Article Cite This: J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc
Interactive Poster Survey Study of ACS Members’ Knowledge and Needs on Research Ethics Patricia Ann Mabrouk*,† and Susan M. Schelble‡ †
Department of Chemistry & Chemical Biology, Northeastern University, 360 Huntington Avenue-311 HT, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, United States ‡ Department of Chemistry, Metropolitan State University of Denver, P.O. Box 173362 CB 52, Denver, Colorado 80217, United States ABSTRACT: An interactive poster exhibited at two poster sessions at the Fall 2016 American Chemical Society (ACS) National Meeting was used as a vehicle to learn about ACS members’ concerns and needs related to research ethics and to identify opportunities for engagement of the Society by the Committee on Ethics (ETHX) and others in terms of ethics awareness, education, and meeting programming. The poster which leveraged color-coded sticky notes engaged 92 poster session attendees representing a wide array of shareholders from academe and industry. 15% of the participants returned to the poster to learn what other conferees had posted. The study identified a number of critical gaps in knowledge that represent opportunities for ACS, educators, and others to engage members in the vital area of research ethics education and training. These include a lack of awareness of existing resources on research ethics, an interest among members for materials for student training, and concerns about ethical issues in the areas of publications, plagiarism, data-handling, teaching ethics, and ethical decision-making. KEYWORDS: General Public, Public Understanding/Outreach, Hands-On Learning/Manipulatives, Inquiry-Based/Discovery Learning, Ethics
■
INTRODUCTION Ethics is widely regarded as foundational to research and innovation in STEM.1 That education and training are regarded as vital is evidenced by the requirement for the training of all participants in the academy supported with federal funding (NIH or NSF) in the responsible conduct of research (RCR).2−4 Consequently, much attention has been paid by educators to identify efficacious methods of teaching undergraduates, graduate students, and postgraduates about RCR. 5 − 1 2 Case studies, 9 , 1 3 − 1 8 modules, and even courses7,19−25 have been designed and implemented to teach undergraduate and graduate student chemists ethics. No direct information is available on the degree to which chemistry faculty are aware of and are using these materials in their classrooms. Furthermore, we have no information on what questions and concerns faculty have about research ethics nor of their needs for additional resources. This information would be useful in guiding the development and testing of future resources on research ethics for the chemistry community. Findings from a number of recent discipline-based educational research (DBER) studies, largely in the biomedical sciences, investigating the efficacy of research ethics training on undergraduate and graduate students, suggest that while ethics training may lead to improved comprehension of core research ethics concepts such as falsification, fabrication, and plagiarism, it may not affect students’ attitudes or inform their ethical decision-making.11,12,26−29 © XXXX American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.
The ACS Committee on Ethics (ETHX) was established in 2006 during E. Ann Nally’s Presidential succession as a Committee of the Council, to develop and coordinate ethicsrelated activities including meeting programming, to serve as an educational resource and clearinghouse on ethics issues, and to promote the Society’s standards of ethical conduct.30−32 The Committee partners with technical divisions and other Committees of the Society on activities ranging from symposia programming for the national meeting to the development of educational materials.31 To date, no one has investigated the ACS members’ knowledge and awareness concerning research ethics and ethical decision-making. ACS ETHX has identified the collection of information on the ACS membership’s knowledge and awareness of research ethics and ethical decision-making as a priority. Here, we wish to report early findings from a study we have initiated to survey ACS members in order to learn what questions and concerns that members have about research ethics. Our intent was to learn what resources members use and learn what, if any, resources ETHX and ACS can provide to address their ethics concerns and to increase ethical awareness among ACS members. We designed an interactive poster for display at two venues at a National ACS Meeting that could be Received: November 13, 2017 Revised: April 16, 2018
A
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00867 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
Article
Figure 1. Image shows the ACS interactive ethics poster exhibited at the CHED and SCI-MIX Poster Sessions at the Fall 2016 National ACS Meeting.
