Dena Plemmons

Reported goals for responsible conduct of research courses.

Purpose To identify existing responsible conduct of research (RCR) instructors’ goals for RCR education. Method E-mail requests were sent to the 116 recipients of National Institutes of Health (NIH) training grants awarded in 2000. Contacts were successfully made with 92 of the recipients, and 84 (91%) identified one or more RCR instructors for their grants. Of the 115 named instructors, 67 were correctly identified as RCR instructors and responded to our e-mail messages. Results Of the 67 instructors, 50 (75%) from 37 different institutions were interviewed. The reported goals were diverse: over 50 distinct goals were volunteered by the instructors. A secondary finding is that, despite having been identified by training grant directors as teachers of required RCR courses, nearly 25% of these individuals reported that they were not actually RCR instructors, and 22% of those interviewed were not aware that NIH trainees were required to take their courses. Further, whereas 80% of the respondents reported that RCR instruction was required for individuals other than NIH trainees, only 1 of the 50 reported that her/his course was required for all researchers within the institution. Conclusions Identifying effective strategies for RCR education depends on first defining measurable outcomes based on well-defined goals. The findings of this study suggest a lack of consensus about those goals. In addition, the confusion about who teaches RCR courses and the rare expectation that RCR education is required for all researchers are disappointing reminders that RCR education is not universally viewed as central to research.

Research–Practice Partnership in Mental Health: Lessons from Participants

Despite pervasive calls for increased collaboration between researchers and practitioners, there has been limited research on research–practice partnership in mental health. This qualitative study describes one research–practice partnership that supports a study of community-based psychotherapy for children and families. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with all 12 participants (six Researchers and six Practitioners) to elicit perceptions of the collaborative process, including (a) attitudes and experiences entering into the collaboration, (b) perceived challenges and benefits, and (c) suggestions for improvements in future efforts. The findings reinforce the central role of communication and trust-building in developing effective collaborations and exchanging knowledge.

Neuroscience, Neuropolitics and Neuroethics: The Complex Case of Crime, Deception and fMRI

Scientific developments take place in a socio-political context but scientists often ignore the ways their innovations will be both interpreted by the media and used by policy makers. In the rush to neuroscientific discovery important questions are overlooked, such as the ways: (1) the brain, environment and behavior are related; (2) biological changes are mediated by social organization; (3) institutional bias in the application of technical procedures ignores race, class and gender dimensions of society; (4) knowledge is used to the advantage of the powerful; and (5) its applications may reinforce existing structures of power that pose ethical questions about distributive justice. The case of crime, deception and functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) shows the complexity, and the political and ethical challenges that confront those who seek to use neuroscience to explain the etiology of crime, and who base policy on its findings. An ethically grounded neuroscience needs to take account of existing structures of power and difference, and to develop a public neuropolitical consciousness that ensures that those subject to risk by the application of science and technology are participants in the decision-making processes involving the implementation of policies that affect them.

Research Agenda The Effects of Responsible-Conduct-of-Research Training on Attitudes

Requirements for training in responsible conduct of research have significantly increased over the past 25 years, despite the absence of evidence for a substantial impact. One of the challenges has been to choose among the many possible goals that might define outcomes. Although much of the focus of research has been on changes in knowledge or skills, a case can be made that attitudes and perceptions are at least as important. Based on a recently completed pilot study, the authors propose several areas for research to clarify not only what but also how attitudes and perceptions would be usefully assessed.

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.