Tag: Responsible Conduct of Research

Blog Posts (10)

September 25, 2015

Publishing Research Ideas

<p><span style="font-size: 11.2px; line-height: 19.04px;">The newest science journal on the block with several unique twists is <a href="http://riojournal.com/">Research Ideas and Outcomes</a> (RIO). RIO aims to publish a variety of outputs in the research cycle, not only the results of research. The journal will publish papers on ideas, proposals, methods, research results, and software. They also publish review articles, opinion pieces, data papers, software descriptions, workflows, data management plans, conference abstracts, single figure publications, project reports and much more. Their aim is to better use the efforts scientists spend on writing and evaluating research proposals and other products within the research cycle. RIO does have limits; they will not accept teaching lectures or materials, clinical trials, patient or other data that may be considered unethical, homeopathy, nuclear or bioweapons research, creationist or religiously motivated research, cryptozoology, and pseudoscience. The journal also has many other interesting aspects. While they are an open access journal, unlike others, they do not charge the typical high costs of thousands of dollars. The journal charges between 50 to a few hundred euros for most types of publications. Peer review is also optional and RIO relies on public scrutiny to promote transparent and public peer review. Expert driven peer review, typically done in most medical and science journals, however, can be done upon the author’s request. The typical review process for papers submitted to RIO includes several technical checks and an external pre-submission review from a colleague.</span></p> <p><span style="color: #34405b; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 19.04px;"><strong>The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers a Master of Science in Bioethics, a</strong> </span><strong style="color: #34405b; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 19.04px;">Doctorate of Professional Studies in Bioethics, and Graduate Certificates in Clinical Ethics and Clinical Ethics Consultation. For more information on AMBI's online graduate programs, please visit our <a style="color: #000099; text-decoration: underline;" href="/Academic/bioethics/index.cfm">website</a>.</strong></p>
August 19, 2015

NIH Budget Increase on One Hand, Fewer Outputs on Another

<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="font-size: 11.1999998092651px; line-height: 19.0400009155273px;"><span style="font-size: 11.1999998092651px; line-height: 19.0400009155273px;">I love reading the news posts in </span><em style="font-size: 11.1999998092651px; line-height: 19.0400009155273px;">Nature </em><span style="font-size: 11.1999998092651px; line-height: 19.0400009155273px;">and </span><em style="font-size: 11.1999998092651px; line-height: 19.0400009155273px;">Science</em><span style="font-size: 11.1999998092651px; line-height: 19.0400009155273px;"> that I receive in the journal’s eAlerts. This past month was most interesting because there were two news posts that I thought were actually a bit contradicting. The first one titled “Spending bills put NIH on track for the biggest raise in 12 years” was published in July of this year and explains how both houses of congress want to increase the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) annual budget (Kaiser, 2015a). The Presidential branch wants to give the NIH a 1 billion dollar increase while just recently, a Senate panel approved a 2 billion increase. The article also goes onto say that certain programs have been given priority such as the Alzheimer’s research and others like the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality will receive cuts. Needless to say, I am sure that biomedical and behavioral scientists throughout the country are probably ecstatic. But is this really a good thing?</span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="font-size: 11.1999998092651px; line-height: 19.0400009155273px;"><span style="font-size: 11.1999998092651px; line-height: 19.0400009155273px;">The other news blurb I read was titled an “A for effort, C for impact from U.S. biomedical research, study concludes” also written by the same author (Kaiser, 2015b). In this article, Jocelyn Kaiser reports the results of a study by two research scientists Dr. Arturo Casadevall and Anthony Bowen who examined publications in the PubMed database and the number of authors, along with the approval of new drugs and their work was published in the journal </span><em style="font-size: 11.1999998092651px; line-height: 19.0400009155273px;">Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA)</em><span style="font-size: 11.1999998092651px; line-height: 19.0400009155273px;">. The researchers compared publication outputs with the number of new molecules approved by the U.S. government. What they found was not too surprising. </span></p> <p><span style="color: #34405b; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 19.0400009155273px; font-size: 12px;"><strong>The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers a Master of Science in Bioethics, a</strong> </span><strong style="color: #34405b; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 19.0400009155273px; font-size: 12px;">Doctorate of Professional Studies in Bioethics, and Graduate Certificates in Clinical Ethics and Clinical Ethics Consultation. For more information on AMBI's online graduate programs, please visit our <a style="color: #000099; text-decoration: underline;" href="/Academic/bioethics/index.cfm">website</a>.</strong></p>
January 27, 2015

