Recent scandals and controversies, such as data fabrication in federally funded science, data manipulation and distortion in private industry, and human embryonic stem cell research, illustrate the importance of ethics in science. Responsible Conduct of Research, now in a completely updated second edition, provides an introduction to the social, ethical, and legal issues facing scientists today.
The integrity of knowledge that emerges from research is based on individual and collective adherence to core values of objectivity, honesty, openness, fairness, accountability, and stewardship. Integrity in science means that the organizations in which research is conducted encourage those involved to exemplify these values in every step of the research process. Understanding the dynamics that support â€" or distort â€" practices that uphold the integrity of research by all participants ensures that the research enterprise advances knowledge. The 1992 report Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process evaluated issues related to scientific responsibility and the conduct of research. It provided a valuable service in describing and analyzing a very complicated set of issues, and has served as a crucial basis for thinking about research integrity for more than two decades. However, as experience has accumulated with various forms of research misconduct, detrimental research practices, and other forms of misconduct, as subsequent empirical research has revealed more about the nature of scientific misconduct, and because technological and social changes have altered the environment in which science is conducted, it is clear that the framework established more than two decades ago needs to be updated. Responsible Science served as a valuable benchmark to set the context for this most recent analysis and to help guide the committee's thought process. Fostering Integrity in Research identifies best practices in research and recommends practical options for discouraging and addressing research misconduct and detrimental research practices.
The second edition of this innovative work again provides a unique perspective on the clinical discovery process by providing input from experts within the NIH on the principles and practice of clinical research. Molecular medicine, genomics, and proteomics have opened vast opportunities for translation of basic science observations to the bedside through clinical research. As an introductory reference it gives clinical investigators in all fields an awareness of the tools required to ensure research protocols are well designed and comply with the rigorous regulatory requirements necessary to maximize the safety of research subjects. Complete with sections on the history of clinical research and ethics, copious figures and charts, and sample documents it serves as an excellent companion text for any course on clinical research and as a must-have reference for seasoned researchers.*Incorporates new chapters on Managing Conflicts of Interest in Human Subjects Research, Clinical Research from the Patient's Perspective, The Clinical Researcher and the Media, Data Management in Clinical Research, Evaluation of a Protocol Budget, Clinical Research from the Industry Perspective, and Genetics in Clinical Research *Addresses the vast opportunities for translation of basic science observations to the bedside through clinical research*Delves into data management and addresses how to collect data and use it for discovery*Contains valuable, up-to-date information on how to obtain funding from the federal government
The need for quality improvement and for cost saving are driving both individual choices and health system dynamics. The health services research that we need to support informed choices depends on access to data, but at the same time, individual privacy and patient-health care provider confidentiality must be protected.
When 18-year-old Jesse Gelsinger died in a gene transfer study at the University of Pennsylvania, the national spotlight focused on the procedures used to ensure research participants' safety and their capacity to safeguard the well-being of those who volunteer for research studies. Responsible Research outlines a three-pronged approach to ensure the protection of every participant through the establishment of effective Human Research Participant Protection Programs (HRPPPs). The approach includes: Improved research review processes, Recognition and integration of research participants' contributions to the system, and Vigilant maintenance of HRPPP performance. Issues addressed in the book include the need for in-depth, complimentary reviews of science, ethics, and conflict of interest reviews; desired qualifications for investigators and reviewers; the process of informed consent; federal and institutional oversight; and the role of accreditation. Recommendations for areas of key interest include suggestions for legislative approaches, compensation for research-related injury, and the refocusing of the mission of institutional review boards. Responsible Research will be important to anyone interested in the issues that are relevant to the practice of using human subjects as research participants, but especially so to policy makers, research administrators, investigators, and research sponsorsâ€"but also including volunteers who may agree to serve as research participants.
A rising median age at which PhD's receive their first research grant from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is among the factors forcing academic biomedical researchers to spend longer periods of time before they can set their own research directions and establish there independence. The fear that promising prospective scientists will choose other career paths has raised concerns about the future of biomedical research in the United States. At the request of NIH, the National Academies conducted a study on ways to address these issues. The report recommends that NIH make fostering independence of biomedical researchers an agencywide goal, and that it take steps to provide postdocs and early-career investigators with more financial support for their own research, improve postdoc mentoring and establish programs for new investigators and staff scientists among other mechanisms.