Participants were not “recruited” per se. Participants were not instructed to answer any specific question on the poster, so responses reflect the interests and concerns of those posting. The distinctive appearance of the poster itself with its bright colors and the deliberate absence of dense text served to draw people in. The growing number of people present at the poster and reading the growing number of sticky notes on the poster were likely important secondary factors. No formal scripts were used to recruit visitors. Participants at the CHED and SciMix poster sessions were greeted enthusiastically, encouraged to participate, and, if interested, asked if they were undergraduate students, graduate students or postdocs, faculty, researchers employed in the private sector, or “other professionals” (librarians, environmental health and safety experts, publishers, etc.). Depending on their answer they were handed a small stack of 2 in. × 2 in. sticky notes with a different designated color and a pencil. The number of pencils handed out was tracked and used to determine the number of unique participants; attendees were told to keep their pencil and any unused sticky notes, and all were eager to do so. Those that did not wish to participate simply walked away and visited other posters. Participants were encouraged to post their sticky note on the puzzle piece corresponding to the question to which they were responding. To ensure full participation by all those visiting the poster at the bottom of the poster, four envelopes, each clearly marked with one of the four questions, were posted. This was done to ensure that there was a mechanism for privacy in case any participants were concerned about someone reading their answers and identifying them. All participants opted to post their answers on the poster itself. No answers were placed in the envelopes. Participants were observed to spend on average about 5−10 min at the poster. Some individuals spent more time, and a number came back to read the answers that their peers had posted on the poster. So, the second night at SciMix visitors returning to the poster were offered stars that they could use to mark those stickies that had questions or responses with which
used to collect information on members’ ethical concerns and to identify what resources ACS members found useful in their professional work or academic studies in ethical decisionmaking. Our findings should be of interest to chemistry faculty and chemical education researchers in helping to establish priorities for future chemical education activities and chemical education research in this area. Furthermore, to our knowledge, there have been no reports of any efforts leveraging sticky notes and an interactive poster format as a mechanism to survey participants at a technical meeting. We believe the interactive poster is a new and interesting approach that may be of interest to educators and researchers alike.
■
RESEARCH METHODS
Participants and Their Recruitment
An IRB application was submitted to the Northeastern University Institutional Review Board and approved for this study. The participants in this study were those individuals who voluntarily stopped by a poster exhibited at two different venues, specifically, the Division of Chemical Education Poster Session August 21, 2016, and the interdisciplinary, conferencewide SciMix Poster Session August 22, 2016. Both poster sessions were 2 h long and held during the Fall 2016 National ACS Meeting. The poster, shown in Figure 1, was a 48 in. × 42 in. grid of four different colored interlocked puzzle pieces and one of four questions. The puzzle pieces provided for lots of space inviting participants to place sticky notes. Visitors were asked if they were willing to help the ACS Ethics Committee by answering one or more of the four questions posed on the poster: • What ethical issue is of greatest concern to you in your work? • What ethical issue do you find most difficult to resolve? • What research ethics resources would you like to have available that do not currently exist? • What research ethics resource has been most helpful to you? B
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00867 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
Article
Figure 2. Photograph of the ETHX Poster at the end of the Sci-Mix Poster Session at the Fall 2016 ACS National Meeting. Left to right: Karlo Lopez, Pam Mabrouk, Sue Schelble, and Ed Mottel. The colors of the stickies on the poster indicate the different sectors of the membership participating in the poster inquiry. (For some questions, so many stickies were posted that they appeared close to but immediately outside the 4 puzzle pieces on the poster).
Table 1. Comparison of Responses Submitted by Poster Participants at the CHED and SciMix Poster Sessions Responses from SciMix by Category, N Ethics Topica of Poster Questions Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
a
Faculty Greatest concern Most difficult to resolve Most helpful resource Resource availability Total responses received
Graduate/ Undergrad Postdoc
Responses from CHED by Category, N
Industry
Other
Total
Faculty
Undergrad
Graduate/ Postdoc
Industry
Total
Total Overall
16
5
9
9
0
39
16
5
13
11
45
84
15
8
1
10
7
41
9
6
14
4
33
74
15
2
4
4
1
26
6
3
2
3
14
40
7
1
2
2
2
14
7
3
3
2
15
29
53
16
16
25
10
120
38
17
32
20
107
227
See the text for a discussion of these four questions.
