Recommendations for Effective Integration of Ethics and Responsible Conduct of Research (E/RCR) Education into Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experiences: A Meeting Report.

Advancement of the scientific enterprise relies on individuals conducting research in an ethical and responsible manner. Educating emergent scholars in the principles of ethics/responsible conduct of research (E/RCR) is therefore critical to ensuring such advancement. The recent impetus to include authentic research opportunities as part of the undergraduate curriculum, via course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs), has been shown to increase cognitive and noncognitive student outcomes. Because of these important benefits, CUREs are becoming more common and often constitute the first research experience for many students. However, despite the importance of E/RCR in the research process, we know of few efforts to incorporate E/RCR education into CUREs. The Ethics Network for Course-based Opportunities in Undergraduate Research (ENCOUR) was created to address this concern and promote the integration of E/RCR within CUREs in the biological sciences and related disciplines. During the inaugural ENCOUR meeting, a four-pronged approach was used to develop guidelines for the effective integration of E/RCR in CUREs. This approach included: 1) defining appropriate student learning objectives; 2) identifying relevant curriculum; 3) identifying relevant assessments; and 4) defining key aspects of professional development for CURE facilitators. Meeting outcomes, including the aforementioned E/RCR guidelines, are described herein

Recommendations for Effective Integration of Ethics and Responsible Conduct of Research (E/RCR) Education into Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experiences: A Meeting Report

Advancement of the scientific enterprise relies on individuals conducting research in an ethical and responsible manner. Educating emergent scholars in the principles of ethics/responsible conduct of research (E/RCR) is therefore critical to ensuring such advancement. The recent impetus to include authentic research opportunities as part of the undergraduate curriculum, via course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs), has been shown to increase cognitive and noncognitive student outcomes. Because of these important benefits, CUREs are becoming more common and often constitute the first research experience for many students. However, despite the importance of E/RCR in the research process, we know of few efforts to incorporate E/RCR education into CUREs. The Ethics Network for Course-based Opportunities in Undergraduate Research (ENCOUR) was created to address this concern and promote the integration of E/RCR within CUREs in the biological sciences and related disciplines. During the inaugural ENCOUR meeting, a four-pronged approach was used to develop guidelines for the effective integration of E/RCR in CUREs. This approach included: 1) defining appropriate student learning objectives; 2) identifying relevant curriculum; 3) identifying relevant assessments; and 4) defining key aspects of professional development for CURE facilitators. Meeting outcomes, including the aforementioned E/RCR guidelines, are described herein.</p

Contributions towards understanding and building sustainable science

This dissertation focuses on either understanding and detecting threats to the epistemology of science (chapters 1-6) or making practical advances to remedy epistemological threats (chapters 7-9). Chapter 1 reviews the literature on responsible conduct of research, questionable research practices, and research misconduct. Chapter 2 reanalyzes Head et al (2015) their claims about widespread p-hacking for robustness. Chapter 3 examines 258,050 test results across 30,710 articles from eight high impact journals to investigate the existence of a peculiar prevalence of $p$-values just below .05 (i.e., a bump) in the psychological literature, and a potential increase thereof over time. Chapter 4 examines evidence for false negatives in nonsignificant results throughout psychology, gender effects, and the Reproducibility Project: Psychology. Chapter 5 describes a dataset that is the result of content mining 167,318 published articles for statistical test results reported according to the standards prescribed by the American Psychological Association (APA). In Chapter 6, I test the validity of statistical methods to detect fabricated data in two studies. Chapter 7 tackles the issue of data extraction from figures in scholarly publications. In Chapter 8 I argue that "after-the-fact" research papers do not help alleviate issues of access, selective publication, and reproducibility, but actually cause some of these threats because the chronology of the research cycle is lost in a research paper. I propose to give up the academic paper and propose a digitally native "as-you-go" alternative. In Chapter 9 I propose a technical design for this

The conduct and justification of responsible research

Within the last couple of decades, a range of new concepts that all propose that science should be done ‘more responsibly’ has emerged within science governance literature as well as in science government in both the USA and across Europe. Terms such as ‘Responsible Innovation’ (Owen et al. 2013) and ‘socially robust science’ (Nowotny, Scott, and Gibbons 2001) have gained momentum within science governance. Generally speaking, the calls share the view that there is a need for more external governing of science as a vital supplement to the internal professional ethics that also guide scientific conduct (Braun et al. 2010; Jasanoff 2011). Moreover, they agree that there is a need to enhance scientists’ abilities to reflect upon the ‘outcomes’ of their inventions – that is, the social, environmental and ethical consequences of introducing new scientific knowledge and technologies into society. Though the calls for ‘Responsible Science’ are plentiful, few have actually studied how ‘Responsible Science’ is done in practice and how the demands affect the scientific work, i.e. the organisation of science, the scientists’ professional identities and their wellbeing at work. This dissertation examines how public scientists relate to current demands for ‘Responsible Science’. Based on a Foucauldian-inspired document study of scientific journal papers as well as an STS-inspired ethnographic study of two laboratories, it answers the research questions: How is ‘Responsible Science’ conducted and justified by public scientists – and what are the consequences of these responsibilities in their daily work