Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ethical issues in biomedical research: Perceptions and practices of postdoctoral research fellows responding to a survey

  • Published:
Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We surveyed 1005 postdoctoral fellows by questionnaire about ethical matters related to biomedical research and publishing; 33% responded. About 18% of respondents said they had taken a course in research ethics, and about 31% said they had had a course that devoted some time to research ethics. A substantial majority stated willingness to grant other investigators, except competitors, access to their data before publication and to share research materials. Respondents’ opinions about contributions justifying authorship of research papers were mainly consistent but at variance with those of many biomedical journal editors. More than half said they had observed what they considered unethical research practices. To increase the chances of getting a grant funded, 27% said they were willing to select or omit data to improve their results; to make publication of their work more likely or to benefit their career, 15% would select or omit data and 32% would list an undeserving author. Of respondents who thought they had been unfairly denied authorship on a paper, or been listed with or asked to list an undeserving author, 75% said they would be willing to list an undeserving author (P<0.001). Having taken a course dealing with research ethics had no effect on stated willingness to select or omit data or to fabricate data in the future, but was positively associated with willingness to grant undeserved authorship (P<0.04). Although these results do not controvert research demonstrating the effectiveness of ethics courses during professional education, they indicate that the research environment is a powerful component of a trainee’s experience and ethical development.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Committee on the Responsible Conduct of Research, Institute of Medicine (1989)The Responsible Conduct of Research in the Health Sciences. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. [Available from National Academy of Sciences, 2101 Constitution Avenue, Washington, DC 20418.]

    Google Scholar 

  2. National Institutes of Health (1992) Reminder and update: requirement for instruction in the responsible conduct of research in National Research Service Award institutional training grants.NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts 21:2–3.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Office of Research Integrity — US Public Health Service (1993) NIH strengthens responsible conduct of research requirement in training grant applications.ORI Newsletter 1:1,8.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Friedman P J (1992) On misunderstanding scientific misconduct.Knowledge 14:153–156.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Kalichman M W & Friedman P J (1992) A pilot study of biomedical trainees’ perceptions concerning research ethics.Academic Medicine 67:767–773.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Fischbach R, ed (1994)Educating for the Responsible Conduct of Research. NIH Policy and Other Mandates, PRIM&R, Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Korenman S G & Shipp A C (1994)Teaching the Responsible Conduct of Research Through a Case Study Approach: A Handbook for Instructors. American Association of Medical Colleges, Washington DC.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Swazey J, Bird S J (1996) Teaching and learning research ethics.Professional Ethics Journal: Ethics in Scientific and Engineering Research

  9. Self D J, Wolinsky F D & Baldwin D C Jr (1989) The effect of teaching medical ethics on medical students’ moral reasoning.Academic Medicine 64:755–759.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Swazey J P (1993) Teaching ethics: needs, opportunities, and obstacles. Findings from the Acadia Institute project on professional values and ethical issues in the graduate education of scientists and engineers. In:Ethics, Values, and the Promise of Science. Proceedings of the Sigma Xi Forum, San Francisco (CA) Feb. 25–26: 233–242. [Available from Sigma Xi, PO Box 13975, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709.]

  11. Krulwich T A & Friedman P J (1993) Integrity in the education of researchers.Academic Medicine 68 (supplement): S14-S18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Friedman P J (1990) Research ethics: a teaching agenda for academic medicine.Academic Medicine 65: 32–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Panel on Scientific Responsibility and the Conduct of Research, Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine (1992)Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process, Volume 1. National Academy Press, Washington DC.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Petersdorf R G (1986) The pathogenesis of fraud in medical science.Annals of Internal Medicine 104:252–254.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Swazey J P, Anderson M S & Lewis K S (1993) Ethical problems in academic research.American Scientist 81: 542–553.

    Google Scholar 

  16. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (1991) Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals (fourth edition).New England Journal of Medicine 324:424–428 andBritish Medical Journal 301:338–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Huth E J (1990)How to Write and Publish Papers in the Medical Sciences (second edition). Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Sigma Xi (1986)Honor in Science, Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society, Research Triangle Park, NC.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Alberts B M (1985) Limits to growth in biology: small science is good science.Cell 41: 337–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Shapiro D W, Wenger N S & Shapiro M F (1994) The contributions of authors to multiauthored biomedical research papers.Journal of the American Medical Association 271: 438–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Goodman N W (1994) Survey of fulfilment of criteria for authorship in published medical research.British Medical Journal 309: 1482.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Conrad C C (1990) Authorship, acknowledgment, and other credits. In: Editorial Policy Committee, Council of Biology Editors (1990)Ethics and Policy in Scientific Publication, pp 184–187. Council of Biology Editors, Bethesda MD [Available from Council of Biology Editors, 60 Revere Drive, Suite 500, Northbrook IL 60062, USA.]

