Sci Eng Ethics DOI 10.1007/s11948-014-9545-9 ORIGINAL PAPER
A Room with a View of Integrity and Professionalism: Personal Reflections on Teaching Responsible Conduct of Research in the Neurosciences Emily Bell
Received: 27 January 2014 / Accepted: 10 April 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014
Abstract Neuroscientists are increasingly put into situations which demand critical reflection about the ethical and appropriate use of research tools and scientific knowledge. Students or trainees also have to know how to navigate the ethical domains of this context. At a time when neuroscience is expected to advance policy and practice outcomes, in the face of academic pressures and complex environments, the importance of scientific integrity comes into focus and with it the need for training at the graduate level in the responsible conduct of research (RCR). I describe my experience teaching RCR in a graduate neuroscience program and identify three personal reflections where further dialogue could be warranted: (1) mobilizing a common set of competencies and virtues standing for professionalism in the neurosciences; (2) tailoring RCR for the neurosciences and empowering students through the active engagement of mentors; (3) soliciting shared responsibility for RCR training between disciplines, institutions and governmental or funding agencies. Keywords Responsible conduct of research Professionalism Neuroscience Neuroethics Education
In today’s academic environment the pressures are extreme. Investigators are competing over limited research funds and neuroscientists are increasingly put into situations which demand critical reflection about the ethical and appropriate use of E. Bell (&) Neuroethics Research Unit, Institut de recherches cliniques de Montreal, 110 Avenue des Pins Ouest, Montreal, QC H2M 1R7, Canada e-mail: [email protected] E. Bell Department of Neurosurgery and Neurology, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada
123
E. Bell
research tools and scientific knowledge. Neuroscientists are tasked to reflect on the ethical challenges raised by emerging neuroscientific technologies, the possibilities of dual use research, the discovery of incidental brain imaging findings, and are expected to actively consider the responsible communication of neuroscience research (Wolf et al. 2008; Illes et al. 2010; The Royal Society 2012). The particular nature of neuroscience research, its ability to shape knowledge about human thoughts and behavior, to meaningfully advance the care of those with neurological or psychiatric disorders, and to reveal insight about human morality, have led to the development of a subfield of bioethical study dedicated to these issues known as neuroethics, in which neuroscientists have been actively involved (Marcus 2002). Dedicated research funding in the US promises to ‘‘accelerat(e) the development and application of innovative technologies…to produce a revolutionary new dynamic picture of the brain’’ (Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative, http://www.nih.gov/science/brain/). Within this context, we can assume creative approaches may be needed to tackle emerging ethical challenges, especially where ‘‘ambitious goals’’ will necessitate the coordination of neuroscientists (Leshner 2013), and negotiation between private industry, foundations, funding bodies and public institutions (National Institutes of Health, Advisory Committee to the Director 2013). It can also be anticipated that even more students will be drawn into the neurosciences by promises of translational and interdisciplinary studies. At a time when neuroscience is expected to advance policy and practice outcomes (Leshner 2013), students or trainees also have to know how to navigate the ethical domains of this context. In the face of such pressures and complex environments, the importance of scientific integrity comes into focus and with it the need for training at the graduate level in the responsible conduct of research (RCR). A range of specific goals for RCR education have been put forward, including the empowerment of trainees (Kalichman 2007), the development of ethical decision making or moral reasoning skills (Plemmons and Kalichman 2013), the increased awareness of ethical issues (Dubois and Dueker 2009), promotion of and valuing of RCR (Kalichman 2007), as well as other behavioral goals (i.e., ‘‘to motivate people to do what is right’’) (Dubois and Dueker 2009). Demonstrably, there is not only a wide variety of objectives backing RCR education, but instructors report a range of intentions related to skills development (i.e., conflict resolution, communication, critical thinking, finding RCR resources) (Plemmons and Kalichman 2013), content and approaches (Kalichman 2013). This is despite the fact that, in the US, the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) has identified nine core areas for RCR training, suggesting a common broad curriculum among courses (Jones 2007). The NIH has also mandated RCR training since the late 1980s, although Kalichman (2013) suggests the requirement may not be taken seriously. In the Canadian context, the recently released framework by the Tri Council Agency (representing the three national funding bodies for social sciences, natural sciences and health sciences) promotes RCR by strengthening the process for reporting, investigating and acting upon allegations of misconduct (Panel on Responsible Conduct of Research 2011; Zimmerman and Wallace 2013), yet the policy does not make provisions to ensure congruent RCR training for graduate students. Despite practical limitations in the
123
A Room with a View of Integrity and Professionalism
administration and adoption of RCR training, the importance of ethics education in the form of RCR should not be underestimated. Rather, RCR courses may contribute to the broader notion of professionalism for researchers (Jones et al. 2010). As a means of fostering professional virtues (Dubois and Dueker 2009) and establishing the necessary moral competencies of scientists, the learning of RCR (and the commitment to teaching RCR) offers a venue to exchange about the key shared values and principles for practice in a particular field of study such as neuroscience. In what follows, I describe my own experience teaching RCR for a graduate neuroscience program at a Canadian University and I identify three personal reflections where further dialogue could be warranted: (1) mobilizing a common set of competencies and virtues standing for professionalism in the neurosciences; (2) tailoring RCR for the neurosciences and empowering students through active engagement of mentors; (3) soliciting shared responsibility for RCR training between disciplines, institutions and government or funding agencies.
