was conducted through an online questionnaire using Microsoft Forms. The study had a response rate of 86%. Among the 55 participants in this study, 43 (78%) had ethics training. Researchers involved in more than four research projects were shown to have a much higher awareness of the ethics committee and its role than researchers involved in no projects. Approximately 90% of researchers had training in research ethics and were knowledgeable about informed consent forms and assent, as well as additional protections for vulnerable populations. Ninety-eight percent of respondents were of the view that an ethics committee was necessary. Our study concluded that most of the researchers at the institute were aware of the role of the ethics committee, and ethical principles. However, we recommend that continuous and customized training on research ethics should be provided.

Institutional capacity to prevent and manage research misconduct: perspectives from Kenyan research regulators

BACKGROUND

Research misconduct i.e. fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism is associated with individual, institutional, national, and global factors. Researchers' perceptions of weak or non-existent institutional guidelines on the prevention and management of research misconduct can encourage these practices. Few countries in Africa have clear guidance on research misconduct. In Kenya, the capacity to prevent or manage research misconduct in academic and research institutions has not been documented. The objective of this study was to explore the perceptions of Kenyan research regulators on the occurrence of and institutional capacity to prevent or manage research misconduct.

METHODS

Interviews with open-ended questions were conducted with 27 research regulators (chairs and secretaries of ethics committees, research directors of academic and research institutions, and national regulatory bodies). Among other questions, participants were asked: (1) How common is research misconduct in your view? (2) Does your institution have the capacity to prevent research misconduct? (3) Does your institution have the capacity to manage research misconduct? Their responses were audiotaped, transcribed, and coded using NVivo software. Deductive coding covered predefined themes including perceptions on occurrence, prevention detection, investigation, and management of research misconduct. Results are presented with illustrative quotes.

RESULTS

Respondents perceived research misconduct to be very common among students developing thesis reports. Their responses suggested there was no dedicated capacity to prevent or manage research misconduct at the institutional and national levels. There were no specific national guidelines on research misconduct. At the institutional level, the only capacity/efforts mentioned were directed at reducing, detecting, and managing student plagiarism. There was no direct mention of the capacity to manage fabrication and falsification or misconduct by faculty researchers. We recommend the development of Kenya code of conduct or research integrity guidelines that would cover misconduct.

The Mentor's Role in Fostering Research Integrity Standards Among New Generations of Researchers: A Review of Empirical Studies

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.

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.

Research Integrity Supervision Practices and Institutional Support: A Qualitative Study

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.

The Ethics of Financial Incentivization for Health Research Participation Among Sex Workers in a Canadian Context

Research incentivization with sex workers is common, yet limited guidance exists for ethical incentives practice. We undertook a critical qualitative inquiry into how researchers (n = 17), community services staff (n = 17), and sex workers participating in research (n = 53) perceive incentives in a Canadian context. We employed an interpretive thematic approach informed by critical perspectives of relational autonomy for analysis. Four themes illustrate how (un)ethical use of incentives is situated in transactional micro-economies among groups experiencing severe marginalization: i) transactional research economy, ii) incentive type: assumptions and effects, iii) incentive amount: too much too little?, and iv) resistance, trauma, and research-related harm. Paternalistic assumptions about capacities of sex workers to act in their own best interests conflicted with participants' rights and abilities for self-determination; with researchers maintaining ultimate decision-making authority. Power differentials create conditions of harm. Safe, equitable approaches concerning research incentive use must redress relations of power that perpetuate oppression.

Strategies for success in a nursing PhD program and beyond

PURPOSE

The purpose of this article is to inform newly enrolled PhD students of program expectations, strategies for success, and next steps in the career of a nurse scientist.

METHODS

We used empirical evidence and insights from the authors to describe strategies for success during a nursing PhD program and continued career development following graduation.

FINDINGS

Measures of success included maintaining health, focus, integrity, and a supportive network, identifying mentors, pursuing new knowledge and advancing research to transform health outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Nursing PhD programs help to shape future researchers and leaders. Choosing to obtain a PhD in nursing is an investment in oneself, the discipline, and the science.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Nursing PhD programs offer opportunities to advance science, impact healthcare and health outcomes, and prepare for a variety of career opportunities. Informing newly enrolled PhD students may better prepare them for what lies ahead and facilitate student retention.

