Literature DB >> 1418260

A pilot study of biomedical trainees' perceptions concerning research ethics.

M W Kalichman1, P J Friedman.   

Abstract

The authors surveyed 2,010 biomedical trainees in the fall of 1990 at the University of California, San Diego, regarding their perceptions about unethical practices in research and the extent of their training exposure to the ethics of scientific investigation; 549 responded, representing both clinical and basic science departments and including graduate students and postdoctoral fellows in addition to medical students, residents, and fellows. Of the 549 trainees, 129 (23%) responded that they had received no training in research ethics; 195 (36%), that they had observed some kind of scientific misconduct (although not necessarily in the sense of research fraud defined in federal regulations); and 81 (15%), that they would be willing to select, omit, or fabricate data to win a grant or publish a paper. The trainees planning an academic career were more likely to report having been aware of others' scientific misconduct. Reported exposure to ethics training was not associated with a difference in past or potential unethical behavior. The authors conclude that while the apparent ineffectiveness of past ethics instruction does not preclude the possibility that more systematic training may be useful, it does underscore the need to assess the efficacy of training activities.

Keywords:  Biomedical and Behavioral Research; Empirical Approach

Mesh:

Year:  1992        PMID: 1418260     DOI: 10.1097/00001888-199211000-00015

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acad Med        ISSN: 1040-2446            Impact factor:   6.893


  43 in total

1.  Measuring consensus about scientific research norms.

Authors:  R A Berk; S G Korenman; N S Wenger
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 3.525

2.  Fraud, misconduct or normal science in medical research--an empirical study of demarcation.

Authors:  N Lynöe; L Jacobsson; E Lundgren
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 2.903

3.  A survey of newly appointed consultants' attitudes towards research fraud.

Authors:  D Geggie
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 2.903

4.  Confronting misconduct in science in the 1980s and 1990s: what has and has not been accomplished?

Authors:  Nicholas H Steneck
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 3.525

5.  The fallout: what happens to whistleblowers and those accused but exonerated of scientific misconduct?

Authors:  James S Lubalin; Jennifer L Matheson
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 3.525

6.  Effects of training in the responsible conduct of research: a survey of graduate students in experimental sciences.

Authors:  Sarah Brown; Michael W Kalichman
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  1998-10       Impact factor: 3.525

7.  An introduction to research ethics.

Authors:  Paul J Friedman
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  1996-10       Impact factor: 3.525

8.  Ethical issues in biomedical research: perceptions and practices of postdoctoral research fellows responding to a survey.

Authors:  Susan Eastwood; Pamela Derish; Evangeline Leash; Stephen Ordway
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  1996-01       Impact factor: 3.525

9.  Coauthorship in physics.

Authors:  Eugen Tarnow
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 3.525

10.  Factors associated with research wrongdoing in Nigeria.

Authors:  Omokhoa A Adeleye; Clement A Adebamowo
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 1.742

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.