Integrating research integrity into the history of science.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Mody CCM
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7731646 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Dec
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Integrating research integrity into the history of science.
Mody Cyrus C M CCM Sibum H Otto HO Roberts Lissa L LL
History of science 20201201 4
This introductory essay frames our special issue by discussing how attention to the history of research integrity and fraud can stimulate new historical and methodological insights of broader import to historians of science. ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:This introductory article frames our special issue in terms of how historicizing research integrity and fraud can benefit current discussions of scientific conduct and the need to improve public trust in science.
| S-EPMC7731644 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Research misconduct has become an important matter of concern in the scientific community. The extent to which such behavior occurs early in science education has received little attention. In the current study, using the web-based data collection program REDCap, we obtained responses to an anonymous and voluntary survey about science fair from 65 high school students who recently competed in the Dallas Regional Science and Engineering Fair and from 237 STEM-track, post-high school students (undergraduates, 1st year medical students, and 1st year biomedical graduate students) doing research at UT Southwestern Medical Center. Of the post-high school students, 24% had competed in science fair during their high school education. Science fair experience was similar overall for the local cohort of Dallas regional students and the more diverse state/national cohort of post-high school students. Only one student out of 122 reported research misconduct, in his case making up the data. Unexpectedly, post-high school students who did not participate in science fair anticipated that carrying out science fair would be much more difficult than actually was the case, and 22% of the post-high school students anticipated that science fair participants would resort to research misconduct to overcome obstacles. No gender-based differences between students' science fair experiences or expectations were evident.
| S-EPMC5362261 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Design disciplines have a long history of creating well-integrated solutions to challenges which are complex, uncertain and contested by multiple stakeholders. Society faces similar challenges in implementing the Sustainable Development Goals, so design methods hold much potential. While principles of good design are well established, there has been limited integration of design thinking with sustainability science. To advance this integration, we examine the process of designing MetaMAP: an interactive graphic tool for collaborating to understand social–ecological systems and design well-integrated solutions. MetaMAP was created using Research through Design methods which integrate creative and scientific thinking. By applying design thinking, researchers and practitioners from different backgrounds undertook multiple cycles of problem framing, solution development, testing and reflection. The testing was highly collaborative involving over 150 people from diverse disciplines in workshops, case studies, interviews and critique. Reflecting on this process, we discuss design principles and opportunities for integrating design thinking with sustainability science to help achieve Sustainable Development Goals.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s11625-018-0618-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
| S-EPMC6267153 | biostudies-other
Project description:Open-ended questions have routinely been included in large-scale survey and panel studies, yet there is some perplexity about how to actually incorporate the answers to such questions into quantitative social science research. Tools developed recently in the domain of natural language processing offer a wide range of options for the automated analysis of such textual data, but their implementation has lagged behind. In this study, we demonstrate straightforward procedures that can be applied to process and analyze textual data for the purposes of quantitative social science research. Using more than 35,000 textual answers to the question "What else are you worried about?" from participants of the German Socio-economic Panel Study (SOEP), we (1) analyzed characteristics of respondents that determined whether they answered the open-ended question, (2) used the textual data to detect relevant topics that were reported by the respondents, and (3) linked the features of the respondents to the worries they reported in their textual data. The potential uses as well as the limitations of the automated analysis of textual data are discussed.
| S-EPMC5536367 | biostudies-other
Project description:IntroductionOne of the goals of evidence-based medical education is to familiarize future health care practitioners with the scientific method so they can interpret scholarly literature and communicate appropriately with patients. However, many students lack the skills necessary to conduct research themselves. We describe a preclinical elective course designed to equip students with these skills through workshops, mentorship, and research experience.MethodsThrough an application process, we selected first-year medical (M1) students who expressed interest in conducting basic, translational, or clinical research. Throughout the yearlong curriculum, students attended a series of 10 1-hour workshops to learn the skills necessary to engage in research. Additionally, each student was paired with a peer mentor. As their final project, students completed a specific aims page based on their projected research study.ResultsOver the course of 3 years, 96% of students secured a research position for the summer following M1, and 36% secured positions at external institutions with nationally competitive funding, compared to 10% of their peers who did not participate in the elective. Of students, 80% indicated that this elective helped them find and secure these research positions, and 75% of students reported that they learned valuable skills not taught in their medical curriculum.DiscussionParticipation in a preclinical research elective can provide immediate value in the form of research skills with the prospect of stimulating a lifelong interest in scientific inquiry. Our curriculum was delivered in a medical school setting, however it is applicable to any health care professional school.
