At present, scientific principles are passed on to trainees primarily by example and discussion, including training in customary practices. Most research institutions do not have explicit programs of instruction and discussion to foster responsible research practices, but the communication of values and traditions is critical to fostering responsible research practices and detering misconduct in science.
Efforts to foster responsible research practices in areas such as data handling, communication and publication, and research training and mentorship deserve encouragement by the entire research community. Problems have also developed in these areas that require explicit attention and correction by scientists and their institutions. If not properly resolved, these problems may weaken the integrity of the research process.
1. See, for example, Kuyper (1991).
2. See, for example, the proposal by Pigman and Carmichael (1950).
3. See, for example, Holton (1988) and Ravetz (1971).
4. Several excellent books on experimental design and statistical methods are available. See, for example, Wilson (1952) and Beveridge (1957).
5. For a somewhat dated review of codes of ethics adopted by the scientific and engineering societies, see Chalk et al. (1981).
6. The discussion in this section is derived from Mark Frankel's background paper, “Professional Societies and Responsible Research Conduct,” included in Volume II of this report.
7. For a broader discussion on this point, see Zuckerman (1977).
8. For a full discussion of the roles of scientific societies in fostering responsible research practices, see the background paper prepared by Mark Frankel, “Professional Societies and Responsible Research Conduct,” in Volume II of this report.
9. Selected examples of academic research conduct policies and guidelines are included in Volume II of this report.
10. See, for example, Holton's response to the criticisms of Millikan in Chapter 12 of Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought (Holton, 1988). See also Holton (1978).
11. See, for example, responses to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences action against Friedman: Hamilton (1990) and Abelson et al. (1990). See also the discussion in Bailar et al. (1990).
12. Much of the discussion in this section is derived from a background paper, “Reflections on the Current State of Data and Reagent Exchange Among Biomedical Researchers,” prepared by Robert Weinberg and included in Volume II of this report.
13. See, for example, Culliton (1990) and Bradshaw et al. (1990). For the impact of the inability to provide corroborating data or witnesses, also see Ross et al. (1989).
14. See, for example, Rennie (1989) and Cassidy and Shamoo (1989).
15. See, for example, the discussion on random data audits in Institute of Medicine (1989a), pp. 26-27.
16. For a full discussion of the practices and policies that govern authorship in the biological sciences, see Bailar et al. (1990).