Teaching phronesis in a research integrity course

More and more research institutions are implementing courses in research integrity (RI). Recent studies indicate that teachers of RI courses are increasingly adopting a “phronetic” approach to their teaching, where the focus is on nurturing values and practical wisdom—what Aristotle called phronesis. When adopting a phronetic approach, it is important to understand what phronesis in relation to RI entails and how and to what extent an RI course can contribute to the development of research phronesis. This paper contains a practice-based discussion of the realistic aims of RI courses and a first step towards a specification of the skill set necessary for developing research phronesis drawing on experiences from the PhD courses on Responsible Conduct of Research at the University of Copenhagen. We discuss the limited extent to which research phronesis can be taught in short courses and examine the broader implications of this for the role of RI courses in the training of good researchers.

Virtue-based ethics and integrity of research: train-the-trainer programme for upholding the principles and practices of the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (VIRT2UE)

Background: Recognising the importance of addressing ethics and research integrity (ERI) in Europe, in 2017, the All European Academies (ALLEA) published a revised and updated European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (ECoC). Consistent application of the ECoC by researchers across Europe will require its widespread dissemination, as well as an innovative training programme and novel tools to enable researchers to truly uphold and internalise the principles and practices listed in the Code.

Aim: VIRT2UE aims to develop a sustainable train-the-trainer blended learning programme enabling contextualised ERI teaching across Europe focusing on understanding and upholding the principles and practices of the ECoC.

Vision: The VIRT2UE project recognises that researchers not only need to have knowledge of the ECoC, but also to be able to truly uphold and internalise the principles underpinning the code. They need to learn how to integrate them into their everyday practice and understand how to act in concrete situations. VIRT2UE addresses this challenge by providing ERI trainers and researchers with an innovative blended (i.e. combined online and off-line approaches) learning programme that draws on a toolbox of educational resources and incorporates an e-learning course (including a YouTube channel) and face-to-face sessions designed to foster moral virtues. ERI trainers and researchers from academia and industry will have open access to online teaching material. Moreover, ERI trainers will learn how to facilitate face-to-face sessions of researchers, which focus on learning how to apply the content of the teaching material to concrete situations in daily practice.

Objectives: VIRT2UE’s work packages (WP) will: conduct a conceptual mapping amongst stakeholders to identify and rank the virtues which are essential for good scientific practice and their relationship to the principles and practices of the ECoC (WP1); identify and consult ERI trainers and the wider scientific community to understand existing capacity and deficiencies in ERI educational resources (WP2); develop the face-to-face component of the train-the-trainer programme which provides trainers with tools to foster researchers’ virtues and promote the ECoC and iteratively develop the programme based on evaluations (WP3); produce educational materials for online learning by researchers and trainers (WP4); implement and disseminate the train-the-trainer programme across Europe, ensuring the training of sufficient trainers for each country and build capacity and consistency by focusing on underdeveloped regions and unifying fragmented efforts (WP5); and develop the online training platform and user interface, which will be instrumental in evaluation of trainers’ and researchers’ needs and project sustainability (WP6).

Impact: The VIRT2UE training programme will promote consistent application of the ECoC across Europe. The programme will affect behaviour on the individual level of trainers and researchers – simultaneously developing an understanding of the ECoC and other ERI issues, whilst also developing scientific virtues, enabling the application of the acquired knowledge to concrete situations and complex moral dilemmas. Through a dedicated embedding strategy, the programme will also have an impact on an institutional level. The train-the-trainer approach multiplies the impact of the programme by reaching current and future European ERI trainers and, subsequently, the researchers they train.

Stakeholders' perspectives on research integrity training practices: a qualitative study

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.

Perspectives of key stakeholders on essential virtues for good scientific practice in research areas

In contrast to the principle-based approach to ethics and research integrity (ERI) training, which stresses the importance of following moral rules, the virtue-based approach focuses on developing good character traits. This study has aimed to explore what virtues mean in scientific practice and their suitable place in ERI training, using a qualitative approach. Two face-to-face focus group discussions were conducted with 21 participants. Heterogeneous purposive sampling was used to reach participants from different countries, organization types (academia, research, publishing, private sector), scientific disciplines and stages of their scientific careers. Data generated during the focus group discussions were analyzed using a reflexive thematic analysis approach, and three main themes were developed. The first theme addressed the relativity of virtue meanings because the participants differed in their definitions and understandings of the concept of virtue. The second theme referred to the acquisition of virtues through social interactions because participants saw virtues mostly as social constructs acquired through socialization and education. The third theme addressed the differences in the importance of particular virtues in research. Participants felt that particular virtues were more important than others because some of them are necessary for responsible research, and some are not.