The ethics poster was exhibited in two different poster sessions at this meeting. The poster was first presented the opening evening at the Division of Chemical Education Poster Session. On the basis of the published conference program, 29 posters were exhibited at this poster session. No information is available concerning the number of attendees at this poster session. A total of 33 unique individuals posted one or more sticky notes on the Ethics poster at the CHED poster session. Faculty, postdocs/graduate students, undergraduates, and industrial scientists participated. The following evening, the poster was exhibited a second time at the interdisciplinary SciMix poster session. Figure 2 shows the poster near the end of the SciMix poster session. According to the conference program, a total of 702 posters were presented at SciMix. A total of 59 attendees visited the Ethics poster at SciMix and posted one or more sticky notes. In total, between the CHED and SciMix poster sessions, a total of 92 unique individuals participated. On the basis of the total number of responses collected (227) at the two poster sessions (see Table 1), it is clear that many of the participants elected to provide responses to several questions. Respondents submitted more responses at both poster sessions for the two questions exploring participants’ ethical challenges and concerns. As reflected in
they identified. Of the 59 participants, 9 returned to the SciMix poster and placed stars beside other people’s responses. This corresponds to a documented poster visitor return rate of 15%. Unsigned consent was used in this study. No personal information was solicited from the participants. Participants were told that the data would be anonymized and analyzed and that all data would be reported in aggregate. The data was reviewed for any information that could be personally identifiable, and this information was stripped from the data set. Venues
The ethics poster was exhibited at the Fall 2016 National ACS Meeting in Philadelphia. According to published statistics for the Fall 2012 ACS National Meeting, the majority of conferees are ACS members (59%) and students (24%).33 Unaudited registration statistics (total number of attendees, students, etc.) for the Fall 2012 Meeting (also held in Philadelphia) are very similar to those for the Fall 2016 Meeting.34 Assuming the distribution of attendees in 2016 was similar to those reported in 2012, then the majority of conferees at the ACS National Meeting were ACS members making the Fall 2016 ACS meeting a good venue at which to survey ACS member knowledge, awareness, and needs. C
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00867 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
■
Article
RESULTS The numbers of responses obtained for each of the four questions in the CHED and SciMix poster sessions are summarized in Table 1. A majority of responses obtained were submitted for the questions asking respondents to identify the ethical issue of greatest concern or the ethical issue most difficult to resolve. A total of 84 unique responses were obtained for the ethical issue of greatest concern. There were 74 responses obtained for the ethical issue that is considered to be most difficult to resolve. The fewest responses were obtained for the questions related to ethical resources. There were 29 unique responses obtained from members requesting research ethics resources, and 40 unique responses were obtained from members identifying resources they felt were most helpful to them. Throughout our discussion, we have included the frequencies with which codes appeared in the data sets. It is important to remember that these numbers correspond to the number of times responses fit into a specific code, not the number of respondents. For 25% of the responses, the comments offered insights that fit in more than one coding categories. For this reason, we have included frequency information as we believe the frequencies of the responses convey useful information concerning the relative importance of some codes versus others.
the data shown in Table 1, a wide array of participants attended both poster sessions. Overall, the audiences at the two sessions as reflected in the relative numbers of faculty, postdocs/ graduate students, undergraduates, industrial scientists, and others who participated in our study did not appear to differ significantly though some differences were apparent. For example, no one who fell into the “Other” category selfidentified at the CHED poster; however, we had 10 individuals who fit into this category who participated at the Sci-Mix session.
■
DATA ANALYSIS Data were entered into two separate Excel spreadsheets. One spreadsheet was used for the data obtained from the CHED Poster Session and the other for the data obtained from the SciMix Poster Session. Each file was set up as a workbook with four tabs corresponding to the responses obtained for each of the four questions on the poster. On the basis of the color of the sticky, each response was identified as from either an undergraduate, graduate/postdoc, faculty member, industrial scientist, or other. The responses were coded by two researchers working independently on coding. Coding was carried out first for the response data obtained from the CHED Poster Session as this data set was somewhat smaller than the data set for the Sci-Mix Poster Session. The idea was that working with the smaller CHED data set might allow the team to develop an effective process for coding that would make the analysis of the larger Sci-Mix data set more straightforward. The primary coder initiated the emergent coding process by creating categories for each entry appearing under a single question after reading through all the responses to identify themes that emerged from the data. The data for each of the four poster questions were coded separately. Each coding category was named and a succinct description created for each category. Entries were coded to a category based on how well they fit the characteristics of the category based on the description. Constant comparison was used to affirm and refine the categories characterizing the participants’ responses. Categories were added and descriptions of categories refined until all responses had been placed into at least one category. The secondary coder independently coded the data using the categories created by the primary coder and suggesting new, different categories. The primary coder reviewed the secondary coder’s coding. The coders then met and reviewed entries where they had coding differences. Initial agreement between the coders on the first question analyzed was 82%. Categories were added and descriptions revised until the coders reached a consensus, confirming the categories and categorization of the data to minimize bias and ensure the study’s internal validity. After the initial coding discussion of the first question for the CHED data set, agreement between coders on the opening coding of subsequent questions rose to 94−97%. Nine responses in total (4%) were eliminated from further analysis because the coders could not adequately discern the meaning of several of the responses and were therefore unable to confidently categorize them. Several of these were one word responses, for example “GLPs” was submitted in response to the question “What ethics resource has been most helpful to you?” “Human body composition” and “idea” were submitted in response to the question “What ethical issue do you find most difficult to resolve?”