Description of the RCR Course for Graduate Students in the Neurosciences There are more than 300 MSc and PhD students registered in graduate studies through the Integrated Program in Neuroscience (IPN) at McGill University (Montreal, Canada) making it one of the largest neuroscience graduate programs in North America (http://www.mcgill.ca/ipn/prospective). Moreover, McGill University has a renowned history in the fields of neuroscience (e.g., Wilder Penfield, Brenda Milner) and medicine (e.g., William Osler). Graduate students entering the IPN have been required to attend two mandatory half-day RCR workshops since 2010. The workshops aim to cover both important content and skills necessary to promote research integrity and have been refined through feedback from implicated faculty and student evaluations (See Table 1). In order to meet these objectives a workshop format is employed. Half of each session is allocated to lectures and group discussion of the following topics: (1) research misconduct, (2) publication practices and responsible authorship (including conflicts of interest), (3) data management and manipulation and (4) human subject research ethics. The other half of each session is spent discussing key tensions which emerged in the lectures and analyzing one or two cases in small groups (approximately 8 students) facilitated by a faculty member. Some of the cases are modified from online resources such as the Online Ethics Center for Engineering (‘‘Role-Play Scenarios for Teaching Responsible Conduct of Research’’, www. onlineethics.org/Topics/RespResearch/ResCases/RCRroleplays.aspx) while others are inspired by definitive ethical issues present in neuroscience research and in data management. Primarily, these small group exercises invite students to engage a framework of ethical decision-making where they are prompted to identify the ethical issues present in the case, recognize the ethical conflicts, the values brought by involved stakeholders, institutional, professional and federal obligations, and to seek an understanding of what moral reasons shape their actions [where facilitator guides have been shaped around the ethical decision making framework presented in the Office of Research Integrity’s The Lab activity (http://ori.hhs.gov/thelab)].
123
E. Bell Table 1 Objectives of the RCR course Content objectives Raise awareness about key challenges in four areas related to responsible conduct of research (research misconduct, publication practices and responsible authorship (including conflicts of interest), data management and manipulation, human subject research ethics) Develop sensitivity to the tensions and challenges which frame the context of misconduct or misbehavior Increase understanding of institutional and federal policies related to responsible conduct of research Enable discussion about ethical issues in the conduct of neuroscience research (i.e., about dual use research, research with vulnerable populations, the management of incidental findings in brain imaging, the public communication of neuroscience) Skills objectives Foster identification of ethical challenges and situations Cultivate ethical decision-making and the identification of moral arguments and reasons behind suggested actions Promote problem solving and critical appraisal Gain from the strategies and techniques used by mentors for solving dilemmas related to research integrity
Challenges in the Provision and Evaluation of RCR Training Development of Curricula is Hampered by the Ability to Measure and Demonstrate the Effectiveness of RCR Education The fact that the NIH requires that nine topics be covered in RCR education may betray the fact that no further guidance on the content or delivery of RCR exists in the United States (Kalichman 2013), but also definitely not in other countries such as Canada that lack federal requirements for RCR education altogether. The final composition of any RCR training course might look very different depending on combined decisions about what needs to be taught, and how the content should be delivered. Instructors endorse a range of goals for RCR training and skills development (Plemmons and Kalichman 2007, 2013). Moreover, it has been suggested that RCR training in graduate studies could focus on more context sensitive challenges, for instance helping students to ‘‘recognize and exercise the limited power they do have to make good choices—and not just ethical decisions, per se’’ (Plemmons and Kalichman 2013). Uniformity is also missing in what kinds of methods are used (i.e., lectures, case studies, team-based learning) and in when (and how much) education is delivered. Where mandated by the NIH, more guidance has been provided on the format of training (Kalichman 2013). Fundamentally, the variability in curricula challenges the notion that we really know how to target change in research integrity. My own experience is no different; ultimately the final course design reflected a mix of practical considerations (i.e., topics that were not covered elsewhere, time that supervisors would not complain to have students away from the lab) and theoretically-driven decisions (i.e., to focus on a skill of ethical decision making, to use real case-studies, to recruit mentors to participate to group discussions, and to lecture on the topic with a view to the ethical
123
A Room with a View of Integrity and Professionalism
importance of RCR in neuroscience). I recognize the argument of some that once you divide up all the time in a course to different activities, topics or approaches that little may be available to deal with all the ethical issues sufficiently (Weyrich and Harvill 2013). This balancing act demands a better understanding of the effectiveness of different approaches to RCR training being aware of the assumption that RCR training is inherently good. Unfortunately, empirical evidence of the effectiveness of RCR education varies, not unlike evaluation practices themselves (Antes et al. 2010). We have come to appreciate that the next steps for our program will need to involve appropriate evaluation of our training curriculum, and recognize the need for ample time and energy to do this well. On top of already existing challenges for evaluation, a key issue we will face is delineating the effects of many different interactions within the course (i.e., effects of mentors, effects of course content being tailored to the neurosciences, impact of providing an ethical decision making framework). The inclusion of facilitators, acting as mentors, alone in the training raises interesting questions about what outcomes are due to the provision of good mentors during the group discussions, whether students working with good mentors already come more prepared to the RCR training, how we identify good mentors for the course and is that important, as well as raising questions about how mentors themselves might benefit from participating in the course. An immense challenge for the field of ethics education and curricula development will depend not only on identifying the common goals of RCR training, but also on the development of validated evaluation measures which target appropriate outcomes.