Dialogical teaching of research integrity: an overview of selected methods

This communication discusses the dialogical methods of teaching research integrity and ethics as a part of the positive integrity trend focused on supporting ethical behaviour. The aim of this paper is to offer a brief overview of the selected dialogical strategies based on cases that can be successfully implemented in teaching ethical research and when sharing experiences on good scientific practice. We describe such methods as: storytelling, rotatory role playing, and the fishbowl debate, along with the “Dilemma Game” tool, “ConscienceApp” performance, and a flipped classroom idea. These theoretical considerations are based on research conducted as part of a European project under the Horizon 2020 programme.

Using normative ethics for building a good evaluation of research practices: towards the assessment of researcher’s virtues

In this paper, we propose the adoption of moral philosophy and in particular normative ethics, to clarify the concept of “good” evaluation of “research practices”. Using MacIntyre (1985)’s notion of a practice we argue that research is a form of social practice. As a result of this characterization, we claim that research practice typically requires three typologies of researcher: the leader, the good researcher and the honest researcher. Reflecting on what is a “good” research practice and on what is the role of researchers in it provides insight into some aspects of both the self-assessment process and how this promotes individual improvement. Moreover, this kind of reflection helps us to describe the functions (missions) of the research practices. A “good” evaluation should take into account all the building constituents of a “good” research practice and should be able to discriminate between good and bad research practices, while enforcing the functions of good research practices. We believe that these reflections may be the starting point for a paradigm shift in the evaluation of research practices which replaces an evaluation centred on products with an evaluation focused on the functions of these practices. In the last sections of the paper, we introduce and discuss an important aspect for the implementation of the proposed framework. This relates to the assessment of the virtues of researchers involved in a good research practice. Some examples of questions and preliminary items to include in a questionnaire for the assessment of Virtues in Research Practices are also provided.

Improving open and rigorous science: ten key future research opportunities related to rigor, reproducibility, and transparency in scientific research

Background: As part of a coordinated effort to expand research activity around rigor, reproducibility, and transparency (RRT) across scientific disciplines, a team of investigators at the Indiana University School of Public Health-Bloomington hosted a workshop in October 2019 with international leaders to discuss key opportunities for RRT research. Objective: The workshop aimed to identify research priorities and opportunities related to RRT. Design: Over two-days, workshop attendees gave presentations and participated in three working groups: (1) Improving Education & Training in RRT, (2) Reducing Statistical Errors and Increasing Analytic Transparency, and (3) Looking Outward: Increasing Truthfulness and Accuracy of Research Communications. Following small-group discussions, the working groups presented their findings, and participants discussed the research opportunities identified. The investigators compiled a list of research priorities, which were circulated to all participants for feedback. Results: Participants identified the following priority research questions: (1) Can RRT-focused statistics and mathematical modeling courses improve statistics practice?; (2) Can specialized training in scientific writing improve transparency?; (3) Does modality (e.g. face to face, online) affect the efficacy RRT-related education?; (4) How can automated programs help identify errors more efficiently?; (5) What is the prevalence and impact of errors in scientific publications (e.g., analytic inconsistencies, statistical errors, and other objective errors)?; (6) Do error prevention workflows reduce errors?; (7) How do we encourage post-publication error correction?; (8) How does 'spin' in research communication affect stakeholder understanding and use of research evidence?; (9) Do tools to aid writing research reports increase comprehensiveness and clarity of research reports?; and (10) Is it possible to inculcate scientific values and norms related to truthful, rigorous, accurate, and comprehensive scientific reporting? Conclusion: Participants identified important and relatively unexplored questions related to improving RRT. This list may be useful to the scientific community and investigators seeking to advance meta-science (i.e. research on research).

Collecting and characterizing existing and freely accessible research integrity educational resources

In addition to effective training practices, well-structured educational resources are important for developing successful research integrity training programs. A considerable amount of educational material has been developed in the last years, but there is a necessity to find better ways to assess and categorize the already existing resources. We collected 237 freely available online RI educational resources with the aim to describe them in as much detail as possible using a set of well-defined criteria. We developed a grid that gives a full description, based on our 21 criteria, for each collected resource. Mainly videos and online RI training are present in our collection. Worldwide, resources are mainly from the US, whereas in Europe mainly from the UK. In the majority of the cases, the educational resources are not customized, presenting the big three (falsification, fabrication, and plagiarism) as the most addressed topics. Making RI educational resources easily accessible might help to increase awareness about the topic. Moreover, the characterization we provide might help researchers and students to deal with daily RI-related issues, to look for the right tool at the right time, and might help institutions and trainers to develop new trainings without the need to develop new tools.Abbreviations: CITI: Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative; COPE: Committee on Publication Ethics; ENERI: European Network of Research Ethics and Research Integrity; ENRIO: the European Network of Research Integrity Offices; EU: European Union; NIH: National Institutes of Health; NSF: National Science Foundation; NRIN: the Netherlands Research Integrity Network; ORI: the Office of Research Integrity; PPT: powerpoint; QRP: questionable research practice; RI: research integrity; RCR: responsible conduct of research.

