1

Introduction

Research leaders overseeing laboratories, centers, and collaborations have an opportunity to build and promote a culture of research excellence, integrity, and trust. At the same time, the conduct of science becomes more complex, societal demands become more explicit, and the challenges facing these leaders are myriad. Beyond the complexities of overseeing and executing innovative science, they must navigate an expanding set of roles, responsibilities, and expectations, including managing the evolving landscape of research integrity, data management, open science, mentorship, and technology.

Despite these increasing demands, training in responsible conduct of research (RCR) has long focused on the duties of individual researchers, with few resources developed for research leaders who may also lead or participate in collaborations. For example, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (the National Academies) have published a widely used resource, On Being a Scientist: A Guide to Responsible Conduct in Research (NAS, NAE, and IOM, 2009), but this publication is aimed primarily at beginning and early-career researchers (ECRs). Beyond some materials on laboratory management practices, little attention has been directed toward the range of roles and evolving responsibilities taken on by research leaders, especially those who lead cross-disciplinary and/or multi-institutional teams.

To meet this need, the National Academies’ Strategic Council for Research Excellence, Integrity, and Trust (the Strategic Council) proposed

a workshop to focus on scientific leadership to (1) examine available RCR resources and the broad span of roles for research leaders, especially those who direct laboratories, centers, departments, or collaborations; and (2) explore the evolving needs of research leaders in a changing societal landscape, especially in terms of their roles in upholding RCR, navigating new oversight frameworks, and training the next generation of scientists (see Box 1-1). A planning committee organized and conducted a workshop in a hybrid format on December 4–5, 2023. The workshop brought

together leaders of research labs, centers, and collaborations; institutional officials such as vice presidents for research; funders of multidisciplinary and multi-institutional research centers; researchers aspiring to scientific leadership; federal officials focused on research ethics and integrity; scholars of ethical conduct in scientific research; and other stakeholders to analyze the adequacy of current guidance for research leaders responsible for large and complex scientific teams (see Appendix A for the agenda, Appendix B for biographical sketches of the committee and presenters, and Appendix C for resources).

FOCUSING THE DISCUSSION

It is important to note that the workshop was aimed at exploring the professional development needs of research leaders in areas related to responsible research. A number of potentially relevant topics and issues could not be thoroughly addressed within the scope of this project. For example, some topics related to research misconduct, including the incentive structures in modern research environments that can undermine integrity and the need to make policy and cultural changes to strengthen these environments, are not discussed extensively. These issues are addressed in depth in Fostering Integrity in Research (NASEM, 2017).

In addition, the question of determining who is included in the target cohort presented something of a challenge in workshop planning. Assistant professors setting up their own labs have very different perspectives and needs than more senior researchers who are taking on responsibilities for centers, large-scale collaborations, and departments.

FRAMING THE CONTEXT BY THE STRATEGIC COUNCIL

France Córdova, Science Philanthropy Alliance, welcomed participants as one of the three co-chairs of the Strategic Council. She noted the idea for the workshop originated in discussions within the council, which held its first meeting in October 2021. Córdova described the activities of the Strategic Council as working with a wide range of partners and experts to support incentives that contribute to scientific excellence while promoting practices that strengthen integrity and reduce administrative burdens for researchers and institutions. The projects of the Strategic Council’s working groups have focused on improving the retraction process to more quickly correct the scientific record, assessing public confidence in science,

identifying indicators of trustworthiness, surveying journal policies related to authorship guidelines, and exploring how research laboratories and large-scale collaborations can more effectively integrate scientific integrity and research ethics into their practices.

Córdova noted that the National Academies publication On Being a Scientist is one of the institution’s most downloaded publications, and its popularity and widespread use are indicators of the need for mechanisms to instill in the next generation of scientists the importance of RCR. She reminded the group that its case studies are aimed at graduate students, postdoctoral researchers (postdocs), and junior faculty. She also pointed to several other National Academies reports on RCR topics, including Fostering Integrity in Research (NASEM, 2017) and Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science (NRC, 2015). However, little guidance is available for those who lead or aspire to lead research labs, consortia, collaborations, or institutions.

Córdova related that she recently attended a symposium to honor the legacy of University of Michigan social scientist James Jackson. Participants, many of whom had become university presidents, agreed on the challenges of leadership and the need to learn from others, including examples of the mentorship of Jackson. In this regard, she continued, the workshop was designed to explore the need for and approaches to developing pragmatic guidance on ethics and RCR for those who lead these efforts. She noted that after hearing from research leaders, experts, and practitioners, the planning committee chairs would lead a discussion to share ideas with the Strategic Council and others. She closed by thanking the planning committee, staff, sponsors, and participants for their ideas and leadership.

WELCOME FROM THE PLANNING COMMITTEE

Planning committee chair Michele Masucci, University of Maryland, reflected on the path that she and others have chosen as academic researchers motivated by passion for the work; hopes and dreams to contribute novel understanding of problems under study; and pursuit of opportunities to participate in, build, and lead teams of researchers. From her own experience, she continued, she has gained an understanding of how important effective scientific leadership is in advancing RCR and ensuring the goals and interests of institutions, sponsors, collaborating researchers, postdocs, and students are served. At its best, strong leadership provides the foundation for a systemic platform to advance and apply knowledge for social good; at its worst, poor leadership and unethical conduct of research

undermines collective efforts and public trust. She commented that she has witnessed both extremes, as well as situations in the middle, that show how complicated it is to advance science amidst an ever-growing set of requirements and considerations. She echoed Córdova that while training information on RCR has been directed to trainees and early-career researchers, there has been less of an effort to connect with the broader university culture and to support more senior leaders in their everyday practice. Strengthening professional development for current and emerging leaders around RCR is a critical yet unmet need. Addressing that need will require attention and action from a broad range of stakeholders, she said.

Masucci identified three themes to cover: (1) research ethics as it pertains to senior leaders so they can fulfill the critical role of stewarding RCR and research ethics, (2) identification of gaps to fill to support this goal and develop the necessary knowledge base, and (3) identification of what is at stake in advancing the public trust in research. She commented on the planning committee’s difficulty in narrowing the topic for the workshop, which speaks to the subject’s complexity. She also noted that while the issues relate to leaders of large centers and collaborations, especially those that are interdisciplinary, they are also relevant for those who lead smaller labs, who serve as department chairs, or who are just emerging as leaders. She invited participants to suggest specific needs and actions to be taken by relevant stakeholders, including the Strategic Council, institutions, and sponsors.

ORGANIZATION OF THIS PUBLICATION

The rest of this proceedings follows the agenda of the workshop, which comprised six panels, a conversation with University of California President Michael Drake, and group discussions. Chapter 2 highlights the first panel’s responses to what scientific leadership for ethical and responsible research is and why it is important. Chapter 3 summarizes gaps in traditional approaches to professional development for scientific leaders. Federal officials discussed funding and resources for leaders of federally funded large centers and projects, highlighted in Chapter 4, while Chapter 5 draws from the social and organizational sciences to consider the knowledge base for developing effective interventions. Three case studies of innovative approaches are shared in Chapter 6. Chapter 7, which corresponds with the beginning of the second day of the workshop, provides some takeaways from the planning committee’s vice chair and the conversation he facilitated with Drake. In a final panel, reported in Chapter 8, presenters and

the planning committee shared what they see as key needs going forward. The workshop agenda, biographical sketches of presenters and committee members, and cited resources can be found in Appendixes A, B, and C.

REFERENCES