Personal Reflections on Three Issues Where Further Dialogue Could be Warranted for RCR Education in the Neurosciences Mobilizing a Common Set of Competencies and Virtues Standing for Professionalism in the Neurosciences Institutional and policy-driven definitions of research integrity and misconduct are taught in workshops. However, a focus on definitions of research integrity and misconduct emphasized in institutional and funding agency policies may fail to support a broader discussion about the commonly accepted norms, principles and virtues reinforced by such externally imposed regulations. So it is more important to foster these features in ethics education than mere rule-following. Instead, while the goals of professionalization have permeated medical ethics education, it has been suggested that the concept of professionalism in the sciences is underdeveloped despite being increasingly important ‘‘to ensure high standards, to judge divergent conduct, and most importantly, to define the basis for science’s social contract with society’’ (Jones 2007). However, it is internal agreement on precisely these shared values which may be needed to inform discipline relevant norms and professional responsibilities forming not only the basis for RCR education but also the specific skills and knowledge which trainees require. More dialogue on these issues within the discipline of neuroscience, including seeking input from graduate students and
123
E. Bell
professional societies (e.g., Society for Neuroscience), would be needed to better define and inform the concept of professionalism and to align the goals and objectives of RCR training. Perhaps, as a starting point, neuroscientists might look to a set of principles and virtues described as a common code of ethics for the life sciences (Jones 2007). Then, focusing on the specific context of neuroscience research and the important meaning given to findings that reflect information about the brain, they might consider a range of other important professional responsibilities that respond to such tensions. Inspiration may be found among those neuroethical responsibilities suggested by Racine and Illes (2006) which place an emphasis on the ‘‘social responsibilities pertaining to the eventual use of neuroscientific knowledge’’ and ‘‘self-reflection in research and training of researchers’’. For instance, adoption of a principle of civic and democratic responsibility in the practice of neuroscience emphasizes the need for researchers to evaluate the social consequences and implications of neuroscience; a principle of prospective responsibility stresses the importance of engaging in a dialogue about the future of neuroscience and its uses (Racine and Illes 2006). Other suggested responsibilities (e.g., responsibility-responsiveness, self-reflection) and the changing landscape of neuroscience research (i.e., as large data sharing initiatives and collaborative endeavors) may be accompanied by the endorsement of new principles or virtues (i.e., open data sharing, fairness in attribution of credit, sensitivity to the cultural diversity of findings). While not necessarily distinct to the field of neuroscience, agreement on principles of responsible conduct within the discipline could still be an advantage. Moreover, where little guidance on relevant topics exists, such is the case with the public communication of research findings and management of the potential social harms of research (Zimmerman and Racine 2012), identifying shared perspectives among practitioners in the field of neuroscience could guide future practice. What remains to be seen is whether there is added benefit to a tailored educational program that focuses attention on issues in the ethical conduct of neuroscience, including but not limited to the potential for translation of neuroscience for unintended purposes, responsible communication of research and interpretation of findings, and the social consequences of research. Equally important is understanding if there are positive or negative impacts to discussions that only include members of the same discipline, albeit an interdisciplinary one. Tailoring RCR for the Neurosciences and Empowering Students Through Active Engagement of Mentors Improved understanding of the ethical obligations that are part of the wider professional responsibilities of neuroscientists is foundational to the nascent field of neuroethics. In fact, RCR education may be part of a broader neuroethics curriculum for neuroscientists, raising ethical challenges in neuroscience alongside reflections about conducting ethical scientific practices in a context of complex academic relationships and pressures. A recent study has shown that 52 % of neuroscience courses in Australia, Canada, Germany, the UK and the US offer ethics training (sometimes but not always mandatory), where most if not all of the most widely
123
A Room with a View of Integrity and Professionalism
covered topics taught (e.g., human participants and animal subjects in research, research misconduct, treatment of data, and authorship and allocation of credit) fall under the scope of RCR education (Walther 2013). At the same time, the burgeoning field of neuroethics has opened up new opportunities for ethics education for students in the neurosciences in academic centers where this expertise exists. Where neuroethics courses do not exist there is a possibility that tailored RCR training may be an entryway to introduce graduate students in neuroscience to the wider ethical considerations in practice and to the field of neuroethics. In addition, even more benefits may be accrued by tailored RCR training programs when neuroscience faculties actively participate in teaching or facilitating. First, because neuroscience faculty have the necessary understanding of the specific challenges faced in the discipline to ensure the content is grounded in real practice and second because mentors/supervisors are essential to modelling and reinforcing good practices and ethical conduct. It is clear that that our workshops have been enriched by the sharing of the vast experience offered by the neuroscience faculty who participate as facilitators. Participating faculty have communicated informally that they also benefit through the sharing that occurs with students (i.e., awareness of the pressures experienced by students, identification of the ways that students think about these problems). What further effects the participation of mentors provides would need more formal evaluation while it remains challenged by practical concerns (convincing the best mentors to participate every year and low faculty participation when the course conflicts with grant deadlines). Soliciting Shared Responsibility for RCR Training Between Disciplines, Institutions and Government or Funding Agencies Initiatives geared towards improving the management of incidents and allegations of scientific misconduct are laudable and important considering the need for increased transparency about the use of public funds and the need to make well informed funding decisions. However, these policies need to be accompanied by educational initiatives in order to decrease a potential widening of the gap between the management of misconduct and the awareness, avoidance and reporting of misconduct. My personal experience has been that, to date, despite the emergence of a new national policy, the drive and energy for improving RCR training is being exerted bottom-up from departments who are intent on improving the RCR education of their students. (The same observation has been noted by Kalichman 2007). Importantly, it should be recognized that departmental support does not necessarily reflect an institutional mandate or inherent commitment for RCR training and the potential for discordance between institutional goals and departmental goals requires more consideration. Similarly, students may not ‘‘buy in’’ to the training if they feel that the ethical obligations of institutions are not being met in handling allegations of misconduct. Our training program was an internal initiative and the commitment of the Program Directors has been essential to its implementation and development. A bottom-up approach to RCR education in the neurosciences may also ultimately reflect the broad reach of neuroethics, including a heightened attention to the ethical conduct of neuroscience brought by this new discipline, and the availability of expertise to bring ethics education