How do researchers acquire and develop notions of research integrity? A qualitative study among biomedical researchers in Switzerland

Background

Structured training in research integrity, research ethics and responsible conduct of research is one strategy to reduce research misconduct and strengthen reliability of and trust in scientific evidence. However, how researchers develop their sense of integrity is not fully understood. We examined the factors and circumstances that shape researchers’ understanding of research integrity.

Methods

This study draws insights from in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 33 researchers in the life sciences and medicine, representing three seniority levels across five research universities in Switzerland.

Results

The results of this study indicate that early education, moral values inculcated by the family and participation in team sports were the earliest influences on notions of honesty, integrity and fairness among researchers. Researchers’ personality traits, including degree of ambition and internal moral compass, were perceived as critical in determining the importance they attributed to conducting research with high ethical standards. Positive and negative experiences in early research life also had a significant impact on their views regarding research integrity. Two thirds of the study participants had not received any formal training in research integrity. Their awareness of training opportunities at their institutions was also limited.

Conclusion

Age-appropriate development of honesty and integrity starts as early as primary education. Research integrity training should be offered from the bachelors level and continue throughout the entire professional life of researchers. Although these courses may not imbue researchers with integrity itself, they are essential to improving the research culture, reinforcing integrity norms, and discouraging researchers who lack personal integrity from engaging in research misconduct.

Service evaluation: A grey area of research?

The National Health Service in the United Kingdom categorises research and research-like activities in five ways, such as 'service evaluation', 'clinical audit', 'surveillance', 'usual practice' and 'research'. Only activities classified as 'research' require review by the Research Ethics Committees. It is argued, in this position paper, that the current governance of research and research-like activities does not provide sufficient ethical oversight for projects classified as 'service evaluation'. The distinction between the categories of 'research' and 'service evaluation' can be a grey area. A considerable percentage of studies are considered as non-research and therefore not eligible to be reviewed by the Research Ethics Committee, which scrutinises research proposals rigorously to ensure they conform to established ethical standards, protecting research participants from harm, preserving their rights and providing reassurance to the public. This article explores the ethical discomfort potentially inherent in the activity currently labelled as 'service evaluation'.

The visibility of scientific misconduct: A review of the literature on retracted journal articles

Retractions of scientific articles are becoming the most relevant institution for making sense of scientific misconduct. An increasing number of retracted articles, mainly attributed to misconduct, is currently providing a new empirical basis for research about scientific misconduct. This article reviews the relevant research literature from an interdisciplinary context. Furthermore, the results from these studies are contextualized sociologically by asking how scientific misconduct is made visible through retractions. This study treats retractions as an emerging institution that renders scientific misconduct visible, thus, following up on the sociology of deviance and its focus on visibility. The article shows that retractions, by highlighting individual cases of misconduct and general policies for preventing misconduct while obscuring the actors and processes through which retractions are effected, produce highly fragmented patterns of visibility. These patterns resemble the bifurcation in current justice systems.

The relational responsibilities of scientists: (Re) considering science as a practice

Studies of science are increasingly drawing attention to the highly communal nature of research. Ethics, sociology, philosophy, and anthropology of science all emphasize the key role that collaborative actions play in the generation of scientific knowledge. Nonetheless, despite the increasing interest in these communal aspects of scientific research, studies on the relationships underpinning communality are commonly focused on the how the individual interacts with their peers and contributes to the epistemic activities of science. In contrast, there is little literature that broadens out the scope of this analysis to consider the multidimensional nature of these research relationships. In particular, little is said about how scientists mediate their social interactions with peers during daily laboratory research. Less, indeed, is said about the tradition of ‘learning through example’ that characterizes most in situ laboratory training.

All of these relational activities are of critical importance in sustaining and perpetuating the practice of science. It therefore becomes important to ask how we understand these relational activities directed towards building and sustaining relationships in different loci for the primary purpose of strengthening the practice of research and sustaining the traditions of scientific research. Moreover, it is vital to consider how discussions on responsibility may be cached out for individual scientists.

