Participant Data for the NIH Modules on the Responsible Conduct of Research

Author(s): Elysa Koppelman, Ph. D.

As Professor Whitbeck mentioned, we have essentially two main objectives we hope to accomplish by offering these modules. First, we hope to expose people to the beliefs that others in their research environment have about the responsible conduct of research. In this way, researchers can come to know the norms of their research environment and disagreements about specific issues may be revealed. Second, we hope to increase both the frequency and effectiveness of discussions about the responsible conduct of research within research environments.

Our evaluations are set up to determine whether we are meeting these goals. Our overall plan is to have students and faculty fill out evaluations at the modules and then follow up with a questionnaire six months after the module is given. We have just begun to lead pilot workshops and so have only preliminary data. Most of the data I will discuss today focuses on students, as we don't yet have enough data about faculty from which to draw any conclusions. We also have not yet given the follow-up questionnaire. The data I am citing comes from two pilot modules; the supervisor-trainee module given to 42 biomedical engineering students and the ethics of research with children module given to 16 pediatric residents. This initial data indicates that the design of our modules is working to satisfy our goals.

Our first goal, as I mentioned, is to expose people to the beliefs that others in their research environment have about the responsible conduct of research. Questions 7-9 on the faculty evaluation form and 7-12 on the student or resident form are meant to measure the success of reaching this goal. Our initial data shows that the majority of students reported that they learned something new about how their supervisors thought about the particular topic of the module. And an overwhelming majority of students learned something new about how faculty other than their own supervisors think about the particular topic of the module.

Our second goal is to increase both the frequency and effectiveness of discussions about the responsible conduct of research within research environments. Of course, this goal cannot be met if the discussion that takes place in the module itself is not perceived as relevant or realistic. The last question on each of the evaluations is meant to determine whether the scenarios that participants read and discuss during the modules cover issues that they face in the course of conducting their research. The majority of pediatric residents thought that at least most of the four scenarios were very relevant. The supervisor-trainee module has significantly more scenarios that cover a wide range of graduate student experiences. Of the 32 biomedical engineering students who responded to this question, most said that at least 2 of the scenarios were very relevant and they indicated that many others were relevant and somewhat relevant.

To determine whether the frequency of discussions about the responsible conduct of research increases, we need to first determine how frequently discussions are currently taking place. Questions two through five on the faculty evaluation and 3-7 on the student evaluation are meant to find this out. According to our data thus far, during the past six months, only _ of students report having had discussions about the responsible conduct of research with their supervisors and _ report having discussed the particular topic of the module with their supervisors. Rarely do students report talking about the responsible conduct of research with faculty other than their supervisor. About _ of the students report discussing issues in the responsible conduct of research with other students both in general and with respect to the particular topic of their module.

We also asked participants whether they expect, as a result of participating in this module, that such discussions about the particular topic of the module will increase in frequency. (See questions 10 and 11 on the student evaluation and 8 and 9 on the faculty evaluation.) We found that about _ of the students expect that such discussions with faculty will increase and 70% expect an increase in such discussions with fellow students.

In the future, we will recontact people to find out if their expectations were right by asking about the frequency of discussions in the six months since attending the module. We will also ask whether the nature of their discussions about the responsible conduct of research have changed.

Our current methodology doesn't permit a test of this question, but it is worth noting that in one set of evaluations there seemed to be an indication that faculty thought they were talking more frequently about the responsible conduct of research with their students than students thought they were talking to their faculty. If this is the case, then it might indicate that understanding what even constitutes a moral discussion or a moral problem differs among people and that sitting down together to have such discussions could prove to be helpful in this area also.

---

Table 1: Questionnaire Data

TOPIC	DEPARTMENT	# of STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRES	# of FACULTY QUESTIONNAIRES
Vulnerable Populations	Nursing	16	16
Supervisor-Trainee	Mechanical & Aerospace Eng.	21	27
Authorship	Psychiatry	1	6
Research with Children	Nursing	14	16
Editors and Reviewers	Biomedical Engineering	40	3
Mentally Ill	Psychiatry	5	4
Supervisor-Trainee	Nursing	10	19
Editors and Reviewers	Pathology	17	9
Authorship	Chemistry	17	12
Authorship	Nursing	3	19
Authorship	Pathology	14	7
Supervisor-Trainee	Biomedical Engineering	42	4
Supervisor-Trainee	Psychology	13	6
Research with Children	Pediatrics	16	0
Animal Research	Biomedical Engineering	38	6
Genetics Research	Genetics	38	13