Q1 What Ethical Issue of Greatest Concern to You in Your Work? (84 Responses)
The largest number of responses was posted in reply to this question. A relatively wide variety of ethical concerns were identified. The principal areas in which respondents communicated concerns include data-related (21), publication-related (17), plagiarism (16), and issues related to diversity and justice (14). Examples of concerns that were voiced by members include the following: • “Failure to give co-author credit on publications” (industry) • “Fabrication of results/embellishing results for a paper. Encountered more than once and it’s frustrating” (faculty) • “Access to all the information concerning papers I am a co-author on” (graduate student/postdoc) • “Full reports of all results aren’t presentedonly ‘good’ results are shared” (undergraduate) These issues were identified by visitors representing all sectors (faculty, graduate/postdoc, undergraduate, industrial researcher). However, 38% of the responses were voiced by faculty whose concerns largely focused on issues relating to the training and supervision of students. The two principal concerns voiced by faculty were plagiarism (9) and issues related to the falsification/fabrication of data (9). Graduate students expressed a number of concerns in the publication-related areas including plagiarism (8), and datarelated (4). Examples of concerns voiced by graduate students and postdocs included “academic integrity not falsifying results under pressure from the advisor for results”, “reviewers should not be able to cite their own papers as a requirement for publication”, “access to all the information concerning papers I am a co-author on”, and “getting appropriate credit”. Many of their concerns appear to focus on issues related to publication; a number are specifically focused on authorship. These D
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00867 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
Article
that members are not aware of existing resources. It is also possible, since the poster question did not ask what resources people knew about but rather what resources they found helpful, that the lack of responses to this question may not reflect their awareness of existing resources but rather their inability to identify resources they felt are helpful. Either way the picture suggests that more work is needed both to identify and make members aware of helpful resources and represents an opportunity for ACS, ETHX, the ChemEd community, and industry to engage. Examples of responses that participants submitted to this question included the following: • “Have not really used any” (faculty) • “Online websites and other graduate students’ experience” (graduate student) • “Proper citation resources” (undergraduate) • “My own moral compass” (industry) People (7) were frequently identified as the most helpful resources (4 faculty, 2 students, 1 industry). While consulting individuals is often recommended as a step in ethical decisionmaking, reliance on professors, other students, or “good colleagues” is potentially problematic if the discussants are ignorant of the relevant issues, or if the decision-maker has not thought through his/her decision, is ignorant of the potential consequences and repercussions, and is unprepared to engage in the needed ethical decision-making for him/herself. Given that people were most frequently identif ied as the most helpful resources, it is important to learn more about the ACS membership’s knowledge of research ethics concepts and their preparedness to engage in ethical decision-making.
questions signal an unmet need among our graduate students and postdocs that represents an opportunity for graduate faculty to engage more openly and transparently with this cohort regarding publication-related issues. The concerns of industrial researchers were the most farranging and included everything from “how to respond to a seizure in lab without bias” to concern about the “poor treatment of female scientists by male supervisors & colleagues”. Q2 What Ethical Issue Do You Find Most Difficult To Resolve? (74 Responses)
Participants identified a wide range of issues that they found most difficult to resolve. The issues that appeared to be most challenging for members fell into the categories of ethical decision-making (11), teaching ethics (10), publication-related (9), interpersonal (8), and equity and justice (6). Examples of some of the issues that participants said they felt were most difficult to resolve included the following: • “Where do you draw the line between authorship and acknowledgement on a paper” (industry)? • “How do you inform on a colleague in the same lab for scientific misconduct” (other)? • “How do you ethically use students as human subjects in chem ed research” (graduate student)? • “I teach in the southstudents’ religious beliefs not aligning with science” (faculty). Members of the academic community really seemed to identify with this question. Most of the responses were posted by faculty (39%) though a significant number of responses were posted by students, specifically, graduate students and postdocs (20%) and undergraduates (19%). Many of the issues identified by faculty as most difficult to resolve focused on ethical decision-making and how to handle emotions in what are often charged situations. For example, faculty concerns included “when I have to meet a student and tell he/she is suspected of cheating”, “people in conflict objective UG emotion”, and “working with unprofessional colleague”. This may represent an opportunity for universities and ACS to provide forums where faculty and others can discuss how to deal with emotions when engaged in ethical decision-making.
