The Importance of Defining ‘Data’ in Data Management Policies

What comprises ‘data’ varies from one institution to another based on the information which is deemed important by individual institutions. To effectively and efficiently produce, collect, and retain data, an organization develops specific defining characteristics of data to meet its informational needs. Procedures to maintain and retain knowledge among laboratory members and principal investigators will allow for improved efficiency of data collection. Optimization of communication, maintenance of inventories, record keeping, and updating relevant training programs are all critical to supporting the quality and integrity of a particular organization’s data. Concurrent revisions to such procedures will ensure that the definition of data as well as the means by which it is collected and maintained remain appropriate to the needs of the individual organization.     

Ensuring PhD Development of Responsible Conduct of Research Behaviors: Who’s Responsible?

The importance of public confidence in scientific findings and trust in scientists cannot be overstated. Thus, it becomes critical for the scientific community to focus on enhancing the strategies used to educate future scientists on ethical research behaviors. What we are lacking is knowledge on how faculty members shape and develop ethical research standards with their students. We are presenting the results of a survey with 3,500 research faculty members. We believe this is the first report on how faculty work with and educate their PhD students on basic research standards. Specifically, we wanted to determine whether individual faculty members, who are advisors or mentors, differ in how they implemented components of responsible conduct of research (RCR) with their PhD students. Mentors were more likely than advisors or supervisors to report working with all of their PhDs, who graduated in the last 5 years, on the 17 recognized critical components of RCR training and research skill development. We also found about half of the faculty members believe RCR is an institutional responsibility versus a faculty responsibility. Less than a quarter have had opportunities to participate in faculty training to be a better mentor, advisor, or research teacher, and about one third of faculty did not or could not remember whether they had guidelines related to their responsibilities to PhD students. We discuss the implications of our findings and focus on ways that PhD research mentoring can be enhanced.     

Editors’ Overview: Neuroethics: Many Voices and Many Stories

Advances in neuroscience continue to enhance understanding of the brain and provide new tools to take advantage of that understanding. These changes are poised to profoundly alter society. Given that the impact will be felt not only by neuroscientists, but by diverse members of society, it is imperative that conversations engage all stakeholders. Doing so will allow for the sharing of diverse views and perspectives to understand and frame the science, better educate and prepare the public for new developments, and provide a shared approach to identifying and resolving ethical challenges. These were the goals of Neuroethics Week, staged in 2007 by the Center for Ethics in Science and Technology in San Diego, and are the basis for the contributions to this special issue of Science and Engineering Ethics.     

Detecting Duplication in Students’ Research Data: A Method and Illustration

Research integrity is core to the mission of higher education. In undergraduate student samples, self-reported rates of data fabrication have been troublingly high. Despite this, no research has investigated undergraduate data fabrication in a more systematic manner. We applied duplication screening techniques to 18 data sets submitted by psychology honors students for assessment. Although we did not identify any completely duplicated cases, there were numerous partial duplicates. Rather than indicating fabrication, however, these partial duplicates are likely a consequence of poor measure selection, insufficient data screening, and/or participant characteristics. Implications for the teaching and supervision of honors students are discussed.     

Researchers’ Perceptions of a Responsible Research Climate: A Multi Focus Group Study

Science and Engineering Ethics - The research climate plays a key role in fostering integrity in research. However, little is known about what constitutes a responsible research climate. We...     

Responsible Research: What is Expected?

"Responsible research" and "good science" are concepts with various meanings depending on one's perspective and assumptions. Fellow researchers, research participants, policy makers and the general public also have differing expectations of the benefits of research ranging from accurate and reliable data that extend the body of knowledge, to solutions to societal concerns. Unless these differing constituencies articulate their differing views they may fail to communicate and undermine the value of research to society.     

