Raymond De Vries

What do mentoring and training in the responsible conduct of research have to do with scientists' misbehavior? Findings from a National Survey of NIH-funded scientists

Purpose The authors examine training in the responsible conduct of research and mentoring in relation to behaviors that may compromise the integrity of science. Method The analysis is based on data from the authors’ 2002 national survey of 4,160 early-career and 3,600 midcareer biomedical and social science researchers who received research support from the U.S. National Institutes of Health. The authors used logistic regression analysis to examine associations between receipt of separate or integrated training in research ethics, mentoring related to ethics and in general, and eight categories of ethically problematic behavior. Analyses controlled for gender, type of doctoral degree, international degree, and disciplinary field. Results Responses were received from 1,479 early-career and 1,768 midcareer scientists, yielding adjusted response rates of 43% and 52%, respectively. Results for early-career researchers: Training in research ethics was positively associated with problematic behavior in the data category. Mentoring related to ethics and research, as well as personal mentoring, decreased the odds of researchers’ engaging in problematic behaviors, but mentoring on financial issues and professional survival increased these odds. Results for midcareer researchers: Combined separate and integrated training in research ethics was associated with decreased odds of problematic behavior in the categories of policy, use of funds, and cutting corners. Ethics mentoring was associated with lowered odds of problematic behavior in the policy category. Conclusions The effectiveness of training in obviating problematic behavior is called into question. Mentoring has the potential to influence behavior in ways that both increase and decrease the likelihood of problematic behaviors.

Scientists’ Perceptions of Organizational Justice and Self-Reported Misbehaviors

Policymakers concerned about maintaining the integrity of science have recently expanded their attention from a focus on misbehaving individuals to characteristics of the environments in which scientists work. Little empirical evidence exists about the role of organizational justice in promoting or hindering scientific integrity. Our findings indicate that when scientists believe they are being treated unfairly they are more likely to behave in ways that compromise the integrity of science. Perceived violations of distributive and procedural justice were positively associated with self-reports of misbehavior among scientists.

Bureaucracies of Mass Deception: Institutional Review Boards and the Ethics of Ethnographic Research

Ethnographers have long been unhappy with the review of their research proposals by institutional review boards (IRBs). In this article, we offer a sociological view of the problems associated with prospective IRB review of ethnographic research. Compared with researchers in other fields, social scientists have been less willing to accommodate themselves to IRB oversight; we identify the reasons for this reluctance, and in an effort to promote such accommodation, we suggest several steps to reduce the frustration associated with IRB review of ethnographic research. We conclude by encouraging ethnographers to be alert to the ways the procedural and bureaucratic demands of IRBs can displace their efforts to solve the serious ethical dilemmas posed by ethnography.

'Nobody tosses a dwarf!' The relation between the empirical and the normative reexamined.

This article discusses the relation between empirical and normative approaches in bioethics. The issue of dwarf tossing, while admittedly unusual, is chosen as a point of departure because it challenges the reader to look with fresh eyes upon several central bioethical themes, including human dignity, autonomy, and the protection of vulnerable people. After an overview of current approaches to the integration of empirical and normative ethics, we consider five ways that the empirical and normative can be brought together to speak to the problem of dwarf tossing: prescriptive applied ethics, theoretical ethics, critical applied ethics, particularist ethics and integrated empirical ethics. We defend a position of critical applied ethics that allows for a two-way relation between empirical and normative theories. Against efforts fully to integrate the normative and the empirical into one synthesis, we propose that the two should stand in tension and relation to one another. The approach we endorse acknowledges that a social practice can and should be judged both by the gathering of empirical data and by normative ethics. Critical applied ethics uses a five stage process that includes: (a) determination of the problem, (b) description of the problem, (c) empirical study of effects and alternatives, (d) normative weighing and (e) evaluation of the effects of a decision. In each stage, we explore the perspective from both the empirical (sociological) and the normative ethical point of view. We conclude by applying our five-stage critical applied ethics to the example of dwarf tossing.

Assessing the Public's Views in Research Ethics Controversies: Deliberative Democracy and Bioethics As Natural Allies

In a liberal democracy, policy decisions regarding ethical controversies, including those in research ethics, should incorporate the opinions of its citizens. Eliciting informed and well-considered ethical opinions can be challenging. The issues may not be widely familiar and they may involve complex scientific, legal, historical, and ethical dimensions. Traditional surveys risk eliciting superficial and uninformed opinions that may be of dubious quality for policy formation. We argue that the theory and practice of deliberative democracy (DD) is especially useful in overcoming such inadequacies. We explain DD theory and practice, discuss the rationale for using DD methods in research ethics, and illustrate in depth the use of a DD method for a longstanding research ethics controversy involving research based on surrogate consent. The potential pitfalls of DD and the means of minimizing them as well as future research directions are also discussed.