Q4 What Research Ethics Resources Would You Like To Have Available, That Do Not Currently Exist? (29 Responses)
Respondents expressed an interest in learning about the availability of a wide array of resources. Examples of the resources that participants identified as beneficial include the following: • “Good website with case studies” (faculty) • “A company-produced ethics trainingcould this be shared across the industry?” (industry) • “Proper citation resources” (undergraduates) • “Face-to-face teaching” (graduate student) • “Training on recognizing and dealing with scientific misconduct” (other) Faculty, students, and industrial researchers all expressed an interest in resources such as courses (11), online (4), casestudy (3), etc. that would help them learn research ethics on a wide range of topics such as plagiarism, data-handling, and ethical decision-making, the same topics that participants identified as being of concern and/or challenging to resolve. A significant number of responses (4 other, 5 industry, and 1 faculty) expressed a concern that ethics resources are specifically needed for students. Almost all of these responses came from individuals working outside the academy. Again, this finding was somewhat surprising given the number of excellent resources already available in a variety of formats. There is also a message here for educators. On the basis of the number of responses we received, the wide range of topics identified, and the types of resources requested, it is clear that students welcome the discussion of research ethics as part of their education even if it means that they must take another class.
Resources
Significantly fewer responses were submitted for the two questions inquiring about resources. There were 40 responses received in response to the request for information about the most helpful resources, and 41 responses were received in response to the request for information about what resources would help members. Q3 What Research Ethics Resource Has Been Most Helpful to You? (40 Responses)
Only three resources, specifically, The Chemical Professional’s Code of Conduct,35 Purdue University’s Online Writing Lab (OWL),36 and the National Academy of Sciences report37 were identified. The paucity of helpful resources recognized by the participants and the low number of participants who were able to identify specific resources was quite surprising given the relatively large number of high-quality resources available to support RCR training in chemistry including Internet sites,38−42 videos,43−45 and textbooks.46−48 Several individuals (1 faculty member and one student) indicated that they did not know of any helpful resources. One interpretation of these findings is E
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00867 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
■
Article
LIMITATIONS In interpreting the results of this study, it is important to recognize some of the limitations imposed by the experimental design. These include the fact that we do not have information on the number of attendees or who they were at either poster session, so we do not know what the response rate was and therefore whether the responses we obtained are representative of the attendees at the poster sessions. Our data were collected at one fall ACS National Meeting. As such, the attendance and participation may not be representative of the ACS membership as a whole. Not all members attend national ACS meetings. Some attend regional meetings, and some do not attend any ACS meetings; therefore, the results we obtained may not reflect the views of this portion of the ACS membership. We used five broad categories to define conferees’ identities: faculty, graduate student/postdoc, undergraduate, industry, and other. Although this allows us to capture one axis of identity, we did not collect or analyze participants’ gender or racial/ethnic identities. This information might have allowed us to identify additional important differences in ACS members’ knowledge and experiences which would allow us to identify needs and concerns among these sectors of the ACS membership.
