PURPOSE: To determine the impact of the short science ethics courses on the knowledge of basic principles of responsible conduct of research (RCR), and on the attitude toward scientific fraud among young biomedical researchers. METHODS: A total of 361 attendees of the course on science ethics answered a specially designed anonymous multiple- choice questionnaire before and after a one-day course in science ethics. The educational course consisted of 10 lectures: 1) Good scientific practice - basic principles; 2) Publication ethics; 3) Scientific fraud - fabrication, falsification, plagiarism; 4) Conflict of interests; 5) Underpublishing; 6) Mentorship; 7) Authorship; 8) Coauthorship; 9) False authorship; 10) Good scientific practice - ethical codex of science. RESULTS: In comparison to their answers before the course, a significantly higher (p<0.001) number of students qualified their knowledge of science ethics as sufficient after the course was completed. That the wrongdoers deserve severe punishment for all types of scientific fraud, including false authorship, thought significantly (p<0.001) more attendees than before the course, while notably fewer attendees (p<0.001) would give or accept undeserved authorship CONCLUSION: Even a short course in science ethics had a great impact on the attendees, enlarging their knowledge of responsible conduct of research and changing their previous, somewhat opportunistic, behavior regarding the reluctance to react publicly and punish the wrongdoers.
PURPOSE: To determine the impact of the short science ethics courses on the knowledge of basic principles of responsible conduct of research (RCR), and on the attitude toward scientific fraud among young biomedical researchers. METHODS: A total of 361 attendees of the course on science ethics answered a specially designed anonymous multiple- choice questionnaire before and after a one-day course in science ethics. The educational course consisted of 10 lectures: 1) Good scientific practice - basic principles; 2) Publication ethics; 3) Scientific fraud - fabrication, falsification, plagiarism; 4) Conflict of interests; 5) Underpublishing; 6) Mentorship; 7) Authorship; 8) Coauthorship; 9) False authorship; 10) Good scientific practice - ethical codex of science. RESULTS: In comparison to their answers before the course, a significantly higher (p<0.001) number of students qualified their knowledge of science ethics as sufficient after the course was completed. That the wrongdoers deserve severe punishment for all types of scientific fraud, including false authorship, thought significantly (p<0.001) more attendees than before the course, while notably fewer attendees (p<0.001) would give or accept undeserved authorship CONCLUSION: Even a short course in science ethics had a great impact on the attendees, enlarging their knowledge of responsible conduct of research and changing their previous, somewhat opportunistic, behavior regarding the reluctance to react publicly and punish the wrongdoers.