Responsible Science Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process: Volume II (1993) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Part A: Background Papers
Part A: Background Papers
Pages 1-25
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 1... ...
Part A Background Papers
|
From page 3... ...
This paper describes and analyzes some of the actions universities are taking to foster responsible conduct in science and engineering research, beginning wig the most passive steps, those that simply seek to establish normative rules, and progressing through three degrees of proactive policies: monitoring research, promoting discussion, and undertaking institutional reform. Throughout, the term "responsibility" Nicholas H
|
From page 4... ...
NORMATIVE RULES The least burdensome, but not necessarily the most effective, way to foster responsible conduct in science and engineering research is to establish and publicize responsible behavior. Most professional organizations, including those for science and engineering, have published materials relating to professional conduct, such as Sigma Xi's influential Honor in Sciences or the National Institutes of Health's widely used Guidelines for the Conduct of Research.2 These materials have bearing on science and engineering research on university campuses and are commonly used (formally and informally)
|
From page 5... ...
However, their expectations for researchers are more commonly set out within the context of administrative policies dealing with specific problems, such as fraud or misconduct in research, conflict of interest, intellectual property rights, human and animal use in experimentation, computer use, and so on. Piece by piece, these polices provide normative rules that cover most of the major concerns regarding responsible conduct in science and engineering research.
|
From page 6... ...
This statement could easily be rewritten as a set of normative rules for responsible behavior in research: researchers should properly assign credit to others for the work they have done; present original material in only one publication; include in publications only the names of those who have contributed to research; and include the names of coauthors in publications only after seeking permission to do so. In this way, the reactive misconduct policies in place in the major research universities can become proactive statements of expected or normative behavior in research.
|
From page 7... ...
Researchers at Pennsylvania State University can find normative rules for directing graduate students and postdoctoral fellows in their institution's conflict-of-interest policy, which states that it is wrong to direct students into research activities that are designed primarily to serve personal interests rather than to further their ithe students'] scholarly achievement."~° While not easy to apply in difficult cases, i.e., when there is a genuine conflict between the obligations to a grantor and to those hired under the grant, one normative rule that applies to such situations is again made clear: researchers who serve as mentors to students assume obligations to those students and should not compromise these obligations for personal gain or career advancement.
|
From page 8... ...
The latter refers to policies relating to human subjects research review, animal research, radiation safety, biological research review (recombinant DNA research) , and occupational safety and environmental health.~2 Subsequent forms and/or policy statements issued by the human- and animals-use committees, the radiation safety committee, and so on provide further guidance on responsible conduct in research, as, for example, questions and guidance on the humane use of animals (discussed below under monitoring)
|
From page 9... ...
Publications such as Sigma Xi's Horror in Science, the codes of conduct published by professional societies, and the research policies of universities are thus useful documents for raising consciousness and establishing a knowledge base for fostering responsibility in research. The effectiveness of normative rules in fostering responsibility is, however, limited.
|
From page 10... ...
When their laboratory space and salaries depend on the research dollars generated and their promotions on the number of articles published, they can have a hard time believing the normative rules are anything more than guidelines for staying out of trouble. If this is the case, the sense of responsibility that researchers have will be minimal at best.
|
From page 11... ...
In this way, researchers are encouraged to think about and justify their responsibilities when they use animals in research and, simultaneously, their use of animals is monitored. The same procedure is followed for the use of human subjects at Michigan, with the university having a total of twelve peer committees to review grant requests prior to submission.
|
From page 12... ...
Rather than presuming that researchers act responsibly and then raising questions when there is reason to believe someone has acted irresponsibly, asking researchers to discuss their research conduct in advance or to be subjected to constant scrutiny during research places a burden on them to demonstrate that they will act or are acting responsibly. In other words, monitoring presumes guilt rather than assuming innocence.
|
From page 13... ...
