Implementation of a responsible conduct of research education program at Duke University School of Medicine

Abstract

Academic medical centers rarely require all of their research faculty and staff to participate in educational programs on the responsible conduct of research (RCR). There is also little published evidence of RCR programs addressing high-profile, internal cases of misconduct as a way of promoting deliberation and learning. In the wake of major research misconduct, Duke University School of Medicine (DUSoM) expanded its RCR education activities to include all DUSoM faculty and staff engaged in research. The program included formal deliberation of the Translational Omics misconduct case, which occurred at Duke. Over 5,000 DUSoM faculty and staff participated in the first phase of this new program, with a 100% completion rate. The article reports on the program's development, challenges and successes, and future directions. This experience at Duke University illustrates that, although challenging and resource intensive, engagement with RCR activities can be integrated into programs for all research faculty and staff. Formal, participatory deliberation of recent cases of internal misconduct can add a novel dimension of reflection and openness to RCR educational activities.

Mapping of Empirical Studies on Research Integrity in University Institutions

“…In the category (Education for IR), most studies value training in integrity-related standards and principles to foster good research practices and prevent research violations. However, some studies (Knysh et al, 2020;Satalkar & Shaw, 2019;Simon et al, 2019) indicate that training programs do not immediately solve IR problems. In 2017, a study was conducted that highlighting the existence of proactive and reactive approaches to integrity and research misconduct (Hyytinen & Löfström, 2017).…”

“…In 2019, Simon et al, (2019) reported the experience of implementing an educational program from the presence of undue research. For their part (Satalkar & Shaw, 2019) point out that to reduce misconduct, it is necessary to promote personal integrity in schools and, at the same time, continuously train at the university level.…”

Developing guidelines for research institutions

“…This more recent shift in attention from cases of misconduct to QRPs and the replication crisis has reshaped the definition of RI. Instead of referring negatively to misconduct, it is now used positively to indicate efforts to increase the validity and trustworthiness of research (18,19).…”

“…Interviewees expressed that our workshops were: "interactive and colorful, and not boring…" (IN 3), "quite remarkable" (IN 6), "insightful and interesting" and "innovative" (IN 7), "fun" and "rewarding" ( IN 8). One of our interviewees mentioned that when "you have [people] on board [and engaged], they will implement [the guidelines] because they like it and because they contributed to it" (interviewee number, IN 18). Another participant remarked that engaging stakeholders actively is especially necessary to get "buy-in", i.e.…”

“…For instance, there is no need for each RI trainer to create a new RI curriculum from scratch, when there are excellent online and offline appropriate resources that can be used, adjusted and modified for use in different training programs (e.g. 18,32). Institutions can therefore benefit largely from supporting their RI stakeholders, such as RI officers and ombudspersons, to engage in national or international networking activities, so as to learn from others and find ways to partner up with other institutions, for their RI journey (3 (Chapter 6)).…”