Title |
A Room with a View of Integrity and Professionalism: Personal Reflections on Teaching Responsible Conduct of Research in the Neurosciences
|
---|---|
Published in |
Science and Engineering Ethics, April 2014
|
DOI | 10.1007/s11948-014-9545-9 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Emily Bell |
Abstract |
Neuroscientists are increasingly put into situations which demand critical reflection about the ethical and appropriate use of research tools and scientific knowledge. Students or trainees also have to know how to navigate the ethical domains of this context. At a time when neuroscience is expected to advance policy and practice outcomes, in the face of academic pressures and complex environments, the importance of scientific integrity comes into focus and with it the need for training at the graduate level in the responsible conduct of research (RCR). I describe my experience teaching RCR in a graduate neuroscience program and identify three personal reflections where further dialogue could be warranted: (1) mobilizing a common set of competencies and virtues standing for professionalism in the neurosciences; (2) tailoring RCR for the neurosciences and empowering students through the active engagement of mentors; (3) soliciting shared responsibility for RCR training between disciplines, institutions and governmental or funding agencies. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Canada | 3 | 43% |
United States | 1 | 14% |
Unknown | 3 | 43% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 4 | 57% |
Scientists | 2 | 29% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 30 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Professor > Associate Professor | 4 | 13% |
Researcher | 4 | 13% |
Professor | 3 | 10% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 7% |
Student > Bachelor | 2 | 7% |
Other | 7 | 23% |
Unknown | 8 | 27% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Arts and Humanities | 3 | 10% |
Social Sciences | 3 | 10% |
Neuroscience | 3 | 10% |
Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 7% |
Philosophy | 2 | 7% |
Other | 8 | 27% |
Unknown | 9 | 30% |