Editors’ Overview Perspectives on Teaching Social Responsibility to Students in Science and Engineering

Global society is facing formidable current and future problems that threaten the prospects for justice and peace, sustainability, and the well-being of humanity both now and in the future. Many of these problems are related to science and technology and to how they function in the world. If the social responsibility of scientists and engineers implies a duty to safeguard or promote a peaceful, just and sustainable world society, then science and engineering education should empower students to fulfil this responsibility. The contributions to this special issue present European examples of teaching social responsibility to students in science and engineering, and provide examples and discussion of how this teaching can be promoted, and of obstacles that are encountered. Speaking generally, education aimed at preparing future scientists and engineers for social responsibility is presently very limited and seemingly insufficient in view of the enormous ethical and social problems that are associated with current science and technology. Although many social, political and professional organisations have expressed the need for the provision of teaching for social responsibility, important and persistent barriers stand in the way of its sustained development. What is needed are both bottom-up teaching initiatives from individuals or groups of academic teachers, and top-down support to secure appropriate embedding in the university. Often the latter is lacking or inadequate. Educational policies at the national or international level, such as the Bologna agreements in Europe, can be an opportunity for introducing teaching for social responsibility. However, frequently no or only limited positive effect of such policies can be discerned. Existing accreditation and evaluation mechanisms do not guarantee appropriate attention to teaching for social responsibility, because, in their current form, they provide no guarantee that the curricula pay sufficient attention to teaching goals that are desirable for society as a whole.     

Science as a Vocation in the Era of Big Data: the Philosophy of Science behind Big Data and humanity’s Continued Part in Science

We now live in the era of big data, and according to its proponents, big data is poised to change science as we know it. Claims of having no theory and no ideology are made, and there is an assumption that the results of big data are trustworthy because it is considered free from human judgement, which is often considered inextricably linked with human error. These two claims lead to the idea that big data is the source of better scientific knowledge, through more objectivity, more data, and better analysis. In this paper I analyse the philosophy of science behind big data and make the claim that the death of many traditional sciences, and the human scientist, is much exaggerated. The philosophy of science of big data means that there are certain things big data does very well, and some things that it cannot do. I argue that humans will still be needed for mediating and creating theory, and for providing the legitimacy and values science needs as a normative social enterprise.     

‘Heart-talk:’ Considering the Role of the Heart in Therapy as Evidenced in the Quran and Medical Research

The emphasis on scientific approaches and evidence-based therapy has been a key force in developing and refining existing models of therapy. While this has been unquestioningly invaluable, it has similarly restricted the development and so implementation of those models that do not lend themselves easily to current research methodology, since the lack of evidence-practice research means they are not considered as ‘legitimate’ therapeutic practice. That the mind and body have an inter-dependent relationship is readily evidenced in numerous religious texts, but the lack of acknowledgement of that relationship in contemporary therapeutic approaches means that patients are not able to benefit from its use in sessions. Ironically, it is current developments in medical research that have discovered the reality around this relationship that have enabled such models to be further explore within an accepted context of evidence-based practice. This paper highlights the relationship between the heart and brain function as evidenced with brief reference to Quranic verses and medical (namely, neurocardiological) research. Further, it raises questions around the implications of this information for therapists working in both physical and mental health. The concept of ‘heart talk’ is an extension of the term ‘heart brain’ coined by Dr Armour (Professor of Pharmacology) in 1991 and is suggestive of its use in the world of psychological therapy. It relates to those cognitions which patients suggest come ‘from the heart’ which though previously dismissed are now suggestive of having some scientific basis and are potentially a legitimate source of information in understanding patients experiences.     

Preserving the Respondent’s Standpoint in a Research Interview: Different Strategies of ‘Doing’ the Interviewer

Much has been written on the respondent’s perspective but fewer studies have recognized that “perspectives other than those drawn from the discipline come into play for the interviewer” (Warren in Handbook of interview research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2002: 84). In the article we show that the interviewer uses different strategies of identity management and different standpoints as resources to accomplish and account for one of the main interviewer’s duties, namely to achieve an “understanding of the world from the subjects’ points of view” (Kvale in Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 1996: 1). We examine instances in which the interviewer displays a “neutral” posture, showing adherence to her institutional identity, and instances in which she positions herself as an “embodied subject,” disclosing her personal involvement, stepping out of the role and displaying an identity and a standpoint in common with that of the interviewee. We show how such strategies of identity management (1) prompt either identification or divergence of viewpoints between the interviewer and the interviewees; (2) affect the degree of intimacy among participants and spontaneity in conversation. By means of these two strategies, we discuss, the interviewer accomplishes and accounts for her professional ability to understand the interviewees’ standpoints. In particular such strategies are two ways of accounting for an ethical relationship with the interviewees, which, respectively, emphasize either the impartiality or the reciprocity in understanding. Our purpose is not to suggest that one strategy is to be preferred on the other, but, rather, to illustrate how both the “neutral” and the “embodied” posture are situated practices through which the interviewer attempts to preserve the respondents’ viewpoint on the narrated events.