123
E. Bell
to the neurosciences. At the same time, other biomedical departments within the University are starting build their own courses, thus affirming the desire for more comprehensive RCR training at the graduate level. Demonstrated leadership at the department level is notable, but it could lead to uneven teaching goals and outcomes. Ultimately institutions, funding and governmental bodies, departments and graduate faculties should open up a further dialogue about shared responsibilities for training graduate students in RCR and the need for program specialization. Left to departments or programs, with limited financial or professional support or guidance from federal or provincial bodies, may lead to varying success (Kalichman 2007). At least one study has examined ethics education in graduate neuroscience programs in Canada and revealed that there are a range of factors motivating program directors to include ethics in their curricula including pressure exerted by the regulatory environment, and wanting to promote good citizenship (Lombera et al. 2010). However, other important barriers may prevent program directors and principal investigators from implementing ethics education, including lack of time, lack of expertise, lack of interest from students and faculty and a lack of tools (Lombera et al. 2010). Internally driven and tailored approaches (also discussed above) need to be balanced with the teaching of common accepted principles of RCR and the need to respond to the objectives of higher level policies about research integrity. Ultimately, general endorsement (and funding) of RCR education by government, funding agencies and institutions demonstrates a commitment to and a valuing of RCR which is important (Kalichman 2007). Then, wider discussion may be opened to the role of tailored content and approaches for RCR training with an emphasis on department or discipline led initiatives to be tried and tested. In conclusion, neuroscience has the potential to radically enhance our understanding of the brain although new advancements may bring with them challenging new ethical dilemmas. For this reason, graduate students in neuroscience need to be prepared to reflect on the ethics of their research and their conduct. RCR training and good mentorship are important to fulfilling this role. However, before RCR training can be seen to fulfill its mandate renewed discussion may be warranted about the values and virtues underlying ethical practices in the conduct of neuroscience research. Moreover, further work would establish the optimal balance between tailored and general RCR training initiatives. Neuroscience programs could look to the field of neuroethics as a bridge to achieving quality RCR education that is tailored for the neurosciences. Acknowledgments I would like to thank Dr. Cynthia Forlini, Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the University of Queensland Centre for Clinical Research (UQCCR) for thoughtful comments on the manuscript. I also extend thanks to the staff, students and leadership of the Integrated Program in Neuroscience at McGill University and to Dr. Eric Racine.
References Antes, A. L., Wang, X., Mumford, M., Brown, P., Connelly, S., & Devenport, L. D. (2010). Evaluating the effects that existing instruction on responsible conduct of research has on ethical decision making. Academic Medicine, 85(3), 519–526.
123
A Room with a View of Integrity and Professionalism Dubois, J. M., & Dueker, J. M. (2009). Teaching and assessing the responsible conduct of research: A delphi consensus panel report. The Journal of Research Administration, 40(1), 49–70. Illes, J., Moser, M. A., McCormick, J., Racine, E., Blakeslee, S., Caplan, A., et al. (2010). Neurotalk: Improving neuroscience communication. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11(1), 61–69. Jones, N. L. (2007). A code of ethics for the life sciences. Science and Engineering Ethics, 13(1), 25–43. Jones, N. L., Peiffer, A. M., Lambros, A., Guthold, M., Johnson, A. D., Tytell, M., et al. (2010). Developing a problem-based learning (PBL) curriculum for professionalism and scientific integrity training for biomedical graduate students. Journal of Medical Ethics, 36(10), 614–619. Kalichman, M. W. (2007). Responding to challenges in educating for the responsible conduct of research. Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 82(9), 870–875. Kalichman, M. (2013). A brief history of RCR education. Accountability in Research, 20(5–6), 380–394. Leshner, A. I. (2013). Seize the neuroscience moment. Science, 342, 533. Lombera, S., Fine, A., Grunau, R. E., & Illes, J. (2010). Ethics in neuroscience graduate training programs: Views and models from Canada. Mind, Brain, and Education, 4(1), 20–27. Marcus, S. J. (2002). Neuroethics: Mapping the field, Conference Proceedings, The Dana Foundation. National Institutes of Health, Advisory Committee to the Director (2013). Charge of the Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Working Group, http://www.nih.gov/ science/brain/acd-charge.pdf. Accessed 16 December 2013. Panel on Responsible Conduct of Research (2011). Tri-agency framework: Responsible Conduct of Research, http://www.rcr.ethics.gc.ca/eng/policy-politique/framework-cadre/. Accessed 16 December 2013. Plemmons, D. K., & Kalichman, M. W. (2007). Reported goals for knowledge to be learned in responsible conduct of research courses. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 2(2), 57–66. Plemmons, D. K., & Kalichman, M. W. (2013). Reported goals of instructors of responsible conduct of research for teaching of skills. Journal of Empirical Research in Human Research Ethics, 8(2), 95–103. Racine, E., & Illes, J. (2006). Neuroethical responsibilities. Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences, 33, 269–277. The Royal Society (2012). Brain Waves Module 3: Neuroscience, conflict and security. London, http:// royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/projects/brain-waves/2012-02-06BW3.pdf. Accessed 16 December 2013. Walther, G. (2013). Ethics in neuroscience curricula: A survey of Australia, Canada, Germany, the UK and the US. Neuroethics, 6(2), 343–351. Weyrich, L. S., & Harvill, E. T. (2013). Teaching ethical aptitude to graduate student researchers. Accountability in Research, 20(1), 5–12. Wolf, S. M., Lawrenz, F. P., Nelson, C. A., Kahn, J. P., Cho, M. K., Clayton, E. W., et al. (2008). Managing incidental findings in human subjects research: Analysis and recommendations. Journal of Law and Medical Ethics, 36(2), 219–248. Zimmerman, E., & Racine, E. (2012). Ethical issues in the translation of social neuroscience: A policy analysis of current guidelines for public dialogue in human research. Accountability in Research, 19(1), 27–46. Zimmerman, S. V., & Wallace, K. (2013). Promoting responsible conduct of research: A Canadian perspective. Accountability in Research, 20(5–6), 395–402.
