BACKGROUND: Little is known about scientists' views on normative research ethics and how these compare with the views of the institutional representatives (IRs) involved in matters of scientific conduct. We qualitatively evaluated scientist and IR perceptions of the norms of science, ethical violations and their harms, factors contributing to violations, and approaches to improve scientific conduct. METHODS: Focus groups were conducted with National Science Foundation investigators and with IRs. Themes were extracted from observation, notes, and transcripts. Consensus and contrasts within and between groups were described. RESULTS: Scientists described a rich set of norms including honesty, integrity, service, sharing, openness, mentoring, and meticulous work habits. Institutional representatives focused on good citizenship and abiding by administrative rules. Both groups listed similar ethical violations, though scientists felt that severe violations were rare, that science was self-correcting, and that the greatest harm from misconduct disclosure was the loss of public trust and funding. Institutional representatives called for increased and less confidential misconduct investigations. Reporting misconduct was strongly supported by IRs but rejected by scientists. Both scientists and IRs believed that formal research ethics education was needed for trainees. CONCLUSIONS: Scientists in these focus groups upheld a complex set of norms that mirror prior codes of science and exceed national misconduct rules. The sharply contrasting views of scientists and IRs concerning responsibility to report misconduct, the utility of misconduct investigation, and penalties for misconduct highlight areas where open discussion and constructive resolution are needed to formulate a functional mechanism to enhance the ethical conduct of science.
BACKGROUND: Little is known about scientists' views on normative research ethics and how these compare with the views of the institutional representatives (IRs) involved in matters of scientific conduct. We qualitatively evaluated scientist and IR perceptions of the norms of science, ethical violations and their harms, factors contributing to violations, and approaches to improve scientific conduct. METHODS: Focus groups were conducted with National Science Foundation investigators and with IRs. Themes were extracted from observation, notes, and transcripts. Consensus and contrasts within and between groups were described. RESULTS: Scientists described a rich set of norms including honesty, integrity, service, sharing, openness, mentoring, and meticulous work habits. Institutional representatives focused on good citizenship and abiding by administrative rules. Both groups listed similar ethical violations, though scientists felt that severe violations were rare, that science was self-correcting, and that the greatest harm from misconduct disclosure was the loss of public trust and funding. Institutional representatives called for increased and less confidential misconduct investigations. Reporting misconduct was strongly supported by IRs but rejected by scientists. Both scientists and IRs believed that formal research ethics education was needed for trainees. CONCLUSIONS: Scientists in these focus groups upheld a complex set of norms that mirror prior codes of science and exceed national misconduct rules. The sharply contrasting views of scientists and IRs concerning responsibility to report misconduct, the utility of misconduct investigation, and penalties for misconduct highlight areas where open discussion and constructive resolution are needed to formulate a functional mechanism to enhance the ethical conduct of science.
Entities:
Keywords:
Bioethics and Professional Ethics; Biomedical and Behavioral Research; Empirical Approach