Paying for Journal Peer Review

<p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="font-size: 11.1999998092651px; line-height: 19.0400009155273px;"><span style="font-size: 11.1999998092651px; line-height: 19.0400009155273px;">Academic journal publishing is big business. More journals are popping up in almost every field especially with the open access movement dominating academic publishing. While editors of some high impact journals might reject papers outright, editors of most journals, especially open access journals, might be willing to send the paper out for peer review so long as it isn’t methodologically flawed (Arns, 2014). Some predatory <a href="http://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/">open access journals</a></span><span style="font-size: 11.1999998092651px; line-height: 19.0400009155273px;"> likely provide far less scrutiny and may send seriously flawed or poorly written papers to reviewers – I can personally vouch for this happening for one open access journal in my field. With the rise of journals and the increased pressure for scientists to publish, the demand and strain on peer reviewers and the peer review system is growing.</span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="font-size: 11.1999998092651px; line-height: 19.0400009155273px;"><span style="font-size: 11.1999998092651px; line-height: 19.0400009155273px;">There are certainly signs that peer review is placing demands on researchers. For example, my previous supervisor who is an expert in bioethics and health law once told me he receives a request to peer review an article every couple of days. Another researcher at Mt. Sinai Hospital at the University of Toronto in Canada mentioned that he receives 300 requests to review papers a year, each of which takes him 3-4 hours to complete (Diamandis, 2015). Many of my colleagues who are prolific researchers turn down peer reviews, trying to do only a few a year or pass it off to junior researchers. In a recent column of the journal </span><em style="font-size: 11.1999998092651px; line-height: 19.0400009155273px;">Nature</em><span style="font-size: 11.1999998092651px; line-height: 19.0400009155273px;">, Martijn Arns explains that the increased pressure to review and the reluctance of researchers to undertake peer review might mean that editors will assign papers to reviewers who might not have the appropriate expertise in a particular area. Peer reviewers who are not experts on the topic should not accept articles to review, or declare to editors what areas they can appropriately review. Certainly junior researchers or doctoral students may not be international experts on a topic, but junior researchers might do a better job of reviewing manuscripts by investing more time and giving fair consideration to an article. However, given the time involved and the sense of obligation to conduct peer review, some reviewers might cut corners and perform mediocre reviews.</span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="font-size: 11.1999998092651px; line-height: 19.0400009155273px;"><span style="font-size: 11.1999998092651px; line-height: 19.0400009155273px;"><strong style="line-height: 19.0400009155273px; color: #34405b; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers a Master of Science in Bioethics, a Doctorate of Professional Studies in Bioethics, and Graduate Certificates in Clinical Ethics and Clinical Ethics Consultation. For more information on AMBI's online graduate programs, please visit our <a style="text-decoration: underline; color: #000099;" href="/Academic/bioethics/index.cfm">website</a>.</strong><span style="line-height: 19.0400009155273px; color: #34405b; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;"> </span></span></p>
October 26, 2014