| S-EPMC8056777 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundResearch misconduct and questionable research practices have been the subject of increasing attention in the past few years. But despite the rich body of research available, few empirical works also include the perspectives of non-researcher stakeholders.MethodsWe conducted semi-structured interviews and focus groups with policy makers, funders, institution leaders, editors or publishers, research integrity office members, research integrity community members, laboratory technicians, researchers, research students, and former-researchers who changed career to inquire on the topics of success, integrity, and responsibilities in science. We used the Flemish biomedical landscape as a baseline to be able to grasp the views of interacting and complementary actors in a system setting.ResultsGiven the breadth of our results, we divided our findings in a two-paper series with the current paper focusing on the problems that affect the integrity and research culture. We first found that different actors have different perspectives on the problems that affect the integrity and culture of research. Problems were either linked to personalities and attitudes, or to the climates in which researchers operate. Elements that were described as essential for success (in the associate paper) were often thought to accentuate the problems of research climates by disrupting research culture and research integrity. Even though all participants agreed that current research climates need to be addressed, participants generally did not feel responsible nor capable of initiating change. Instead, respondents revealed a circle of blame and mistrust between actor groups.ConclusionsOur findings resonate with recent debates, and extrapolate a few action points which might help advance the discussion. First, the research integrity debate must revisit and tackle the way in which researchers are assessed. Second, approaches to promote better science need to address the impact that research climates have on research integrity and research culture rather than to capitalize on individual researchers' compliance. Finally, inter-actor dialogues and shared decision making must be given priority to ensure that the perspectives of the full research system are captured. Understanding the relations and interdependency between these perspectives is key to be able to address the problems of science.Study registrationhttps://osf.io/33v3m.
| S-EPMC7807493 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSuccess shapes the lives and careers of scientists. But success in science is difficult to define, let alone to translate in indicators that can be used for assessment. In the past few years, several groups expressed their dissatisfaction with the indicators currently used for assessing researchers. But given the lack of agreement on what should constitute success in science, most propositions remain unanswered. This paper aims to complement our understanding of success in science and to document areas of tension and conflict in research assessments.MethodsWe conducted semi-structured interviews and focus groups with policy makers, funders, institution leaders, editors or publishers, research integrity office members, research integrity community members, laboratory technicians, researchers, research students, and former-researchers who changed career to inquire on the topics of success, integrity, and responsibilities in science. We used the Flemish biomedical landscape as a baseline to be able to grasp the views of interacting and complementary actors in a system setting.ResultsGiven the breadth of our results, we divided our findings in a two-paper series, with the current paper focusing on what defines and determines success in science. Respondents depicted success as a multi-factorial, context-dependent, and mutable construct. Success appeared to be an interaction between characteristics from the researcher (Who), research outputs (What), processes (How), and luck. Interviewees noted that current research assessments overvalued outputs but largely ignored the processes deemed essential for research quality and integrity. Interviewees suggested that science needs a diversity of indicators that are transparent, robust, and valid, and that also allow a balanced and diverse view of success; that assessment of scientists should not blindly depend on metrics but also value human input; and that quality should be valued over quantity.ConclusionsThe objective of research assessments may be to encourage good researchers, to benefit society, or simply to advance science. Yet we show that current assessments fall short on each of these objectives. Open and transparent inter-actor dialogue is needed to understand what research assessments aim for and how they can best achieve their objective.Study registrationosf.io/33v3m.
| S-EPMC7807516 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In the 1970s, when the social science history movement emerged in the United States, leading to the founding of the Social Science History Association, a simultaneous movement arose in which historians looked to cultural anthropology for inspiration. Although both movements involved historians turning to social sciences for theory and method, they reflected very different views of the nature of the historical enterprise. Cultural anthropology, most notably as preached by Clifford Geertz, became a means by which historians could find a theoretical basis in the social sciences for rejecting a scientific paradigm. This article examines this development while also exploring the complex ways cultural anthropology has embraced-and shunned-history in recent years.
| S-EPMC4632103 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The sequencing of the human genome and the advent of low-cost genome-wide assays that generate millions of observations of individual genomes in a matter of hours constitute a disruptive innovation for social science. Many public use social science datasets have or will soon add genome-wide genetic data. With these new data come technical challenges, but also new possibilities. Among these, the lowest-hanging fruit and the most potentially disruptive to existing research programs is the ability to measure previously invisible contours of health and disease risk within populations. In this article, we outline why now is the time for social scientists to bring genetics into their research programs. We discuss how to select genetic variants to study. We explain how the polygenic architecture of complex traits and the low penetrance of individual genetic loci pose challenges to research integrating genetics and social science. We introduce genetic risk scores as a method of addressing these challenges and provide guidance on how genetic risk scores can be constructed. We conclude by outlining research questions that are ripe for social science inquiry.
| S-EPMC4274737 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Our current understanding of mesothelioma in terms of disease induction, development, and treatment is underpinned by decades of basic laboratory science. In this chapter, we discuss the tools that have been developed to aid our understanding of mesothelioma such as cell lines and animal models. We then go on to detail the current use and understanding of conventional therapies for mesothelioma, e.g. chemotherapy, surgery, and radiotherapy, plus their mechanisms of action, and why they may be ineffective. Finally, we discuss a range of newer treatments that are either undergoing clinical trials or are still in the earlier stages of preclinical investigation. These include a growing number of immunotherapies (e.g. checkpoint inhibitors), plus targeted therapies, the search for clinical biomarkers to predict whether patients with mesothelioma might respond to particular treatments, and combined therapies where conventional treatments may be added to newer drugs. The strategy of repositioning existing drugs, approved for other diseases, to treat mesothelioma is also discussed.
| S-EPMC7119960 | biostudies-literature