123
A Room with a View of Integrity and Professionalism: Personal Reflections on Teaching Responsible Conduct of Research in the Neurosciences Emily Bell
Received: 27 January 2014 / Accepted: 10 April 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014
Abstract Neuroscientists are increasingly put into situations which demand critical reflection about the ethical and appropriate use of research tools and scientific knowledge. Students or trainees also have to know how to navigate the ethical domains of this context. At a time when neuroscience is expected to advance policy and practice outcomes, in the face of academic pressures and complex environments, the importance of scientific integrity comes into focus and with it the need for training at the graduate level in the responsible conduct of research (RCR). I describe my experience teaching RCR in a graduate neuroscience program and identify three personal reflections where further dialogue could be warranted: (1) mobilizing a common set of competencies and virtues standing for professionalism in the neurosciences; (2) tailoring RCR for the neurosciences and empowering students through the active engagement of mentors; (3) soliciting shared responsibility for RCR training between disciplines, institutions and governmental or funding agencies. Keywords Responsible conduct of research Professionalism Neuroscience Neuroethics Education
In today’s academic environment the pressures are extreme. Investigators are competing over limited research funds and neuroscientists are increasingly put into situations which demand critical reflection about the ethical and appropriate use of E. Bell (&) Neuroethics Research Unit, Institut de recherches cliniques de Montreal, 110 Avenue des Pins Ouest, Montreal, QC H2M 1R7, Canada e-mail: [email protected] E. Bell Department of Neurosurgery and Neurology, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada
123
E. Bell
research tools and scientific knowledge. Neuroscientists are tasked to reflect on the ethical challenges raised by emerging neuroscientific technologies, the possibilities of dual use research, the discovery of incidental brain imaging findings, and are expected to actively consider the responsible communication of neuroscience research (Wolf et al. 2008; Illes et al. 2010; The Royal Society 2012). The particular nature of neuroscience research, its ability to shape knowledge about human thoughts and behavior, to meaningfully advance the care of those with neurological or psychiatric disorders, and to reveal insight about human morality, have led to the development of a subfield of bioethical study dedicated to these issues known as neuroethics, in which neuroscientists have been actively involved (Marcus 2002). Dedicated research funding in the US promises to ‘‘accelerat(e) the development and application of innovative technologies…to produce a revolutionary new dynamic picture of the brain’’ (Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative, http://www.nih.gov/science/brain/). Within this context, we can assume creative approaches may be needed to tackle emerging ethical challenges, especially where ‘‘ambitious goals’’ will necessitate the coordination of neuroscientists (Leshner 2013), and negotiation between private industry, foundations, funding bodies and public institutions (National Institutes of Health, Advisory Committee to the Director 2013). It can also be anticipated that even more students will be drawn into the neurosciences by promises of translational and interdisciplinary studies. At a time when neuroscience is expected to advance policy and practice outcomes (Leshner 2013), students or trainees also have to know how to navigate the ethical domains of this context. In the face of such pressures and complex environments, the importance of scientific integrity comes into focus and with it the need for training at the graduate level in the responsible conduct of research (RCR). A range of specific goals for RCR education have been put forward, including the empowerment of trainees (Kalichman 2007), the development of ethical decision making or moral reasoning skills (Plemmons and Kalichman 2013), the increased awareness of ethical issues (Dubois and Dueker 2009), promotion of and valuing of RCR (Kalichman 2007), as well as other behavioral goals (i.e., ‘‘to motivate people to do what is right’’) (Dubois and Dueker 2009). Demonstrably, there is not only a wide variety of objectives backing RCR education, but instructors report a range of intentions related to skills development (i.e., conflict resolution, communication, critical thinking, finding RCR resources) (Plemmons and Kalichman 2013), content and approaches (Kalichman 2013). This is despite the fact that, in the US, the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) has identified nine core areas for RCR training, suggesting a common broad curriculum among courses (Jones 2007). The NIH has also mandated RCR training since the late 1980s, although Kalichman (2013) suggests the requirement may not be taken seriously. In the Canadian context, the recently released framework by the Tri Council Agency (representing the three national funding bodies for social sciences, natural sciences and health sciences) promotes RCR by strengthening the process for reporting, investigating and acting upon allegations of misconduct (Panel on Responsible Conduct of Research 2011; Zimmerman and Wallace 2013), yet the policy does not make provisions to ensure congruent RCR training for graduate students. Despite practical limitations in the
123
A Room with a View of Integrity and Professionalism
administration and adoption of RCR training, the importance of ethics education in the form of RCR should not be underestimated. Rather, RCR courses may contribute to the broader notion of professionalism for researchers (Jones et al. 2010). As a means of fostering professional virtues (Dubois and Dueker 2009) and establishing the necessary moral competencies of scientists, the learning of RCR (and the commitment to teaching RCR) offers a venue to exchange about the key shared values and principles for practice in a particular field of study such as neuroscience. In what follows, I describe my own experience teaching RCR for a graduate neuroscience program at a Canadian University and I identify three personal reflections where further dialogue could be warranted: (1) mobilizing a common set of competencies and virtues standing for professionalism in the neurosciences; (2) tailoring RCR for the neurosciences and empowering students through active engagement of mentors; (3) soliciting shared responsibility for RCR training between disciplines, institutions and government or funding agencies.
