1
Introduction

The responsible conduct of research (RCR) is foundational to good science and engineering. RCR promotes the aims of inquiry, fosters a research environment that enables scientists to work together toward common goals, and promotes public confidence in scientific knowledge and progress for the public good. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) defines RCR as “the practice of scientific investigation with integrity. It involves the awareness and application of established professional norms and ethical principles in the performance of all activities related to scientific research.”¹ However, there are several serious detrimental effects of research not conducted ethically and responsibly. For example, data fabrication and falsification of results undermines the pursuit of valid knowledge by misleading scientists to accept and further study false hypotheses or unreliable data, while plagiarism and harassment negatively affect the research environment by harming respect and trust among scientists. Fraudulent or socially irresponsible research, meanwhile, undercuts the public’s trust of and support for science. Thus, federal legislation mandates that all National Science Foundation (NSF) grant recipients “provide adequate training for undergraduate students, graduate students, and postdoctoral researchers about the Responsible Conduct of Research” (NSF 2017, p. 2), and the NIH further specifies that topics such as conflict of interest, mentor/mentee responsibilities and relationships, collaborative research, and safe laboratory practices should be included in all instruction in RCR.²

To identify and disseminate information about exemplary RCR education practices and programs, the National Academy of Engineering, with support from the University of Virginia and the National Science Foundation, convened a virtual workshop series October 6, 7, 20, and 21, 2021. This workshop provided a forum for interdisciplinary discussions of effective strategies for building an RCR culture in institutions along with potential improvements and further research in the area. It also highlighted selected exemplar RCR programs for administrators and faculty who are charged with RCR education and compliance at the institutional level.³

This endeavor comes in the midst of a change in the focus of RCR as well as ethics education more broadly from “negative” approaches—preventing problems, ethics catastrophes, research misconduct, and sexual harassment—to “positive” approaches that cultivate behaviors

___________________

¹ https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-10-019.html

² https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-10-019.html

³ Prior to the workshop, the planning committee drafted criteria, solicited nominations from faculty in science and engineering, as well as administrators and instructors of responsible conduct of research (RCR) programs at US institutions. Nominators described their efforts to improve research culture and practice in their labs and/or institutions. The committee identified several successful models and promising practices to be shared widely with the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education and RCR communities.

and norms around emphasizing research integrity, trust, and strong interpersonal relationships among researchers and coworkers. Incorporating this shift in perspective, this workshop aimed to empower faculty and students to ask tough questions about research and to see ethics as an integral part of good research and practice, as opposed to merely responding to regulations and requirements.

CONDUCT OF THE WORKSHOP

The four-day workshop (see Appendix A for the agenda) was organized by an independent planning committee in accordance with the procedures of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The planning committee members were Arturo Casadevall (Chair), David B. Allison, Rita R. Colwell, David Gebler, Edward J. Hackett, Chavonda Jacobs-Young, Michael Kalichman, and Frances S. Ligler. The workshop was broadcast live using the ePosterBoards online platform, and all workshop presentations and related materials were subsequently posted to the web along with links to the videos of the talks.⁴

This publication summarizes the discussions that occurred throughout the workshop. In accordance with policies of the National Academies, the workshop did not attempt to establish any conclusions or recommendations about future directions, focusing instead on issues described by individual speakers and workshop participants. The workshop proceedings was drafted by rapporteur Joe Alper in collaboration with NAE staff members Elizabeth T. Cady and Cameron H. Fletcher as a factual summary of what occurred at the workshop, and the National Academies, University of Virginia, and National Science Foundation do not endorse or verify the statements.

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

In his introductory remarks to the workshop, planning committee chair Arturo Casadevall (Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health),⁵ noted that the beginning of the 21st century saw great optimism in biomedical science, with the Human Genome Project nearing completion, the marriage of biological techniques with physics and computational methods that produced powerful new analytical methods, the maturation of biotechnology, and the development of gene therapies, personalized medicine, and other advances.

Then, the field of biomedical science encountered several difficulties, including an increased number of retracted journal articles, what Casadevall called “low-quality science” that led to problems with reproducibility, and several cases of scientific misconduct. As the coronavirus pandemic took hold, there was the very preliminary data suggesting that chloroquine might be an effective treatment for COVID-19, which led to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issuing an emergency use authorization (EUA) for this drug and a rapid increase in its use, only to be followed by dozens of randomized, controlled clinical studies showing that

___________________

⁴ Available at https://onlineethics.org/collection-detail/Promising%20Practices%20and%20Innovative%20Programs%20in%20the%20Responsible%20Conduct%20of%20Research

⁵ Complete affiliation and titles are available in the speaker biographical sketches in Appendix B.

chloroquine had no efficacy against COVID-19 and FDA’s revocation of the EUA. Several COVID-19 papers, based on no data, were retracted, and publications on the origins of the SARS-CoV-2 virus were nothing if not controversial.

Nonetheless, he added, biomedical science and other medical fields did rise to the occasion, producing multiple vaccines on a previously unheard-of timeframe, finding how the virus is transmitted, demonstrating the effectiveness of masks in preventing its spread, creating rapid tests, and developing treatment protocols for seriously ill patients on the fly. “This is well-functioning science,” said Casadevall, “and we need to celebrate that we have gotten very good at teaching young people how to do deep science.” The challenge, which he said this workshop would aim to address, is to get current students to ask tough questions about their research and to see ethics as an integral part of good science and engineering research and practice.

John Anderson (National Academy of Engineering, NAE) stated that ethical conduct of research is the underpinning of the credibility of science, engineering, and medicine. “This credibility is hard earned and is easily lost,” he said. “We cannot tolerate breaches.” He noted that he gained an appreciation for both a culture of RCR and the importance of responsible and ethical mentoring of graduate students from his advisor. In part because “misconduct involving plagiarism and fabrication of data may be a basis for rescinding membership” in the three National Academies, he commended the workshop’s theme preventing misconduct rather than focusing on correcting it after it occurs.

After Anderson provided a brief history of NAE and its involvement with engineering ethics and the Online Ethics Center (OEC), Wenda Bauchspies (National Science Foundation, NSF) spoke about NSF’s commitment to the “need and value for the responsible and ethical conduct for research” that comes from the Office of the Director. Although NSF awarded grants with the word “ethics” in the title as early as 1969, the program solicitation for Ethical and Responsible Research (ER2)⁶ began in 2005. NSF funds online ethics resources centers at the Illinois Institute of Technology,⁷ University of Massachusetts at Amherst,⁸ and the University of Illinois,⁹ in addition to the OEC, which was formerly at NAE and is now at the University of Virginia.¹⁰

Bauchspies noted that the America COMPETES Act of 2007 requires that every institution that applies for NSF funding must include in its grant proposal 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 work on the proposed project. She also mentioned the 2017 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (the National Academies) report, Fostering Integrity in Research, which notes that the core values and guiding norms underpinning research integrity are crucial to assure that new generations of researchers meet the challenges of a dynamic research environment (NASEM 2017).

As a final comment, Bauchspies said that the research landscape is changing in many ways that all necessitate innovative approaches to fostering RCR. “The complexity of today's research environment has given rise to new challenges and concerns for that building, for

___________________

⁶ More information at https://beta.nsf.gov/funding/opportunities/ethical-and-responsible-research-er2

⁷ Available at http://ethics.iit.edu/eelibrary/

⁸ Available at http://www.umass.edu/sts/ethics/

⁹ Available at https://ethicscenter.csl.illinois.edu/

¹⁰ Available at http://www.onlineethics.org/

maintaining, for growing, and broadening this culture of responsible conduct of research,” she said.