In recent years, we have seen a new concern with ethics training for research and development professionals. Although ethics training has become more common, the effectiveness of the training being provided is open to question. In the present effort, a new ethics training course was developed that stresses the importance of the strategies people apply to make sense of ethical problems. The effectiveness of this training was assessed in a sample of 59 doctoral students working in the biological and social sciences using a pre-post design with follow-up, and a series of ethical decisionmaking measures serving as the outcome variable. Results showed that this training not only led to sizable gains in ethical decision-making, but that these gains were maintained over time. The implications of these findings for ethics training in the sciences are discussed. Keywordsintegrity; ethics; training; evaluation; sensemaking Notorious events, ranging from the death of study participants to the falsification of data (Kimmelman, 2004; Nature, 2006;Marshall, 1996) have served to remind the scientific community of the importance of ethics. As dramatic as these cases may be, the best available evidence indicates that less noteworthy, but still significant, ethical breeches, such as conflicts of interest and data trimming, may be more pervasive in the sciences than is commonly assumed (Martinson, Anderson, & de Vries, 2005;Steneck, 2004). Recognition of the problems posed by these ethical breeches has led to the proposal of a number of remedies -ranging from the establishment of professional codes of conduct to more effective student mentoring (National Institute of Medicine, 2002).Prominent among these suggested remedies has been training in the responsible conduct of research (e.g., Chen, 2003;Coughlin, Katz, & Mattison, 1999;De Las Fuentes, Willmuth, & Yarrow, 2005). In fact, the National Institutes of Health now mandates such training for all investigators it supports (Dalton, 2000). Although training in research ethics has become a widespread panacea for the problems posed by scientific integrity, or the lack thereof, one must ask a basic question: How well does training in research integrity work?Even bearing in mind the many issues that impinge on effective program evaluation (Kraiger, Ford, & Salas, 1993;Sims, 1993), it seems reasonable to question the efficacy of ethics training. An illustration of this point may be found by considering the many studies conducted examining the effects of training on one key criterion -ethical decision-making (Loe, Ferrell, Correspondence should be addressed to Dr. Michael D. Mumford, Department of Psychology, The University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma 73019 or mmumford@ou.edu.. & Mansfield, 2000;O'Fallon & Butterfield, 2005). Some studies have provided evidence indicating that training may lead to improvements in ethical decision-making among scientists (e.g., Al-Jalahma & Fakhroo, 2004;Bebeau & Thoma, 1994;Clarkeburn, Downie, & Matthew, 2002). Other studies, however, sugge...

Scholars have proposed a number of courses and programs intended to improve the ethical behavior of scientists in an attempt to maintain the integrity of the scientific enterprise. In the present study, we conducted a quantitative meta-analysis based on 26 previous ethics program evaluation efforts, and the results showed that the overall effectiveness of ethics instruction was modest. The effects of ethics instruction, however, were related to a number of instructional program factors, such as course content and delivery methods, in addition to factors of the evaluation study itself, such as the field of investigator and criterion measure utilized. An examination of the characteristics contributing to the relative effectiveness of instructional programs revealed that more successful programs were conducted as seminars separate from the standard curricula rather than being embedded in existing courses. Furthermore, more successful programs were case-based, interactive and allowed participants to learn and practice the application of real-world ethical decision-making skills. The implications of these findings for future course development and evaluation are discussed.

ethics, business ethics, ethics instruction, ethics training, training effectiveness, meta-analysis,

Ethical decision making measures are widely applied as the principal dependent variable used in studies of research integrity. However, evidence bearing on the internal and external validity of these measures is not available. In this study, ethical decision making measures were administered to 102 graduate students in the biological, health, and social sciences, along with measures examining exposure to ethical breaches and the severity of punishments recommended. The ethical decision making measure was found to be related to exposure to ethical events and the severity of punishments awarded. The implications of these findings for the application of ethical decision making measures are discussed.

Purpose To examine the effects that existing courses on the responsible conduct of research (RCR) have on ethical decision making by assessing the ethicality of decisions made in response to ethical problems and the underlying processes involved in ethical decision making. These processes included how an individual thinks through ethical problems (i.e., meta-cognitive reasoning strategies) and the emphasis placed on social dimensions of ethical problems (i.e., social–behavioral responses). Method In 2005–2007, recruitment announcements were made, stating that a nationwide, online study was being conducted to examine the impact of RCR instruction on the ethical decision making of scientists. Recruitment yielded contacts with over 200 RCR faculty at 21 research universities and medical schools; 40 (20%) RCR instructors enrolled their courses in the current study. From those courses, 173 participants completed an ethical decision-making measure. Results A mixed pattern of effects emerged. The ethicality of decisions did not improve as a result of RCR instruction and even decreased for decisions pertaining to business aspects of research, such as contract bidding. Course participants improved on some meta-cognitive reasoning strategies, such as awareness of the situation and consideration of personal motivations, but declined for seeking help and considering others’ perspectives. Participants also increased in their endorsement of detrimental social–behavioral responses, such as deception, retaliation, and avoidance of personal responsibility. Conclusions These findings indicated that RCR instruction may not be as effective as intended, and in fact, may even be harmful. Harmful effects might result if instruction leads students to overstress avoidance of ethical problems, be overconfident in their ability to handle ethical problems, or overemphasize their ethical nature. Future research must examine these and other possible obstacles to effective RCR instruction.