Search

When it comes to financial management, it’s not always easy for researchers to follow the strict standards set by their institutions. But is a researcher who is “delinquent” in the eyes of the system necessarily unethical?. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The pillars of scientific progress in rheumatology are experimentation and observation, followed by the publication of reliable and credible results. These data must then be independently verified, validated, and replicated. Peer and journal-specific technical and statistical reviews are paramount to improving rigor and reproducibility. In addition, research integrity, ethics, and responsible conduct training can help to reduce research misconduct and improve scientific evidence. As the number of published articles in rheumatology grows, the field has become critical for determining reproducibility. Prospective, longitudinal, randomized controlled clinical trials are the gold standard for evaluating clinical intervention efficacy and safety in this space. However, their applicability to larger, more representative patient populations with rheumatological disorders worldwide could be limited due to time, technical, and cost constraints involved with large-scale clinical trials. Accordingly, analysis of real-world, patient-centered clinical data retrieved from established healthcare inventories, such as electronic health records, medical billing reports, and disease registries, are increasingly used to report patient outcomes. Unfortunately, it is unknown whether this clinical research paradigm in rheumatology could be deployed in medically underserved regions.

The Report of the European Agency for Fundamental Rights presents the major problems of infringement by both small businesses and corporations, as well as a number of good practices in the field. The authors aim to encourage decision-makers to promote, through the measures and policies adopted, a responsible conduct of the business environment that respects human rights in the European Union, but also outside it. Recommendations are made for future legislative amendments at national and EU level to improve access to an effective remedy for victims of business abuse.

Research has made important contribution to the progress and development of society. As a systematic and organized activity, the conduct of research must be guided by some ethical rules and guidelines in all the six phases of research including conception of the research, approval from a properly constituted ethics review committee, data collection, data analysis, report writing and dissemination. Research ethics is the application of rules or guidelines for the conduct of research. Ethics has important roles to play in all stages of research, from the conception of the research to the dissemination of the findings. The principles of research that regulate the conduct of research are respect for persons, beneficence, justice, and non-maleficence. Responsible researchers must apply these principles to ensure that research is conducted in ways that ensure that both the goals of science and ethics are achieved. Researchers have scientific and ethical obligation to conduct research with the highest degree of responsibility [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Studies of science are increasingly drawing attention to the highly communal nature of research. Ethics, sociology, philosophy, and anthropology of science all emphasize the key role that collaborative actions play in the generation of scientific knowledge. Nonetheless, despite the increasing interest in these communal aspects of scientific research, studies on the relationships underpinning communality are commonly focused on the how the individual interacts with their peers and contributes to the epistemic activities of science. In contrast, there is little literature that broadens out the scope of this analysis to consider the multidimensional nature of these research relationships. In particular, little is said about how scientists mediate their social interactions with peers during daily laboratory research. Less, indeed, is said about the tradition of 'learning through example' that characterizes most in situ laboratory training. All of these relational activities are of critical importance in sustaining and perpetuating the practice of science. It therefore becomes important to ask how we understand these relational activities directed towards building and sustaining relationships in different loci for the primary purpose of strengthening the practice of research and sustaining the traditions of scientific research. Moreover, it is vital to consider how discussions on responsibility may be cached out for individual scientists. This article employs a virtue ethics approach to consider these issues. It begins by sketching out the plethora of different relationships present in daily laboratory practice using existing ethnographic studies. It then uses virtue ethics to identify specific responsibilities that individual scientists have in cultivating and safeguarding the development of these relationships. It concludes by suggesting ways in which these issues may be taken up in teaching responsible conduct to scientists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Responsible conduct in learning and research (RCLR) was progressively introduced into the pharmacology curriculum for undergraduate science students at The University of Western Australia. In the second year of this undergraduate curriculum, a lecture introduces students to issues such as the use of animals in teaching and responsible conduct of research. Third year student groups deliver presentations on topics including scientific integrity and the use of human subjects in research. Academic and research staff attending these presentations provide feedback and participate in discussions. Students enrolled in an optional capstone Honours year complete an online course on the responsible conduct of research and participate in an interactive movie. Once RCLR became established in the curriculum, a survey of Likert-scaled and open-ended questions examined student and staff perceptions. Data were expressed as Approval (% of responses represented by Strongly Agree and Agree). RCLR was found to be relevant to the study of pharmacology (69-100% Approval), important for one's future career (62-100% Approval), and stimulated further interest in this area (32-75% Approval). Free entry comments demonstrated the value of RCLR and constructive suggestions for improvement have now been incorporated. RCLR modules were found to be a valuable addition to the pharmacology undergraduate curriculum. This approach may be used to incorporate ethics into any science undergraduate curriculum, with the use of discipline-specific topics. © 2016 by The International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, 45(1):53-59, 2017. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Este estudo teve como objetivo explorar a relação entre a intenção de comportamento do consumidor e os valores humanos, abordando temas como proteção ao meio ambiente e a outras pessoas. Participaram do estudo universitários com idade média de 21 anos (DP = 4,6) e a maioria foi do sexo feminino (72,4%). Os estudantes responderam coletivamente em sala de aula a um questionário com questões objetivas sobre comportamento social. Os resultados apontaram para a importância dos valores humanos na compreensão dos processos subjacentes à intenção de compra dos consumidores tendo em vista os aspectos sociais mensurados. A categoria de valores centrais explicou 3% da variância para preocupação ambiental; 4% para preocupação com a reciclagem; e para preocupação social a variância explicada foi de 5%. Tais resultados indicaram que a tipologia dos valores humanos apresentou coerência na explicação do construto estudado e que existe relação compreensível entre ambos.This study had the objective of exploring the relationship between the intention of consumer behavior and human values approaching subjects as environmental protection and the protection of other people. They had participated of the study university with average age of 21 years (s.d. = 4.6) and a majority was females (72.4%). The students had collectively answered in classroom a questionnaire with objective questions on social behavior. The results had pointed with respect to importance of the human values in the understanding of the underlying processes to the intention of purchase of the consumers considering the social aspects measured. The category of central values explained 3% of the variance for environmental concern; 4% for concern with recycling; and for social concern the explained variance was of 5%. Such results had indicated that the typology of human values presented coherence in the explanation of the studied construct and that an understandable relationship between them exists.