Authorship in Global Health Research

<p><span style="line-height: 19.0400009155273px;">In a recent paper published in <em><a href="http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1472-6939-15-42.pdf">BMC Medical Ethics</a></em></span><span style="line-height: 19.0400009155273px;">, my co-authors and I argued that there are unique issues in authorship in the context of global health research (GHR).</span><span style="line-height: 19.0400009155273px;">Global health places priority on improving and ensuring equity in health worldwide. GHR is often multi/interdisciplinaryand involves large collaborative networks. Our analysis of authorship GHR applies to situations where researchers from high income countries (HICs) partner with those in low and middle-income countries (LMICs). First, let’s start by illustrating an example of a GHR research project. Let’s say that researchers wanted to study the genetics of a tropical disease. They wrote and succeeded in obtaining a U.S. National Institutes of Health funded grant. HIC researchers may bring to the collaboration scientific expertise, access to genomics/proteomic technologies, and may have been the main PI on the grant. LMIC researchers may be from a nation affected with the disease and can also provide scientific expertise, insight into local perceptions and realities, and access to the study population – the latter especially being difficult for HIC researchers given possible issues surrounding trust. Together, the team may gather epidemiological genetic data relevant to international public health interventions and also help address local needs and interests.</span></p> <p><strong style="line-height: 19.0400009155273px; color: #34405b; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers a Master of Science in Bioethics, a Doctorate of Professional Studies in Bioethics, and Graduate Certificates in Clinical Ethics and Clinical Ethics Consultation. For more information on AMBI's online graduate programs, please visit our <a style="text-decoration: underline; color: #000099;" href="/Academic/bioethics/index.cfm">website</a>.</strong></p>
September 2, 2014

Holding Institutions Responsible for Research Misconduct: the recent case of a death of stem cell scientist

<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span>Scientist Yoshiki Sasai, age 52, committed suicide and was found dead on August 5, 2014. Sasai was deputy director of the Center for Developmental Biology (CDB) at RIKEN in Kobe, Japan, and coauthor on two recently retracted <em>Nature </em>papers about an easier way to make induced pluripotent stem cells. The papers were retracted due to duplication and manipulation of images done by the main researcher and lead author on the two papers – Haruko Obokata. Although cleared of any direct involvement, Sasai was under immense pressure and heavily scrutinized by the media, public and peers. This involved speculation about Sasai’s intentions to orchestrate a media frenzy, and for being overly ambitious and motivated to win future grants overlooking the integrity of the science.</span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing">According to colleagues at RIKEN, Sasai was receiving counseling since the scandal broke headlines and he was also hospitalized for about a month in March (1). He was found hanging in a stairwell of a neighboring building and beside him were three letters addressed to CDB management, his laboratory, and Obokata. On August 12, Kazuhiro Nakamura, the family lawyer explained the contents of Sasai’s suicide note left for the family. Sasai was “worn out by the unjust bashing in the mass media and the responsibility he felt towards RIKEN and his laboratory” (2). But unsubstantiated claims in the media were not the only source of stress for Sasai. The speculation in tabloids might have also influenced how RIKEN and other colleagues behaved towards Sasai. In June, a report released by an independent RIKEN reform committee criticized CDB leaders for hyping the science and did not interview Sasai about such accusations. Their final recommendation was to dismantle CDB. According to the family lawyer, this was a tremendous shock for Sasai (2).</p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><strong style="color: #34405b; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 20px;">The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers a Master of Science in Bioethics, a Doctorate of Professional Studies in Bioethics, and Graduate Certificates in Clinical Ethics and Clinical Ethics Consultation. For more information on AMBI's online graduate programs, please visit our <a style="color: #000099; text-decoration: underline;" href="/Academic/bioethics/index.cfm">website</a>.</strong><span style="color: #34405b; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 20.399999618530273px;"> </span></p>
July 9, 2014

Relevance of Case-Based Studies in Workshops on RCR for Diverse Audiences: the importance of including both (Part II)

