Some would argue that education in the responsible conduct of research (RCR) has focused on learning rules - e.g., don’t fabricate or falsify data; don’t plagiarize; don’t engage in conflicts of interest. Some would posit that the focus of bioethics education has been on learning theory that guides researchers who are faced with looming ethical dilemmas - e.g., when a researcher must weigh the good of using human participants or animal subjects in their experimentation against the good of avoiding their harm. However, most researchers will not have to make decisions of such social magnitude frequently. On the other hand, more researchers may be faced with everyday ethical decisions that can create personal inner conflict. For instance, as competition for resources increases, a researcher might feel he or she has to make a decision that weighs the good that comes from objectivity in research against breaking a rule, for instance exaggerating preliminary data in a grant application, for the good of possibly sustaining his or her research program and staff (but also at the risk of losing everything). What educational programs, what research environment can be fostered, at our institutions to help researchers with such decisions, or better yet, to help them never have to make such decisions? Perhaps there is something that could be gained through greater integration of RCR education and bioethics education? What are your thoughts?

“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?

The National Science Foundation published a notice pertaining to training in responsible conduct of research. The notice is available at http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/E9-19930.htm.

The notice states, “Effective January 4, 2010, NSF will require that, at the time of proposal submission to NSF, a proposing institution’s Authorized Organizational Representative certify that the institution has a plan to provide appropriate training and oversight in the responsible and ethical conduct of research to undergraduates, graduate students, and postdoctoral researchers who will be supported by NSF to conduct research….training plans are not required to be included in proposals submitted to NSF, institutions are advised that they are subject to review upon request.”

It is expected that “NSF also will modify its standard award conditions to clearly stipulate that institutions are responsible for verifying that undergraduate students, graduate students, and postdoctoral researchers supported by NSF to conduct research have received RCR training.”

ORI would like to hear your thoughts about the procedures described in NSF’s notice.

A ruling last month by the United States Supreme Court (Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 129 S.Ct. 2527(2009) requires forensic lab analysts providing evidence in criminal matters to be available to appear in court to be cross-examined about their test results. A written report of results, without the lab technician’s availability to provide testimonial support, is no longer sufficient evidence of the results. The opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, allowing criminal defendants to confront forensic lab analysts at trial pursuant to the confrontation clause in the sixth amendment to the U.S. Constitution, should remind research scientists that the techniques and operational decision-making of everyone in their laboratory, not just their test results and conclusions, can be subject to scrutiny and lab analysts may need to be at-the-ready to defend them.

If required by peer reviewers, journal editors, and publishers, would you or your technicians be able to communicate and document the quality of the work performed?

Should peer reviewers of grants and publications, journal editors and publishers, and the public at large continue to assume the reliability of research results without evidence of the quality of the techniques and procedures used?

If you or a member of your lab was accused of research misconduct, would you have sufficient documentation to support your claimed results?

John Galland
Director, Division of Education & Integrity