Description of the RCR Course for Graduate Students in the Neurosciences There are more than 300 MSc and PhD students registered in graduate studies through the Integrated Program in Neuroscience (IPN) at McGill University (Montreal, Canada) making it one of the largest neuroscience graduate programs in North America (http://www.mcgill.ca/ipn/prospective). Moreover, McGill University has a renowned history in the fields of neuroscience (e.g., Wilder Penfield, Brenda Milner) and medicine (e.g., William Osler). Graduate students entering the IPN have been required to attend two mandatory half-day RCR workshops since 2010. The workshops aim to cover both important content and skills necessary to promote research integrity and have been refined through feedback from implicated faculty and student evaluations (See Table 1). In order to meet these objectives a workshop format is employed. Half of each session is allocated to lectures and group discussion of the following topics: (1) research misconduct, (2) publication practices and responsible authorship (including conflicts of interest), (3) data management and manipulation and (4) human subject research ethics. The other half of each session is spent discussing key tensions which emerged in the lectures and analyzing one or two cases in small groups (approximately 8 students) facilitated by a faculty member. Some of the cases are modified from online resources such as the Online Ethics Center for Engineering (‘‘Role-Play Scenarios for Teaching Responsible Conduct of Research’’, www. onlineethics.org/Topics/RespResearch/ResCases/RCRroleplays.aspx) while others are inspired by definitive ethical issues present in neuroscience research and in data management. Primarily, these small group exercises invite students to engage a framework of ethical decision-making where they are prompted to identify the ethical issues present in the case, recognize the ethical conflicts, the values brought by involved stakeholders, institutional, professional and federal obligations, and to seek an understanding of what moral reasons shape their actions [where facilitator guides have been shaped around the ethical decision making framework presented in the Office of Research Integrity’s The Lab activity (http://ori.hhs.gov/thelab)].
123
E. Bell Table 1 Objectives of the RCR course Content objectives Raise awareness about key challenges in four areas related to responsible conduct of research (research misconduct, publication practices and responsible authorship (including conflicts of interest), data management and manipulation, human subject research ethics) Develop sensitivity to the tensions and challenges which frame the context of misconduct or misbehavior Increase understanding of institutional and federal policies related to responsible conduct of research Enable discussion about ethical issues in the conduct of neuroscience research (i.e., about dual use research, research with vulnerable populations, the management of incidental findings in brain imaging, the public communication of neuroscience) Skills objectives Foster identification of ethical challenges and situations Cultivate ethical decision-making and the identification of moral arguments and reasons behind suggested actions Promote problem solving and critical appraisal Gain from the strategies and techniques used by mentors for solving dilemmas related to research integrity
Challenges in the Provision and Evaluation of RCR Training Development of Curricula is Hampered by the Ability to Measure and Demonstrate the Effectiveness of RCR Education The fact that the NIH requires that nine topics be covered in RCR education may betray the fact that no further guidance on the content or delivery of RCR exists in the United States (Kalichman 2013), but also definitely not in other countries such as Canada that lack federal requirements for RCR education altogether. The final composition of any RCR training course might look very different depending on combined decisions about what needs to be taught, and how the content should be delivered. Instructors endorse a range of goals for RCR training and skills development (Plemmons and Kalichman 2007, 2013). Moreover, it has been suggested that RCR training in graduate studies could focus on more context sensitive challenges, for instance helping students to ‘‘recognize and exercise the limited power they do have to make good choices—and not just ethical decisions, per se’’ (Plemmons and Kalichman 2013). Uniformity is also missing in what kinds of methods are used (i.e., lectures, case studies, team-based learning) and in when (and how much) education is delivered. Where mandated by the NIH, more guidance has been provided on the format of training (Kalichman 2013). Fundamentally, the variability in curricula challenges the notion that we really know how to target change in research integrity. My own experience is no different; ultimately the final course design reflected a mix of practical considerations (i.e., topics that were not covered elsewhere, time that supervisors would not complain to have students away from the lab) and theoretically-driven decisions (i.e., to focus on a skill of ethical decision making, to use real case-studies, to recruit mentors to participate to group discussions, and to lecture on the topic with a view to the ethical
123
A Room with a View of Integrity and Professionalism
importance of RCR in neuroscience). I recognize the argument of some that once you divide up all the time in a course to different activities, topics or approaches that little may be available to deal with all the ethical issues sufficiently (Weyrich and Harvill 2013). This balancing act demands a better understanding of the effectiveness of different approaches to RCR training being aware of the assumption that RCR training is inherently good. Unfortunately, empirical evidence of the effectiveness of RCR education varies, not unlike evaluation practices themselves (Antes et al. 2010). We have come to appreciate that the next steps for our program will need to involve appropriate evaluation of our training curriculum, and recognize the need for ample time and energy to do this well. On top of already existing challenges for evaluation, a key issue we will face is delineating the effects of many different interactions within the course (i.e., effects of mentors, effects of course content being tailored to the neurosciences, impact of providing an ethical decision making framework). The inclusion of facilitators, acting as mentors, alone in the training raises interesting questions about what outcomes are due to the provision of good mentors during the group discussions, whether students working with good mentors already come more prepared to the RCR training, how we identify good mentors for the course and is that important, as well as raising questions about how mentors themselves might benefit from participating in the course. An immense challenge for the field of ethics education and curricula development will depend not only on identifying the common goals of RCR training, but also on the development of validated evaluation measures which target appropriate outcomes.