<p class="MsoNoSpacing">Both parts I and II of this blog were originally published as a commentary in the Office of Research Integrity’s Newsletter (<a href="http://ori.hhs.gov/newsletters">http://ori.hhs.gov/newsletters</a>) Volume 22, Number 2, March 2014 and has been reproduced with permission for the AMBI blog.</p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing">In <a href="/BioethicsBlog/post.cfm/relevance-of-case-based-studies-in-workshops-on-rcr-for-diverse-audiences-part-i">Part I</a>, published last month, I discussed my experience organizing and developing a responsible conduct of research (RCR) workshop for stem cell scientists that was held at the Till and McCulloch Meeting in October 2013 as part of Canada’s Stem Cell Network at <a href="http://www.stemcellnetwork.ca/">http://www.stemcellnetwork.ca</a>. In Part 2, I discuss the importance of developing RCR pedagogy that includes both lecture and informational components, and provides ethical cases such that students have a rich understanding of normative, policy, and practical aspects to different RCR topics.</p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><strong style="color: #34405b; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 20px;">The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers a Master of Science in Bioethics, a Doctorate of Professional Studies in Bioethics, and Graduate Certificates in Clinical Ethics and Clinical Ethics Consultation. For more information on AMBI's online graduate programs, please visit our <a style="text-decoration: underline; color: #000099;" href="/Academic/bioethics/index.cfm">website</a>.</strong></p>
June 18, 2014

Relevance of Case-Based Studies in Workshops on RCR for Diverse Audiences (Part I)

<p class="MsoNoSpacing">By sharing a recent experience in which I delivered a lecture and case at a responsible conduct of research (RCR) workshop for biomedical science trainees, I will comment on why I believe that pedagogy on the RCR, specifically for biomedical scientists, needs two essential ingredients: delivering knowledge/information and providing case-based learning. The art is to determine how much of each element is needed and how to most effectively deliver information on an RCR topic and ensure trainees get the most from the ethical analysis of cases.</p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><strong>Ethics Workshop: Responsible Research Conduct &amp; Misconduct in Stem Cell Research</strong></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing">As part of Canada’s Stem Cell Network at <a href="http://www.stemcellnetwork.ca/">http://www.stemcellnetwork.ca</a>, I had the unique opportunity to organize and present an Ethics Workshop as part of the Network’s annual Till &amp; McCulloch Meetings in October 2013. The workshop was a lecture followed by an interactive ethical case using “The Lab: Avoiding Research Misconduct” video hosted by the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) at<a href="https://ori.hhs.gov/thelab">https://ori.hhs.gov/thelab</a>. The 50 to 60 workshop attendees were primarily master’s, doctoral, and post-doctoral trainees, and almost all were biomedical researchers working with stem cells. Most attendees had never heard of RCR. Thus, the goals of the workshop were modest and involved introducing attendees to the following: RCR, research misconduct (fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism), the RCR link to scientific retractions, issues of authorship and publication ethics, and Canada’s RCR framework.</p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><strong style="color: #34405b; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 20px;">The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers a Master of Science in Bioethics, a Doctorate of Professional Studies in Bioethics, and Graduate Certificates in Clinical Ethics and Clinical Ethics Consultation. For more information on AMBI's online graduate programs, please visit our <a style="text-decoration: underline; color: #000099;" href="/Academic/bioethics/index.cfm">website</a>.</strong></p>
May 16, 2014

Eliminating Bias in the Workplace (Part II)

<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><a href="/BioethicsBlog/post.cfm/bias-bias-bias-part-i">Last month</a>, I discussed bias in academia and more specifically in the workplace. Just to recap, there are several studies that show bias in peer review and bias or favoritism in the workplace. Much of the bias may be unconscious or what is considered “hidden bias” and is not shown overtly. In this month’s blog, I propose three steps to reduce bias in the workplace.</p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing">The solutions proposed here are geared towards academic work environments at the departmental level in one of the three settings: 1) professors or research scientists running a lab or a research group who supervise research assistants, students, fellows and staff; 2) department directors/heads; and 3) members and chairs of committees charged with the selection of candidates for awards, prizes, and positions. While I am not applying these steps to the peer review of grants or publications, some of the points may be helpful to reduce bias in peer review processes.</p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><strong style="color: #34405b; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 20px;">The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers a Master of Science in Bioethics, a Doctorate of Professional Studies in Bioethics, and Graduate Certificates in Clinical Ethics and Clinical Ethics Consultation. For more information on AMBI's online graduate programs, please visit our <a style="color: #000099; text-decoration: underline;" href="/Academic/bioethics/index.cfm">website</a>.</strong></p>
May 7, 2014