This article employs a virtue ethics approach to consider these issues. It begins by sketching out the plethora of different relationships present in daily laboratory practice using existing ethnographic studies. It then uses virtue ethics to identify specific responsibilities that individual scientists have in cultivating and safeguarding the development of these relationships. It concludes by suggesting ways in which these issues may be taken up in teaching responsible conduct to scientists.

Ethico-legal issues related to ovarian tissue transplantation

Ovarian tissue transplantation (OTT) is a promising experimental method which may soon become well-established. In cases of minor oncology, where patients' fertility is seriously threatened by treatment, it may be applied as a unique fertility preservation option. OTT has a dual nature ('organ' and 'gamete'). Many stakeholders are involved, including donor, recipient, child, health-care providers and society at large. There is considerable uncertainty about the long-term consequences of the application of OTT and OT cryopreservation (OTC). Thus, application of OTT gives rise to a number of very different ethico-legal issues and dilemmas which are hard to solve coherently through a principlism-based bioethical approach. This study focuses on such dilemmas and attempts to review them. The role of virtue ethics, which may be combined with principlism, is essential to solve such dilemmas coherently and reasonably. Dealing with conflicts of ethical principles equivalent between them, or moral dilemmas without available answers and mind-sharing in a difficult interpersonal process of decision making, requires a virtue-based ethical approach. Besides, ethico-legal issues related to OTC/OTT are complex issues requiring a multidisciplinary approach (ethical considerations, medical, psychological and social evaluations etc.). We stress the crucial role of multidisciplinary Ethics Committee which is considered indispensable for each reproductive health-care unit practicing OTC/OTT.

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

Programs 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.

Engineering Values Into Genetic Engineering: A Proposed Analytic Framework for Scientific Social Responsibility

Recent experiments have been used to "edit" genomes of various plant, animal and other species, including humans, with unprecedented precision. Furthermore, editing the Cas9 endonuclease gene with a gene encoding the desired guide RNA into an organism, adjacent to an altered gene, could create a "gene drive" that could spread a trait through an entire population of organisms. These experiments represent advances along a spectrum of technological abilities that genetic engineers have been working on since the advent of recombinant DNA techniques. The scientific and bioethics communities have built substantial literatures about the ethical and policy implications of genetic engineering, especially in the age of bioterrorism. However, recent CRISPr/Cas experiments have triggered a rehashing of previous policy discussions, suggesting that the scientific community requires guidance on how to think about social responsibility. We propose a framework to enable analysis of social responsibility, using two examples of genetic engineering experiments.

Involuntary euthanasia of severely ill newborns: is the Groningen Protocol really dangerous?

Advances in medicine can reduce active euthanasia of newborns with severe anomalies or unusual prematurity, but they cannot eliminate it. In the Netherlands, voluntary active euthanasia among adults and adolescents has been allowed since 2002, when the so-called Groningen Protocol (GP) was formulated as an extension of the law on extremely premature and severely ill newborns. It is maintained that, at bioethical level, it serves the principle of beneficence. Other European countries do not accept the GP, including Belgium. Admissibility of active euthanasia is a necessary, though inadequate, condition for acceptance of the GP. Greece generally prohibits euthanasia, although the legal doctrine considers some of the forms of euthanasia permissible, but not active or involuntary euthanasia. The wide acceptance of passive newborns euthanasia, especially when the gestational age of the newborns is 22-25 weeks ("grey zone"), admissibility of practices within the limits between active and passive euthanasia (e.g., withholding/withdrawing), of "indirect active euthanasia" and abortion of the late fetus, the tendency to accept after-birth-abortion (infanticide) in the bioethical theory, the lower threshold for application of withdrawing in neonatal intensive care units compared with pediatric intensive care units, all the above advocate wider acceptance of the GP. However, the GP paves the way for a wide application of involuntary (or pseudo-voluntary) euthanasia (slippery slope) and contains some ambiguous concepts and requirements (e.g., "unbearable suffering"). It is suggested that the approach to the sensitive and controversial ethical dilemmas concerning the severely ill newborns is done not through the GP, but rather, through a combination of virtue bioethics (especially in the countries of the so-called "Mediterranean bioethical zone") and of the principles of principlism which is enriched, however, with the "principle of mutuality" (enhancement of all values and principles, especially with the principles of "beneficence" and "justice"), in order to achieve the "maximal" bioethical approach, along with the establishment of circumstances and alternatives that minimize or eliminate the relevant bioethical dilemmas and conflicts between the fundamental principles. Thus, the most appropriate/fairest choices are made (by trained parents and physicians), considering all interests involved as much as possible. Hippokratia 2014; 18 (3): 196-203.