that the interactive format of the poster, the type of questions we asked, and our use of sticky notes and stars were contributing factors in the success of our poster study. Our poster was visually quite striking and different in format from the standard research poster. We believe that its “different-ness” likely caused people to stop and actually examine the poster. Second, we believe that the type of questions we used invited participation from those stopping to view the poster. Though the poster topic was potentially sensitive, the open-ended questions invited participants to share their knowledge and experiences without judgment. Our use of color-coded sticky notes also likely helped to decrease attendees’ inhibitions to participating by providing them with anonymity while allowing us the ability to obtain demographic information. Last, our use of star stickers valued the participants’ act of reflection, affording them the opportunity to synthesize and evaluate their and their peers’ contributions and further contribute by identifying shared insights and experiences by marking those responses with a star sticker. Though posters are widely used both in the classroom and in the greater scientific community of practice, there have been few studies49−53 investigating the factors affecting the educational effectiveness of posters, and there have been to date no studies comparing the effectiveness of posters with other mechanisms of knowledge transfer. In one study,50 with participants at an academic conference, a majority of conferees were able to recall a specific poster, but most remembered the poster imagery more clearly than the subject content suggesting that poster imagery plays an important role in determining a poster’s effectiveness. We believe that this interactive poster model may be useful in other settings including the classroom as a mechanism of soliciting student views, gauging students’ content knowledge, identifying misconceptions, and probing students’ ability to apply their knowledge to new and unfamiliar situations. In conclusion, as we have shown, ACS members have expressed specific interest in a number of ethical issues related to publications, plagiarism, data-handling, and ethical decisionmaking. As such, these topics may represent good areas for future meeting programming, education, and communications activities by the ACS Committee on Ethics, chemical educators, faculty research mentors, and industrial managers. The failure of participants to identify existing ethics resources including ACS resources indicates that there is a role for ACS ETHX in publicizing the availability of ACS’ existing resources as well as those existing high-quality resources that have been developed by others. Future work by ETHX will likely include development of a membership-wide online survey, sponsorship of national meeting programming (symposia), and the development of a web-based resource identifying existing resources and materials that may be useful particularly to the chemical community on research ethics topics. ETHX welcomes the active participation of the ACS membership in fulfilling its charge and serving the membership.
■
DISCUSSION Though we have no information on the average number of conferees who attend and visit posters at ACS National Meetings, we believe that our poster drew a significantly larger audience than usual at technical conferences such as the ACS National Meeting. Surprisingly, though posters are a standard form of presentation at scientific research conferences, little research has been reported on their use and educational effectiveness.49−51 Nonetheless, two studies examining the factors affecting the efficacy of posters at large medical conferences contained information on poster traffic at medical conferences. It appears that posters at these venues usually see 10 visitors on average.51,52 We had 59 visitors at SciMix and 33 at the CHED Poster Session actively engage with our poster, responding to at least one of the four questions on a sticky note. This seems to be a larger number of visitors than the norm. Furthermore, our participants spent on average 5−10 min at the poster. Last, at least 15% of the SciMix attendees returned at least once to read the comments and questions that other participants had posted and mark with a star those responses with which they personally resonated. Both the time spent and the activities visitors engaged in seem to represent a much deeper degree and form of engagement with the poster content than is typically the norm at research conferences. Indeed, in their study, Goodhand et al.52 reported that most visits to individual posters were social and that few if any visitors read the posters and asked the presenters useful questions. Since ours was not a purposeful study of poster design, using proper controls (e.g., traditionally designed research poster), we do not want to overstate the importance of our poster design in attracting attention to the poster. We hope that our observations prompt others to engage in future work to better understand poster design and its role in poster effectiveness which has received little attention in the literature to this point.49,50,52,53 So, this begs the following question: Why did so many people stop and participate in a poster study on research ethics? Although we do not have any definitive evidence, we believe
