Assurance
The Meaning of RCR
“Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR)” is a phrase that encompasses a broad range of commonly accepted ethical professional research practices. One view of the meaning of RCR is that it is about an individual making choices in a research program that are ethical and legal, but also that are in-line with the individual’s own conscience, the value system upon which the research is based, and generally acceptable research practices of the scientific discipline within which the individual belongs. Responsible choices for research conduct probably should be well-considered, effective, efficient, timely, protective of resources, considerate of others, and at times innovative. In this sense, does responsible conduct of research include both the concepts of pride-of-ownership and stewardship? Many might agree that responsible conduct of research means making decisions about research practices that will:
(a) Protect animal subjects, human participants, research personnel, and the environment
(b) Be honest and transparent, not deceptive (e.g., falsifying, fabricating, or plagiarizing data or deceitful attribution of authorship)
(c) Be fair by not introducing unwanted bias into research results, conclusions, or inferences (e.g., conflicts of interest and commitment, sloppiness)
(d) Be benevolent, not be malicious (e.g., thievery of ideas, unfair criticism during peer review for personal gain; exploitive of others)
(e) Be open to creativity and innovation
(f) Protect the public trust
What are your thoughts about the meaning of responsible conduct of research?
September 16th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
This is a very good and reasonable description of the responsible conduct of research. On a first reading, I don’t see any major omissions.
Ken Pimple, Indiana University (http://mypage.iu.edu/~pimple)
September 17th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
Dr. Galland takes research ethics to a level that has not received much attention in the literature and he is to be congratulated for his recommendations and stance on the subject. In our edited book (Trimble, J. E. & Fisher, C. (2005). Handbook of ethical considerations in conducting research with ethnocultural populations and communities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage) together with my friend and colleague, Gerald Mohatt at the University of Alaska, we give virtuous and principled ethics ethics considerable attention in the last chapter; our stance takes Dr. Galland’s recommendations a little farther. In essence, we start the section off with the following: “What does it mean to be an ethical person when conducting research with ethnocultural communities? Does it imply that one must be a morally upstanding person who abides by a rigorous set of virtues that cannot be compromised? Does one approach ethical standards by viewing community-based dilemmas from a principled perspective guided by the hard-and-fast rules of objectivity, reason, and impartiality? Is that approach likely to be acceptable to the community’s research partners? Is it possible that one’s character and thus moral and ethical standards are incompatible with those likely to exist in the host research community? These are not mere academic and philosophical questions. The questions bear directly on the nature of relationships a researcher creates with community members if for no other reason because communities will want to know what kind of person they will be working with in due time. Many community residents may not fully comprehend the rigorous principles of the scientific method and the often elegant and sophisticated designs that drive research however they all understand what constitutes good character although their standards indeed sometimes may not be resonant with those of researchers” (p. 327). I can provide anyone whose interested with the complete text for that section. We conclude by stating that, “The rules and dictates of a scientist-centered approach should not overshadow the importance of working in collaboration with a community. Beguiled approaches cloaked in deception and subtle manipulation will eventually betray the underlying motives and character of the self-centered researcher; such attempts undermine the dignity we must value for all people” (p. 331).
Joseph E. Trimble, Distinguished University Professor, Western Washington University
October 12th, 2009 at 7:14 am
Why are animal subjects listed before human participants and research personnel? Is protecting animals (the vast majority of which are mice and rats and flies) of more importance than protecting people?