A randomized trial of a lab-embedded discourse intervention to improve research ethics

Significance The ethical practice of research requires researchers to give reasons and justifications for their actions, both to the other members of their research team as well as to external audiences. We developed a project-based training curriculum intended to make ethics discourse a routine practice in university science and engineering laboratories. Here, we report the results of a randomized control trial implemented among science and engineering laboratories in two research-intensive institutions. We demonstrate that, compared with the control laboratories, treatment laboratory members perceived improvements in the quality of discourse on research ethics within their laboratories as well as enhanced awareness of the relevance and reasons for that discourse for their work as measured in surveys administered 4 mo after the intervention. We report a randomized trial of a research ethics training intervention designed to enhance ethics communication in university science and engineering laboratories, focusing specifically on authorship and data management. The intervention is a project-based research ethics curriculum that was designed to enhance the ability of science and engineering research laboratory members to engage in reason giving and interpersonal communication necessary for ethical practice. The randomized trial was fielded in active faculty-led laboratories at two US research-intensive institutions. Here, we show that laboratory members perceived improvements in the quality of discourse on research ethics within their laboratories and enhanced awareness of the relevance and reasons for that discourse for their work as measured by a survey administered over 4 mo after the intervention. This training represents a paradigm shift compared with more typical module-based or classroom ethics instruction that is divorced from the everyday workflow and practices within laboratories and is designed to cultivate a campus culture of ethical science and engineering research in the very work settings where laboratory members interact.

[1]  J. Lave.  The Culture of Acquisition and the Practice of Understanding1 , 2021, Situated Cognition.

[2]  K. Esterling,et al.  When Deliberation Produces Persuasion rather than Polarization: Measuring and modeling Small Group Dynamics in a Field Experiment , 2019, British Journal of Political Science.

[3]  Michael W. Kalichman,et al.  Mentoring for Responsible Research: The Creation of a Curriculum for Faculty to Teach RCR in the Research Environment , 2018, Sci. Eng. Ethics.

[4]  Thomas Arrison,et al.  FOSTERING INTEGRITY IN RESEARCH , 2017 .

[5]  E. Heitman,et al.  America COMPETES at 5 years: An Analysis of Research-Intensive Universities’ RCR Training Plans , 2017, Sci. Eng. Ethics.

[6]  Michael Neblo.  Deliberative Democracy between Theory and Practice , 2015 .

[7]  Michael W. Kalichman,et al.  Standards of Scientific Conduct: Disciplinary Differences , 2015, Sci. Eng. Ethics.

[8]  Aki Vehtari,et al.  Practical Bayesian model evaluation using leave-one-out cross-validation and WAIC , 2015, Statistics and Computing.

[9]  K. Esterling,et al.  How Much Disagreement is Good for Democratic Deliberation? , 2015 .

[10]  Michael W. Kalichman,et al.  Standards of Scientific Conduct: Are There Any? , 2014, Sci. Eng. Ethics.

[11]  S. Vasconcelos,et al.  Authorship Guidelines and Actual Practice: Are They Harmonized in Different Research Systems? , 2014, Journal of microbiology & biology education.

[12]  Mary L. Devereaux,et al.  Rethinking the Meaning of Ethics in RCR Education , 2014, Journal of microbiology & biology education.

[13]  M. Kalichman.  A Modest Proposal to Move RCR Education Out of the Classroom and into Research , 2014, Journal of microbiology & biology education.

[14]  Brian A. Nosek,et al.  Promoting Transparency in Social Science Research , 2014, Science.

[15]  M. Kalichman,et al.  Reported Goals of Instructors of Responsible Conduct of Research for Teaching of Skills , 2013, Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE.

[16]  D. Resnik,et al.  Do U.S. Research Institutions Meet or Exceed Federal Mandates for Instruction in Responsible Conduct of Research? A National Survey , 2012, Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges.

[17]  Pedro M. Valero-Mora,et al.  ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis , 2010 .

[18]  Michael C. Sloan.  Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics as the Original Locus for the Septem Circumstantiae , 2010, Classical Philology.

[19]  M. Prior,et al.  You’ve Either Got It or You Don’t? The Stability of Political Interest over the Life Cycle , 2010 .

[20]  A. Froide.  Disciplinary Differences , 2009, Social Science History.

[21]  Hadley Wickham,et al.  ggplot2 - Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis (2nd Edition) , 2017 .