■
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
*E-mail:
[email protected]. ORCID
Patricia Ann Mabrouk: 0000-0003-4965-1448 F
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00867 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
Article
Notes
(19) Rytting, J. H.; Schowen, R. L. Issues in Scientific Integrity: A Practical Course for Graduate Students in the Chemical Sciences. J. Chem. Educ. 1998, 75 (10), 1317. (20) Sweeting, L. M. Ethics in Science for Undergraduate Students. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 369−372. (21) Bunnett, J. F. The Culture of Chemistry: A Graduate Course. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76 (8), 1058. (22) McClure, C. P.; Lucius, A. L. Implementing and Evaluating a Chemistry Course in Chemical Ethics and Civic Responsibility. J. Chem. Educ. 2010, 87 (11), 1171−1175. (23) Danowitz, A. M.; Taylor, C. E. Integrating a Peer-Taught Module on Practical Research Ethics into the Graduate Student Orientation Curriculum. J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88 (8), 1090−1093. (24) Singiser, R. H.; Clower, C. E.; Burnett, S. C. Preparing Ethical Chemists through a Second-Year Seminar Course. J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89 (9), 1144−1147. (25) Mann, M. K. The Right Place and the Right Time: Incorporating Ethics into the Undergraduate Biochemistry Curriculum. In Liberal Arts Strategies for the Chemistry Classroom; Kloepper, K. D.; Crawford, G. L., Eds.; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2017; Vol. 1266, pp 45−70. (26) Plemmons, D. K.; Brody, S. A.; Kalichman, M. W. Student Perceptions of the Effectiveness of Education in the Responsible Conduct of Research. Sci. Eng. Ethics 2006, 12 (3), 571−582. (27) Powell, S. T.; Allison, M. A.; Kalichman, M. W. Effectiveness of a Responsible Conduct of Research Course: A Preliminary Study. Sci. Eng. Ethics 2007, 13, 249−264. (28) Heitman, E.; Olsen, C. H.; Anestidou, L.; Bulger, R. E. New Graduate Students’ Baseline Knowledge of the Responsible Conduct of Research. Acad. Med. 2007, 82 (9), 838−845. (29) Antes, A. L.; Murphy, S. T.; Waples, E. P.; Mumford, M. D.; Brown, R. P.; Connelly, S.; Devenport, L. D. A Meta-Analysis of Ethics Instruction Effectiveness in the Sciences. Ethics Behavior 2009, 19 (5), 379−402. (30) Ferrence, G. ACS Committee on Ethics: An Overview. CINF Bulletin 2014, 66 (2), 25−26. (31) Vitense, K. Working Together to Promote Ethics. Chem. Eng. News 2016, 94 (44), 41. (32) American Chemical Society ACS Committee on Ethics. https:// www.acs.org/content/acs/en/about/governance/committees/ethics. html (accessed Apr 2018). (33) Official Reports From The ACS National Meeting In Philadelphia. Chem. Eng. News 2013, 91 (3). (34) National Meetings Team.. National Meeting Registration Statistics (2008−2017). https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/ meetings/national-meeting/exhibitors/registration-statistics.html. (35) American Chemical Society. Council Committee on Professional Relations. The Chemical Professional’s Code of Conduct. https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/careers/career-services/ethics/ the-chemical-professionals-code-of-conduct.html (accessed Apr 2018). (36) The Writing Lab Purdue Online Writing Lab. https://owl. english.purdue.edu/owl/ (accessed Apr 2018). (37) National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. On Being a Scientist: A Guide to Responsible Conduct in Research, 3rd ed.; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2009; p 63. (38) Mabrouk, P. A. WebGURU: The Web-Based Guide to Research for Undergraduates. http://www.webguru.neu.edu (accessed Apr 2018). (39) National Academy of Sciences. The Online Ethics Center for Engineering and Science. http://www.onlineethics.org/ (accessed Apr 2018). (40) Herreid, C. F.; Schiller, N. A. National Center for Case Study Teaching in Science. http://sciencecases.lib.buffalo.edu/cs/ (accessed Apr 2018). (41) National Center for Professional and Research Ethics Ethics CORE. https://nationalethicscenter.org/ (accessed Apr 2018).
The authors declare no competing financial interest.
■
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many heartfelt thanks go to Steven Tait, Ed Mottel, Helen Gerhard, and Karlo Lopez for their assistance in poster design and in staffing the poster at the CHED and SciMix Poster Sessions at the Fall 2016 ACS National Meeting. We also wish to thank Arthur Greenberg, Kelsey Bitting, Vaso Lykourinou, and the unknown J. Chem. Educ. reviewers for invaluable feedback on various drafts of this paper.
