82
C. Chabot, J. Shoveller, G. Spencer, J. Johnson
letter to the editor
October 21, 2013 In their paper, “Reported Goals of Instructors of Responsible Conduct of Research for Teaching of Skills” (Plemmons & Kalichman, 2013), the authors report the results of a survey which asked RCR educators to rank the importance of seven skill areas to be taught. Ethical decision making was given the highest total score, and strategies for dealing with stress, the lowest. Some did not believe it was their responsibility to teach ethical decision making. They assumed that graduate students arrive already equipped with this skill. That is a reasonable assumption. Research misconduct, i.e., fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism, are the academic equivalents of lying, cheating, and stealing. Ethical standards prohibiting such behavior were established long before students begin graduate training in science. It is not a skill. It is a code of behavior. It comes as no surprise that these authors and others have found that 20 years of RCR courses in various formats and content have failed to demonstrate any effect on future research misconduct (Plemmons, Brody, & Kalichman, 2006; Antes et al., 2010). However, RCR courses can usefully teach what these authors have referred to as research practices, e.g., guidelines for authorship, data management, care of animal subjects, and so on. My own research has found that research misconduct is the result of a combination of individual character traits, such as perfectionism or psychopathy, and an individual’s circumstances. Character traits do not lend themselves readily to remediation, and the anxiety induced by the reality of publish or perish cannot be abolished (Kornfeld, 2012). It is unfortunate that the RCR instructors surveyed placed strategies for dealing with stress at the bottom
of their priority list. The competition for research funding and faculty appointments is fierce and plays a significant role in misconduct by trainees (Kornfeld, 2012). Therefore, a supportive mentor and psychological counseling should be available for them. In addition, the ratio of trainees to mentor should be limited to allow for the mentor to review raw data, schedule regular meetings and be available when needed. The authors have also suggested that perhaps these skills may be better taught in the laboratory. We agree that the appropriate setting is the laboratory, not the classroom. However, not as a substitute for teaching skills but rather as the setting in which a good mentor, by example and/or close supervision, is most likely to reduce the likelihood of research misconduct. Donald S. Kornfeld, M.D. Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry Columbia University College of Physicians Antes, A. L., Wong, X., Mumford, M. D., Brown, R.., 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, 519–526. Kornfeld, D. S. (2012). Perspective: Research misconduct— The search for a remedy. Academic Medicine, 87, 877–882. Plemmons, D., & Kalichman, M. (2013). Reported goals of instructors of responsible conduct of research for teaching of skills. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 8(2), 95–103. Plemmons, D., Brody, S., & Kalichman, M. (2006). Student perceptions of the effectiveness of education in the responsible conduct of research. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12, 571–582.
Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, Vol. 8, No. 5, pp. 82. print issn 1556-2646, online issn 1556-2654. © 2013 by joan sieber. all rights reserved. please direct all requests for permissions to photocopy or reproduce article content through the university of california press’s rights and permissions website, http://www.ucpressjournals.com/reprintinfo.asp. DOI: 10.1525/jer.2013.8.5.82
Copyright of Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics is the property of University of California Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
C. Chabot, J. Shoveller, G. Spencer, J. Johnson
letter to the editor
October 21, 2013 In their paper, “Reported Goals of Instructors of Responsible Conduct of Research for Teaching of Skills” (Plemmons & Kalichman, 2013), the authors report the results of a survey which asked RCR educators to rank the importance of seven skill areas to be taught. Ethical decision making was given the highest total score, and strategies for dealing with stress, the lowest. Some did not believe it was their responsibility to teach ethical decision making. They assumed that graduate students arrive already equipped with this skill. That is a reasonable assumption. Research misconduct, i.e., fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism, are the academic equivalents of lying, cheating, and stealing. Ethical standards prohibiting such behavior were established long before students begin graduate training in science. It is not a skill. It is a code of behavior. It comes as no surprise that these authors and others have found that 20 years of RCR courses in various formats and content have failed to demonstrate any effect on future research misconduct (Plemmons, Brody, & Kalichman, 2006; Antes et al., 2010). However, RCR courses can usefully teach what these authors have referred to as research practices, e.g., guidelines for authorship, data management, care of animal subjects, and so on. My own research has found that research misconduct is the result of a combination of individual character traits, such as perfectionism or psychopathy, and an individual’s circumstances. Character traits do not lend themselves readily to remediation, and the anxiety induced by the reality of publish or perish cannot be abolished (Kornfeld, 2012). It is unfortunate that the RCR instructors surveyed placed strategies for dealing with stress at the bottom
of their priority list. The competition for research funding and faculty appointments is fierce and plays a significant role in misconduct by trainees (Kornfeld, 2012). Therefore, a supportive mentor and psychological counseling should be available for them. In addition, the ratio of trainees to mentor should be limited to allow for the mentor to review raw data, schedule regular meetings and be available when needed. The authors have also suggested that perhaps these skills may be better taught in the laboratory. We agree that the appropriate setting is the laboratory, not the classroom. However, not as a substitute for teaching skills but rather as the setting in which a good mentor, by example and/or close supervision, is most likely to reduce the likelihood of research misconduct. Donald S. Kornfeld, M.D. Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry Columbia University College of Physicians Antes, A. L., Wong, X., Mumford, M. D., Brown, R.., 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, 519–526. Kornfeld, D. S. (2012). Perspective: Research misconduct— The search for a remedy. Academic Medicine, 87, 877–882. Plemmons, D., & Kalichman, M. (2013). Reported goals of instructors of responsible conduct of research for teaching of skills. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 8(2), 95–103. Plemmons, D., Brody, S., & Kalichman, M. (2006). Student perceptions of the effectiveness of education in the responsible conduct of research. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12, 571–582.
Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, Vol. 8, No. 5, pp. 82. print issn 1556-2646, online issn 1556-2654. © 2013 by joan sieber. all rights reserved. please direct all requests for permissions to photocopy or reproduce article content through the university of california press’s rights and permissions website, http://www.ucpressjournals.com/reprintinfo.asp. DOI: 10.1525/jer.2013.8.5.82
Copyright of Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics is the property of University of California Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