The importance of organizational justice in ensuring research integrity

The professional behavior of scientists, for good or ill, is likely associated with their perceptions of whether they are treated fairly in their work environments, including their academic department and university and by relevant regulatory bodies. These relationships may also be influenced by their own personal characteristics, such as being overcommitted to their work, and by the interactions between these factors. Theory also suggests that such associations may be mediated by negative or positive affect. We examined these issues using data from a national, mail-based survey administered in 2006 and 2007 to 5,000 randomly selected faculty from biomedical and social science departments at 50 top-tier research universities in the United States. We found that perceptions of justice in ones workplace (organizational justice) are positively associated with self-report of “ideal” behaviors and negatively associated with self-report of misbehavior and misconduct. By contrast, researchers who perceive that they are being unfairly treated are less likely to report engaging in “ideal” behaviors and more likely to report misbehavior and misconduct. Overcommitment to ones work is also associated with negative affect and interacts with perceptions of unfair treatment in ways that are associated with higher self-report of misbehavior. Thus, perceptions of fair treatment in the work environment appear to play important roles in fostering—or undermining—research integrity.

Moral Concerns and the Willingness to Donate to a Research Biobank

Research biobanks are increasing in number and importance, with great potential for advancing knowledge of human health, disease, and treatment. Recruitment of donors is vital to their success and relies largely on blanket consent, in which donors give one-time permission for any future research uses of their coded specimen. This approach to consent has been endorsed recently in proposed changes to federal regulations. Previous studies suggest that donors may have moral, religious, and cultural concerns about the use to which their specimens are put, which may affect their willingness to give blanket consent.These earlier studies, however, used convenience samples unrepresentative of the US population.

Preferred place of birth: Characteristics and motives of low-risk nulliparous women in the Netherlands

OBJECTIVE to explores preferences, characteristics and motives regarding place of birth of low-risk nulliparous women in the Netherlands. DESIGN a prospective cohort study of low-risk nulliparous women and their partners starting their pregnancy in midwifery-led care or in obstetric-led care. Data were collected using a self-administered questionnaire, including questions on demographic, psychosocial and pregnancy factors and statements about motives with regard to place of birth. Depression, worry and self-esteem were explored using the Edinburgh Depression Scale (EDS), the Cambridge Worry Scale (CWS) and the Rosenberg Self Esteem Scale (RSE). SETTING participants were recruited in 100 independent midwifery practices and 14 hospitals from 2007 to 2011. PARTICIPANTS 550 low-risk nulliparous women; 231 women preferred a home birth, 170 women a hospital birth in midwifery-led care and 149 women a birth in obstetric-led care. FINDINGS Significant differences in characteristics were found in the group who preferred a birth in obstetric-led care compared to the two groups who preferred midwifery-led care. Those women were older (F (2,551)=16.14, p<0.001), had a higher family income (χ(2) (6)=18.87, p=0.004), were more frequently pregnant after assisted reproduction (χ(2)(2)=35.90, p<0.001) and had a higher rate of previous miscarriage (χ(2)(2)=25.96, p<0.001). They also differed significantly on a few emotional aspects: more women in obstetric-led care had symptoms of a major depressive disorder (χ(2)(2)=6.54, p=0.038) and were worried about health issues (F (2,410)=8.90, p<0.001). Womens choice for a home birth is driven by a desire for greater personal autonomy, whereas womens choice for a hospital birth is driven by a desire to feel safe and control risks. KEY CONCLUSIONS the characteristics of women who prefer a hospital birth are different than the characteristics of women who prefer a home birth. It appears that for women preferring a hospital birth, the assumed safety of the hospital is more important than type of care provider. This brings up the question whether women are fully aware of the possibilities of maternity care services. Women might need concrete information about the availability and the characteristics of the services within the maternity care system and the risks and benefits associated with either setting, in order to make an informed choice where to give birth.

How Important Is 'Accuracy' of Surrogate Decision- Making for Research Participation?

Background There is a longstanding concern about the accuracy of surrogate consent in representing the health care and research preferences of those who lose their ability to decide for themselves. We sought informed, deliberative views of the older general public (≥50 years old) regarding their willingness to participate in dementia research and to grant leeway to future surrogates to choose an option contrary to their stated wishes. Methodology/Principal Findings 503 persons aged 50+ recruited by random digit dialing were randomly assigned to one of three groups: deliberation, education, or control. The deliberation group attended an all-day education/peer deliberation session; the education group received written information only. Participants were surveyed at baseline, after the deliberation session (or equivalent time), and one month after the session, regarding their willingness to participate in dementia research and to give leeway to surrogates, regarding studies of varying risk-benefit profiles (a lumbar puncture study, a drug randomized controlled trial, a vaccine randomized controlled trial, and an early phase gene transfer trial). At baseline, 48% (gene transfer scenario) to 92% (drug RCT) were willing to participate in future dementia research. A majority of respondents (57–71% depending on scenario) were willing to give leeway to future surrogate decision-makers. Democratic deliberation increased willingness to participate in all scenarios, to grant leeway in 3 of 4 scenarios (lumbar puncture, vaccine, and gene transfer), and to enroll loved ones in research in all scenarios. On average, respondents were more willing to volunteer themselves for research than to enroll their loved ones. Conclusions/Significance Most people were willing to grant leeway to their surrogates, and this willingness was either sustained or increased after democratic deliberation, suggesting that the attitude toward leeway is a reliable opinion. Eliciting a person’s current preferences about future research participation should also involve eliciting his or her leeway preferences.

Deliberative assessment of surrogate consent in dementia research

Research involving incapacitated persons with dementia entails complex scientific, legal, and ethical issues, making traditional surveys of layperson views on the ethics of such research challenging. We therefore assessed the impact of democratic deliberation (DD), involving balanced, detailed education and peer deliberation, on the views of those responsible for persons with dementia.