[22]  David W. Nickerson,et al.  Does Discussion Group Composition Affect Policy Preferences? Results from Three Randomized Experiments , 2009 .

[23]  Andrew Gelman,et al.  Why We (Usually) Don't Have to Worry About Multiple Comparisons , 2009, 0907.2478.

[24]  P. Laurienti,et al.  Fostering a Culture of Responsible Lab Conduct , 2008, Science.

[25]  Benjamin K. Sovacool,et al.  Exploring Scientific Misconduct: Isolated Individuals, Impure Institutions, or an Inevitable Idiom of Modern Science? , 2008 .

[26]  Sandra L. Titus,et al.  Repairing research integrity , 2008, Nature.

[27]  Stephen Ansolabehere,et al.  The Strength of Issues: Using Multiple Measures to Gauge Preference Stability, Ideological Constraint, and Issue Voting , 2008, American Political Science Review.

[28]  Jake Bowers,et al.  Covariate balance in simple stratified and clustered comparative studies , 2008, 0808.3857.

[29]  Shane Connelly,et al.  Environmental Influences on Ethical Decision Making: Climate and Environmental Predictors of Research Integrity , 2007 .

[30]  M. Castro.  Placebo versus best-available-therapy control group in clinical trials for pharmacologic therapies: which is better? , 2007, Proceedings of the American Thoracic Society.

[31]  Lucy Carter,et al.  A case for a duty to feed the hungry: GM plants and the third world , 2007, Sci. Eng. Ethics.

[32]  Melissa S. Anderson,et al.  Scientists behaving badly , 2005, Nature.

[33]  Trivellore E Raghunathan,et al.  What do we do with missing data? Some options for analysis of incomplete data. , 2004, Annual review of public health.

[34]  K. Okkenhaug,et al.  Integrity in Scientific Research: Creating an Environment that Promotes Responsible Conduct , 2003, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[35]  J. Butterworth,et al.  Integrity in Scientific Research: Creating an Environment That Promotes Responsible Conduct , 2003 .

[36]  Kelly A Fryer-Edwards.  Addressing the Hidden Curriculum in Scientific Research , 2002, The American journal of bioethics : AJOB.

[37]  K. Pimple,et al.  Six domains of research ethics , 2002, Science and engineering ethics.

[38]  C Whitbeck,et al.  Group mentoring to foster the responsible conduct of research. , 2001, Science and engineering ethics.

[39]  Andrew Thomas,et al.  WinBUGS - A Bayesian modelling framework: Concepts, structure, and extensibility , 2000, Stat. Comput..

[40]  L. Sanders,et al.  Against Deliberation , 1997 .

[41]  Stephen K. White,et al.  Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy@@@The Cambridge Companion to Habermas , 1997 .

[42]  R. Milo,et al.  Tools, language and cognition in human evolution , 1995, International Journal of Primatology.

[43]  Joshua D. Angrist,et al.  Identification of Causal Effects Using Instrumental Variables , 1993 .

[44]  T. Ingold,et al.  Tools, Language and Cognition in Human Evolution , 1993 .

[45]  D. Anderson,et al.  The hidden curriculum. , 1992, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[46]  C. N. Morris,et al.  The calculation of posterior distributions by data augmentation , 1987 .

[47]  J. Cooper,et al.  Cognitive dissonance in an intergroup context. , 1983 .

[48]  Christopher H. Achen.  Mass Political Attitudes and the Survey Response , 1975, American Political Science Review.

[49]  D. Rubin.  Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. , 1974 .

[50]  Simon Jackman,et al.  Democracy as a Latent Variable , 2008 .

[51]  N. Steneck.  Fostering integrity in research: Definitions, current knowledge, and future directions , 2006, Science and engineering ethics.

[52]  W. Wood,et al.  Cognitive dissonance in groups: the consequences of disagreement. , 2005, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[53]  Dennis F. Thompson,et al.  Why deliberative democracy , 2004 .

[54]  Verlin B. Hinsz,et al.  The emerging conceptualization of groups as information processors. , 1997, Psychological bulletin.

[55]  A. Elliot,et al.  On the motivational nature of cognitive dissonance: Dissonance as psychological discomfort. , 1994 .

[56]  James Steele,et al.  KR Gibson and T Ingold (eds) Tools, Language and Cognition in Human Evolution , 1993 .

[57]  Frank I. Michelman,et al.  Between Facts and Norms , 1992 .

[58]  J. Lave.  Cultural psychology: The culture of acquisition and the practice of understanding , 1990 .