Harvard University provides a good example of a top-down approach to promoting discussions of professional ethics, including research ethics. The former president of Harvard University, Derek Bok, has long been a proponent of fostering discussions of ethics in the niv~rcitv ~P.ttins, 18 He was in~trllmenta1 in raising funds to establish ~A · _-vied vet ~ two major professional ethics programs at Harvard, one in me Kennedy School of Government, the other a separate Program in Ethics and the Professions.
|
From page 14... ...
The University of Colorado, Boulder, has taken a different approach to fostering discussions of professional responsibility in research. The Regents of the University of Colorado system vested authority for dealing with research misconduct in a series of standing committees.
|
From page 15... ...
The special sessions were well received. Three have been turned into video tapes that are now circulated to others with similar needs.26 If other universities follow this lead, the new NIH training grant requirement should at a minimum serve to promote discussions of the normative rules for responsible conduct in science and engineering research*
|
From page 16... ...
There are at least two problems that arise if the discussion of responsibility is left exclusively to research settings. First, relying on discussions in research settings to address problems of responsibility is not efficient.
|
From page 17... ...
Their goals are basically the same: to provide opportunities for the consideration of professional responsibility and related issues within the normal context of education and university life.29 It is impossible in this paper to discuss all of the different ways in which the professional responsibility of scientists and engineers is being addressed through institutional reform. Changes have been suggested for the entire spectrum of science education, from elementary schooling to postdoctoral studies, clinical training, and even continuing education.
|
From page 18... ...
Graduate Education Graduate education (including professional and postdoctoral studies) provides a second setting for formal instruction on professional responsibility, either in general or as related specifically to science and engineering research.
|
From page 19... ...
It is for this reason that a few campuses have sought to establish campuswide programs aimed at one or more aspects of the problems and issues associated with professional responsibility. Emory University has recently established its Center for Ethics and Public Policy and the Professions under the directorship of Robert DeHaan, professor of anatomy and cell biology.
|
From page 20... ...
The Poynter Center has recently begun a major new initiative, "Catalyst: Indiana University's Program on Ethics in Research," which is seeking to "increase awareness about research ethics issues among students and faculty, through discussion and through the introduction of course units on research ethics ...."37 The impact is intended to be campuswide, introducing the discussion of research ethics issues into as many different forums and settings as possible, but with some direction and coordination from a single program. ~, ~ OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS The examples given in this report leave little doubt that universities are seeking to foster responsible conduct in research.
|
From page 21... ...
Therefore, even if it is true that basic moral character is set before students come to universities and that basic moral character is what determines whether scientists, engineers, and other researchers act responsibly in research settings, ideas can sometimes be sold for profit
|
From page 22... ...
Ideally, an administration that is willing to devote some of its time, attention, and support to activities that will foster responsible conduct in science, engineering, and scholarship in general, plus a faculty that has the willingness to devote some of its time and energies to students, campus service, and discussion of the role of science and engineering in modern society. Where either one of these ingredients has been lacking, steps to foster responsibility have been slow in coming.
|
From page 23... ...
For example, Harvard University has a general set of guidelines that gives brief normative rules under the headings "Supervision of Research Trainees"; "Data Gathering, Storage, Retention"; "Authorship", "Publication Practices", and "Laboratory Guidelines." See Harvard University Faculty of Medicine, 1988, Guidelines for Investigators in Scientific Research, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. Additional guidance can usually be found in handbooks on administrative procedures published by the offices that oversee research (for an example, see n.
|
From page 24... ...
14. The 13 areas are use of human subjects; use of vertebrate animals; use of radioactive materials; carcinogens; recombinant DNA; biological hazards; proprietary materials; classified research; other restrictions on openness of research; subcontracting; potential conflict of interest; work off university property; and study of another country.
|
From page 25... ...
26. Based on presentation given by Floyd Bloom at the workshop described in DHHS, PHS Workshop, 1990, and on subsequent telephone conversations.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.