Lessons Learned over 25 years in Developing an RCR Curriculum in a Basic Science Graduate Studies Program in a Medical School

<p>The Graduate Studies Program of AMC has provided education and training in research integrity and the responsible conduct of research (RCR) since the early 1990s. This program has been directed to graduate students in the basic sciences working toward masters and doctoral degrees and to post-doctoral fellows in the basic sciences. The impetus for initiation of such education and training was the mandate issued by the National Institutes of Health that required a description of activities related to instruction in RCR in institutional training grant applications. We will describe the initiation, development, evolution, and current status of our curriculum.</p> <p>The individual training grant directors were responsible for the initial activities of this endeavor, which were sporadic, inconsistent, and undocumented. Subsequently, in 1994, the Dean of AMC charged the Associate Dean for Graduate Studies, who happened to be me, with the task of developing a formal graduate course to address this mandate.</p> <p>This task was initially addressed by identifying faculty who would develop and teach this course, create curriculum plans and objectives, and identify materials useful in teaching. This process also included self-education because this area had not been previously taught here. It also involved a good deal of public relations because most students and faculty resisted the implementation of training in RCR as an intrusion upon time that should be most profitably spent in the laboratory.</p> <p><strong style="color: #34405b; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 20px;">The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers a Master of Science in Bioethics, a Doctorate of Professional Studies in Bioethics, and Graduate Certificates in Clinical Ethics and Clinical Ethics Consultation. For more information on AMBI's online graduate programs, please visit our <a style="color: #000099; text-decoration: underline;" href="http://www.amc.edu/Academic/bioethics/index.cfm">website</a>.</strong></p>
April 16, 2014

Bias, Bias, Bias (Part I)

<p class="MsoNoSpacing">One of my areas of research focus in bioethics is known as the responsible conduct of research (RCR) (a.k.a. research integrity). Research on research integrity covers a range of different norms and practices including authorship and publication ethics, research misconduct (fabrication, falsification and plagiarism), responsible mentorship, peer review, and RCR education among others. I have written on several of these topics in our AMBI blogs.</p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing">One of the topics I am interested in chatting about today is bias in the academic setting, but even more generally in the workplace. Much about research methodology aims to reduce or eliminate bias. For example, the experimental scientific method attempts to reduce bias by having proper controls, blinding researchers, and employing statistics so that we don’t over interpret our findings. Sociologists and other qualitative researchers may declare their biases when reporting research so the reader knows where the researcher is coming from. The entire concept of declaring conflicts of interest also aim to permit others to know what potential interest(s) the researcher may have which could bias their results. Moreover, the peer review process, which academia heavily relies on, aims to reduce bias in research. Peer review is not only used in the context of evaluating research, it also evaluates academic scholars for jobs, committee memberships, awards and scholarships, and other entitlements. <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/08/21/1302997110.full.pdf+html">One recent study</a>done by Drs. Daniele Fanelli and John Ioannidis showed the overestimation of effect sizes in behavioral research. Here the researchers performed a meta-analysis of meta-analyses (cleverly called meta meta-analysis) and found that researchers working in the behavioral, but not biomedical, sciences tended to exaggerate effects that were not supported by the data. Most interestingly, this exaggerated effect was heightened if the research had one or more US authors. While this sort of bias in the reporting of research may at first glance seem relatively benign, it actually has significant consequences because other researchers build on the results of previously published work and accumulatively, our social policies and clinical practices are based on evidence collected from such studies. Yet bias can come in all sorts of shapes and sizes in the academic and research context, some of which I think hits more personally to individual researchers.</p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><strong style="color: #34405b; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 20px;">The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers a Master of Science in Bioethics, a Doctorate of Professional Studies in Bioethics, and Graduate Certificates in Clinical Ethics and Clinical Ethics Consultation. For more information on AMBI's online graduate programs, please visit our <a style="text-decoration: underline; color: #000099;" href="/Academic/bioethics/index.cfm">website</a>.</strong></p>