This is a quasi-experimental pre-post assessment study utilizing an anonymous self-administered questionnaire to assess Egyptian medical students’ awareness about responsible conduct of research (RCR) and research ethics. Students’ were assessed before and after an RCR awareness campaign. Our results showed that most of the pre-campaign respondents were not familiar with the basic principles and terms of RCR. An increase in the awareness about RCR across all discussed topics was noted following the campaign. We concluded that an educational awareness campaign is effective in increasing medical students’ awareness about RCR and should be incorporated into current medical school curricula in Egypt. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

dvances in science are the combined result of the efforts of a great many scientists, and in many cases, their willingness to share the products of their research. These products include data sets, both small and large, and unique research resources not commercially available, such as cell lines and software programs. The sharing of these resources enhances both the scope and the depth of research, while making more efficient use of time and money. However, sharing is not without costs, many of which are borne by the individual who develops the research resource. Sharing, for example, reduces the uniqueness of the resources available to a scientist, potentially influencing the originator's perceived productivity and ultimately his or her competitiveness for jobs, promotions, and grants. Nevertheless, for most researchers-particularly those using public funds-sharing is no longer optional but must be considered an obligation to science, the funding agency, and ultimately society at large. Most funding agencies, journals, and professional societies now require a researcher who has published work involving a unique resource to make that resource available to other investigators. Changes could be implemented to mitigate some of the costs. The creator of the resource could explore the possibility of collaborating with those who request it. In addition, institutions that employ and fund researchers could change their policies and practices to make sharing a more attractive and viable option. For example, when evaluating an individual's productivity, institutions could provide credit for the impact a researcher has had on their field through the provision of their unique resources to other investigators, regardless of whether that impact is reflected in the researcher's list of publications. In addition, increased funding for the development and maintenance of user-friendly public repositories for data and research resources would also help to reduce barriers to sharing by minimizing the time, effort, and funding needed by individual investigators to comply with requests for their unique resource. Indeed, sharing is an imperative, but it is also essential to find ways to protect for both the original owner of the resource and those wishing to share it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Institutions create their own internal cultures, including the culture of ethics that pervades scientific research, academic policy, and administrative philosophy. This paper addresses some of the issues involved in institutional enhancement of its culture of research ethics, focused on individual empowerment and strategies that individuals can use to initiate institutional change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 1994, the governing council of the Society for Neuroscience was asked to make a brief statement on an issue regarding responsible conduct in publishing. The present article reviews how that initial request grew over the next four years into a lengthy document. Drawing on that experience, which was presided over by the author, comments are made about the potential impact of such guidelines, the lessons learned, and the proper role of professional societies in promoting responsible conduct in research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Much of the focus of programs designed to promote responsible conduct in research has traditionally been on the high crimes of fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism. We believe that equally deserving of our attention are the misdemeanors that also can occur. Viewed as individual events, these “little murders” are far less serious. Yet, we believe that in the aggregate they can do great harm, not the least because they can set the stage for far greater crimes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For graduate students to succeed as professionals, they must develop a set of general “survival skills”. These include writing research articles, making oral presentations, obtaining employment and funding, supervising, and teaching. Traditionally, graduate programs have offered little training in many of these skills. Our educational model provides individuals with formal instruction in each area, including their ethical dimensions. Infusion of research ethics throughout a professional skills curriculum helps to emphasize that responsible conduct is integral to succeeding as a researcher. It also leads to the consideration of ethical dimensions of professional life not covered in traditional ethics courses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Before beginning their research, authors must obtain Institutional Review Board permission. Then they should conduct their research with scrupulous attention to detail. Before authors submit their manuscripts for peer review, they should obtain the Manuscript Submission Guidelines for their target journal and read a few articles in that journal to determine whether their study is a good fit for the journal. Authors should describe their research design and methodology in sufficient detail so that other researchers can duplicate their study. Results should be explained clearly and implications should be based on the results. Reviewers are advised to stay informed of their specialty and be ready to acknowledge new directions. Editors should seek to move the profession forward by publishing both empirical research and invited papers written by experts. Each person (author, reviewer, and Editor) must operate in good faith. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]