Personal Reflections on Three Issues Where Further Dialogue Could be Warranted for RCR Education in the Neurosciences Mobilizing a Common Set of Competencies and Virtues Standing for Professionalism in the Neurosciences Institutional and policy-driven definitions of research integrity and misconduct are taught in workshops. However, a focus on definitions of research integrity and misconduct emphasized in institutional and funding agency policies may fail to support a broader discussion about the commonly accepted norms, principles and virtues reinforced by such externally imposed regulations. So it is more important to foster these features in ethics education than mere rule-following. Instead, while the goals of professionalization have permeated medical ethics education, it has been suggested that the concept of professionalism in the sciences is underdeveloped despite being increasingly important ‘‘to ensure high standards, to judge divergent conduct, and most importantly, to define the basis for science’s social contract with society’’ (Jones 2007). However, it is internal agreement on precisely these shared values which may be needed to inform discipline relevant norms and professional responsibilities forming not only the basis for RCR education but also the specific skills and knowledge which trainees require. More dialogue on these issues within the discipline of neuroscience, including seeking input from graduate students and
123
E. Bell
professional societies (e.g., Society for Neuroscience), would be needed to better define and inform the concept of professionalism and to align the goals and objectives of RCR training. Perhaps, as a starting point, neuroscientists might look to a set of principles and virtues described as a common code of ethics for the life sciences (Jones 2007). Then, focusing on the specific context of neuroscience research and the important meaning given to findings that reflect information about the brain, they might consider a range of other important professional responsibilities that respond to such tensions. Inspiration may be found among those neuroethical responsibilities suggested by Racine and Illes (2006) which place an emphasis on the ‘‘social responsibilities pertaining to the eventual use of neuroscientific knowledge’’ and ‘‘self-reflection in research and training of researchers’’. For instance, adoption of a principle of civic and democratic responsibility in the practice of neuroscience emphasizes the need for researchers to evaluate the social consequences and implications of neuroscience; a principle of prospective responsibility stresses the importance of engaging in a dialogue about the future of neuroscience and its uses (Racine and Illes 2006). Other suggested responsibilities (e.g., responsibility-responsiveness, self-reflection) and the changing landscape of neuroscience research (i.e., as large data sharing initiatives and collaborative endeavors) may be accompanied by the endorsement of new principles or virtues (i.e., open data sharing, fairness in attribution of credit, sensitivity to the cultural diversity of findings). While not necessarily distinct to the field of neuroscience, agreement on principles of responsible conduct within the discipline could still be an advantage. Moreover, where little guidance on relevant topics exists, such is the case with the public communication of research findings and management of the potential social harms of research (Zimmerman and Racine 2012), identifying shared perspectives among practitioners in the field of neuroscience could guide future practice. What remains to be seen is whether there is added benefit to a tailored educational program that focuses attention on issues in the ethical conduct of neuroscience, including but not limited to the potential for translation of neuroscience for unintended purposes, responsible communication of research and interpretation of findings, and the social consequences of research. Equally important is understanding if there are positive or negative impacts to discussions that only include members of the same discipline, albeit an interdisciplinary one. Tailoring RCR for the Neurosciences and Empowering Students Through Active Engagement of Mentors Improved understanding of the ethical obligations that are part of the wider professional responsibilities of neuroscientists is foundational to the nascent field of neuroethics. In fact, RCR education may be part of a broader neuroethics curriculum for neuroscientists, raising ethical challenges in neuroscience alongside reflections about conducting ethical scientific practices in a context of complex academic relationships and pressures. A recent study has shown that 52 % of neuroscience courses in Australia, Canada, Germany, the UK and the US offer ethics training (sometimes but not always mandatory), where most if not all of the most widely
123
A Room with a View of Integrity and Professionalism
covered topics taught (e.g., human participants and animal subjects in research, research misconduct, treatment of data, and authorship and allocation of credit) fall under the scope of RCR education (Walther 2013). At the same time, the burgeoning field of neuroethics has opened up new opportunities for ethics education for students in the neurosciences in academic centers where this expertise exists. Where neuroethics courses do not exist there is a possibility that tailored RCR training may be an entryway to introduce graduate students in neuroscience to the wider ethical considerations in practice and to the field of neuroethics. In addition, even more benefits may be accrued by tailored RCR training programs when neuroscience faculties actively participate in teaching or facilitating. First, because neuroscience faculty have the necessary understanding of the specific challenges faced in the discipline to ensure the content is grounded in real practice and second because mentors/supervisors are essential to modelling and reinforcing good practices and ethical conduct. It is clear that that our workshops have been enriched by the sharing of the vast experience offered by the neuroscience faculty who participate as facilitators. Participating faculty have communicated informally that they also benefit through the sharing that occurs with students (i.e., awareness of the pressures experienced by students, identification of the ways that students think about these problems). What further effects the participation of mentors provides would need more formal evaluation while it remains challenged by practical concerns (convincing the best mentors to participate every year and low faculty participation when the course conflicts with grant deadlines). Soliciting Shared Responsibility for RCR Training Between Disciplines, Institutions and Government or Funding Agencies Initiatives geared towards improving the management of incidents and allegations of scientific misconduct are laudable and important considering the need for increased transparency about the use of public funds and the need to make well informed funding decisions. However, these policies need to be accompanied by educational initiatives in order to decrease a potential widening of the gap between the management of misconduct and the awareness, avoidance and reporting of misconduct. My personal experience has been that, to date, despite the emergence of a new national policy, the drive and energy for improving RCR training is being exerted bottom-up from departments who are intent on improving the RCR education of their students. (The same observation has been noted by Kalichman 2007). Importantly, it should be recognized that departmental support does not necessarily reflect an institutional mandate or inherent commitment for RCR training and the potential for discordance between institutional goals and departmental goals requires more consideration. Similarly, students may not ‘‘buy in’’ to the training if they feel that the ethical obligations of institutions are not being met in handling allegations of misconduct. Our training program was an internal initiative and the commitment of the Program Directors has been essential to its implementation and development. A bottom-up approach to RCR education in the neurosciences may also ultimately reflect the broad reach of neuroethics, including a heightened attention to the ethical conduct of neuroscience brought by this new discipline, and the availability of expertise to bring ethics education