    Google Scholar 

  23. Hart R G (1992) Correspondence: on authorship and acknowledgments (letter).New England Journal of Medicine 326:1084.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Panel on Scientific Responsibility and the Conduct of Research, Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine (1993)Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process. Volume II. National Academy Press, Washington DC.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Relman A S (1990) Responsible science—responsible authorship: discussion. In: Editorial Policy Committee, Council of Biology Editors (1990)Ethics and Policy in Scientific Publication, p 199. Council of Biology Editors, Bethesda, MD.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Fields K L & Price A R (1993) Problems in research integrity arising from misconceptions about the ownership of research.Academic Medicine 68 (September supplement): S60-S64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Marshall E (1990) Data sharing: a declining ethic.Science 248: 952–957.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Nowak R (1994) Problems in clinical trials go far beyond misconduct.Science 264: 1538–1541.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Nowak R (1994) Ignorance is not bliss.Science 264: 1538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Kish L (1994) Statistical medicine (letter).Science 265: 591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Bailar J C III (1986) Science, statistics, and deception.Annals of Internal Medicine 104: 259–260.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, National Academy of Sciences (1995)On Being a Scientist: Responsible Conduct in Research (second edition). National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Malone T, Holton G, Chalk R, Blair C & Fischbach R (1994) Panel I: The responsible conduct of research: the historical underpinnings, the current NIH policy, definitions of terms and the value of virtue. In: Fischbach R, ed (1994)Educating for the Responsible Conduct of Research. NIH Policy and Other Mandates. PRIM&R, Boston: 19–54.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Rennie D (1989) How much fraud? Let’s do an experimental audit.AAAS Observer (6 Jan). American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington DC: 4.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Jamieson D, Zigmond M J, Rabins M J, Sieber J E, Weil V (1994) Ethics in the Science Curriculum (abstracts). In:AAAS ’94: Science and a Changing World (Annual Meeting Program/Abstracts, San Francisco, 18–23 February). American Association for the Advancement of Science. Washington DC: 54.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Hoshiko T (1993) Responsible conduct of scientific research: a one-semester course for graduate students.American Journal of Physiology 264: S8-S10.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Bebeau M J (1991) Can ethics be taught? A look at the evidence.Journal of the American College of Dentists 58: 5, 10–15.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Rest J R (1986) Moral development in young adults. In: Mines R A & Kitchener K S, eds.Adult Cognitive Development: Methods and Models. Praeger, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Rest J R (1988) Can ethics be taught in professional schools? The psychological research.Ethics, Easier Said Than Done, Winter: 22–26.

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. Pamela Derish (Editor)

    Present address: Dept. of Medicine, School of Medicine, UCSF, USA

  2. Stephen Ordway (Principal Editior)

    Present address: San Francisco General Hospital, San Francisco, CA

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Neurological Surgery M-777, School of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, 505 Parnassus Avenue, Box 0112, 94143-0112, San Francisco, CA, USA

    Susan Eastwood ELS(D) (Principal Analyst for Biomedical Research and Publications), Pamela Derish (Editor), Evangeline Leash (Principal Editor) & Stephen Ordway (Principal Editior)

  2. Department of Stomatology, School of Dentistry, UCSF, San Francisco, CA

    Susan Eastwood ELS(D) (Principal Analyst for Biomedical Research and Publications), Pamela Derish (Editor), Evangeline Leash (Principal Editor) & Stephen Ordway (Principal Editior)

Authors
  1. Susan Eastwood ELS(D)
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Pamela Derish
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Evangeline Leash
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Stephen Ordway
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Preliminary results of this work were presented in part as a poster at the forumEthics, Values, and the Promise of Science, presented by Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society, 25–26 February 1993 in San Francisco, California, USA.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Eastwood, S., Derish, P., Leash, E. et al. Ethical issues in biomedical research: Perceptions and practices of postdoctoral research fellows responding to a survey. Sci Eng Ethics 2, 89–114 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02639320

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02639320

Keywords

Search

Navigation