■
REFERENCES
(1) National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine. Fostering Integrity in Research; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2017; p 284. (2) Ulane, R. Update on the Requirement for Instruction in the Responsible Conduct of Research. http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/ guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-10-019.html (accessed Apr 2018). (3) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Requirement for Programs on the Responsible Conduct of Research in National Research Service Award Institutional Training Programs. https:// grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/historical/1989_12_22_Vol_18_No_45. pdf (accessed Apr 2018). (4) Plimpton, S. H. Responsible Conduct of Research. National Science Foundation: Federal Register; Government Printing Office, 2009; Vol. 74, pp 42126−42128. (5) Coppola, B. P. Progress in Practice: Teaching and Learning with Case Studies. Chem. Educ. 1996, 1 (4), 1−13. (6) Treichel, P. M. Ethical Conduct in Science - The Joys of Teaching and the Joys of Learning. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 1327− 1329. (7) Mabrouk, P. A. Research Skills & Ethics - A Graduate Course Empowering Graduate Students for Productive Research Careers in Graduate School and Beyond. J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78, 1628−1631. (8) Del Carlo, D. I.; Bodner, G. M. High School Students’ Perceptions of Academic Dishonesty in the Chemistry Classroom Laboratory. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2004, 41 (1), 47−64. (9) Mabrouk, P. A. Introducing Summer High School StudentResearchers to Ethics in Scientific Research - A Case Study-Based Workshop. J. Chem. Educ. 2007, 84 (6), 952−954. (10) Verdan, A. M.; Ingallinera, J. T.; Bhattacharyya, G. Scientific Norms and Ethical Misconduct: Research Towards the Design of a Course in Scientific Ethics. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2010, 11 (2), 118− 123. (11) Mabrouk, P. A. An Investigation of the Evolution of High School and Undergraduate Student Researchers’ Understanding of Key Science Ethics Concepts. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 2013, 43 (2), 91−99. (12) Mabrouk, P. A. What Knowledge of Responsible Conduct of Research Do Undergraduates Bring to Their Undergraduate Research Experiences? J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93 (1), 46−55. (13) Coppola, B. P. Targeting Entry Points for Ethics in Chemistry Teaching and Learning. J. Chem. Educ. 2000, 77 (11), 1506−1511. (14) Shachter, A. M. Integrating Ethics in Science into a Summer Undergraduate Research Program. J. Chem. Educ. 2003, 80, 507−512. (15) Hoggard, P. E. Trying A Case on Ethics in Scientific Research. J. Chem. Educ. 2008, 85 (6), 802−804. (16) Fisher, E. R.; Levinger, N. E. A Directed Framework for Integrating Ethics into Chemistry Curricula and Programs Using Real and Fictional Case Studies. J. Chem. Educ. 2008, 85 (6), 796−801. (17) Montes, I.; Padilla, A.; Maldonado, A.; Negretti, S. StudentCentered Use of Case Studies Incorporating Oral and Writing Skills To Explore Scientific Ethical Misconduct. J. Chem. Educ. 2009, 86 (8), 936−939. (18) Contakes, S. M. Misconduct at the Lab? A Performance Task Case Study for Teaching Data Analysis and Critical Thinking. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93 (2), 314−317. G
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00867 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education
Article
(42) Office of Research Integrity, U.S. Department of Health and Human Service. The Lab. Avoiding Research Misconduct. http://ori. hhs.gov/TheLab/TheLab.shtml (accessed Apr 2018). (43) AAAS Integrity in Scientific Researchthe Videos. https:// www.aaas.org/page/integrity-scientific-research-video-series (accessed Apr 2018). (44) West Virginia Corporation Office of Research Integrity & Compliance Case Study Videos. http://oric.research.wvu.edu/ services/responsible-conduct/education-training/case-study-videos (accessed Apr 2018). (45) American Chemical Society Publications Division Learning Module: What Chemists Need to Know about Copyright. http://pubs. acs.org/page/copyright/learning_module/index.html (accessed Apr 2018). (46) Kovac, J. The Ethical Chemist; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2003; p 122. (47) Macrina, F. L. Scientific Integrity: Text and Cases in Responsible Conduct of Research, 3rd ed.; ASM Press: Washington, DC, 2005; p 428. (48) D’Angelo, J. Ethics in Science: Ethical Misconduct in Scientific Research; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, 2012; p 112. (49) Ilic, D.; Rowe, N. What is the Evidence That Poster Presentations are Effective in Promoting Knowledge Transfer? A State of the Art Review. Health Info. Libr. J. 2013, 30 (1), 4−12. (50) Rowe, N.; Ilic, D. What Impact Do Posters Have on Academic Knowledge Transfer? A Pilot Survey on Author Attitudes and Experiences. BMC Med. Educ. 2009, 9 (1), 71. (51) Salzl, G.; Gölder, S.; Timmer, A.; Marienhagen, J.; Schölmerich, J.; Grossmann, J. Poster Exhibitions at National Conferences: Education or Farce? Deutsches Ä rzteblatt International 2008, 105 (5), 78−83. (52) Goodhand, J.; Giles, C.; Wahed, M.; Irving, P.; Langmead, L.; Rampton, D. Poster Presentations at Medical Conferences: an Effective Way of Disseminating Research? Clin. Med. (Northfield Il.) 2011, 11 (2), 138−141. (53) Beamish, A. J.; Ansell, J.; Foster, J. J.; Foster, K. A.; Egan, R. J. Poster Exhibitions at Conferences: Are We Doing it Properly? J. Surg. Educ. 2015, 72 (2), 278−282.
H
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00867 J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