123
E. Bell
to the neurosciences. At the same time, other biomedical departments within the University are starting build their own courses, thus affirming the desire for more comprehensive RCR training at the graduate level. Demonstrated leadership at the department level is notable, but it could lead to uneven teaching goals and outcomes. Ultimately institutions, funding and governmental bodies, departments and graduate faculties should open up a further dialogue about shared responsibilities for training graduate students in RCR and the need for program specialization. Left to departments or programs, with limited financial or professional support or guidance from federal or provincial bodies, may lead to varying success (Kalichman 2007). At least one study has examined ethics education in graduate neuroscience programs in Canada and revealed that there are a range of factors motivating program directors to include ethics in their curricula including pressure exerted by the regulatory environment, and wanting to promote good citizenship (Lombera et al. 2010). However, other important barriers may prevent program directors and principal investigators from implementing ethics education, including lack of time, lack of expertise, lack of interest from students and faculty and a lack of tools (Lombera et al. 2010). Internally driven and tailored approaches (also discussed above) need to be balanced with the teaching of common accepted principles of RCR and the need to respond to the objectives of higher level policies about research integrity. Ultimately, general endorsement (and funding) of RCR education by government, funding agencies and institutions demonstrates a commitment to and a valuing of RCR which is important (Kalichman 2007). Then, wider discussion may be opened to the role of tailored content and approaches for RCR training with an emphasis on department or discipline led initiatives to be tried and tested. In conclusion, neuroscience has the potential to radically enhance our understanding of the brain although new advancements may bring with them challenging new ethical dilemmas. For this reason, graduate students in neuroscience need to be prepared to reflect on the ethics of their research and their conduct. RCR training and good mentorship are important to fulfilling this role. However, before RCR training can be seen to fulfill its mandate renewed discussion may be warranted about the values and virtues underlying ethical practices in the conduct of neuroscience research. Moreover, further work would establish the optimal balance between tailored and general RCR training initiatives. Neuroscience programs could look to the field of neuroethics as a bridge to achieving quality RCR education that is tailored for the neurosciences. Acknowledgments I would like to thank Dr. Cynthia Forlini, Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the University of Queensland Centre for Clinical Research (UQCCR) for thoughtful comments on the manuscript. I also extend thanks to the staff, students and leadership of the Integrated Program in Neuroscience at McGill University and to Dr. Eric Racine.
References Antes, A. L., Wang, X., Mumford, M., Brown, P., Connelly, S., & Devenport, L. D. (2010). Evaluating the effects that existing instruction on responsible conduct of research has on ethical decision making. Academic Medicine, 85(3), 519–526.
123
A Room with a View of Integrity and Professionalism Dubois, J. M., & Dueker, J. M. (2009). Teaching and assessing the responsible conduct of research: A delphi consensus panel report. The Journal of Research Administration, 40(1), 49–70. Illes, J., Moser, M. A., McCormick, J., Racine, E., Blakeslee, S., Caplan, A., et al. (2010). Neurotalk: Improving neuroscience communication. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11(1), 61–69. Jones, N. L. (2007). A code of ethics for the life sciences. Science and Engineering Ethics, 13(1), 25–43. Jones, N. L., Peiffer, A. M., Lambros, A., Guthold, M., Johnson, A. D., Tytell, M., et al. (2010). Developing a problem-based learning (PBL) curriculum for professionalism and scientific integrity training for biomedical graduate students. Journal of Medical Ethics, 36(10), 614–619. Kalichman, M. W. (2007). Responding to challenges in educating for the responsible conduct of research. Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 82(9), 870–875. Kalichman, M. (2013). A brief history of RCR education. Accountability in Research, 20(5–6), 380–394. Leshner, A. I. (2013). Seize the neuroscience moment. Science, 342, 533. Lombera, S., Fine, A., Grunau, R. E., & Illes, J. (2010). Ethics in neuroscience graduate training programs: Views and models from Canada. Mind, Brain, and Education, 4(1), 20–27. Marcus, S. J. (2002). Neuroethics: Mapping the field, Conference Proceedings, The Dana Foundation. National Institutes of Health, Advisory Committee to the Director (2013). Charge of the Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Working Group, http://www.nih.gov/ science/brain/acd-charge.pdf. Accessed 16 December 2013. Panel on Responsible Conduct of Research (2011). Tri-agency framework: Responsible Conduct of Research, http://www.rcr.ethics.gc.ca/eng/policy-politique/framework-cadre/. Accessed 16 December 2013. Plemmons, D. K., & Kalichman, M. W. (2007). Reported goals for knowledge to be learned in responsible conduct of research courses. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 2(2), 57–66. Plemmons, D. K., & Kalichman, M. W. (2013). Reported goals of instructors of responsible conduct of research for teaching of skills. Journal of Empirical Research in Human Research Ethics, 8(2), 95–103. Racine, E., & Illes, J. (2006). Neuroethical responsibilities. Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences, 33, 269–277. The Royal Society (2012). Brain Waves Module 3: Neuroscience, conflict and security. London, http:// royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/projects/brain-waves/2012-02-06BW3.pdf. Accessed 16 December 2013. Walther, G. (2013). Ethics in neuroscience curricula: A survey of Australia, Canada, Germany, the UK and the US. Neuroethics, 6(2), 343–351. Weyrich, L. S., & Harvill, E. T. (2013). Teaching ethical aptitude to graduate student researchers. Accountability in Research, 20(1), 5–12. Wolf, S. M., Lawrenz, F. P., Nelson, C. A., Kahn, J. P., Cho, M. K., Clayton, E. W., et al. (2008). Managing incidental findings in human subjects research: Analysis and recommendations. Journal of Law and Medical Ethics, 36(2), 219–248. Zimmerman, E., & Racine, E. (2012). Ethical issues in the translation of social neuroscience: A policy analysis of current guidelines for public dialogue in human research. Accountability in Research, 19(1), 27–46. Zimmerman, S. V., & Wallace, K. (2013). Promoting responsible conduct of research: A Canadian perspective. Accountability in Research, 20(5–6), 395–402.
123
