News & Events


P.I. Program Receives ORI Grant to Expand Recruitment and Assessment Efforts

The U.S. Office of Research Integrity awarded a grant to the P.I. Program to expand its recruitment and assessment efforts. New assessments will examine the work habits of participants. The project builds on work from the recent NIH K01 Award received by Dr. Alison Antes, the P.I. Program’s most recent faculty member, which includes studying the work habits of research exemplars. Drs. Antes and DuBois recently interviewed 52 researchers who conduct high impact research and enjoy a reputation for great leadership and integrity in research. Data from these projects will inform recommendations on best practices for lab leadership and management.


Good Clinical Practice Project Funded by ICTS

We received funding from the ICTS to conduct a survey of 400 clinical research coordinators to determine how CRCs learn good clinical practice or GCP. We will validate a 35-item test of GCP knowledge, inventory their learning experiences including CITI and ACRP online modules, their motivation to learn, and work experiences, and identify the correlates of GCP knowledge.


NHGRI R01 Will Examine Addressing Ethical and Practical Barriers to Sharing Qualitative Data

We collaborated with the Informatics Institute and the ICPSR data repository at U Michigan in writing this proposal. The project will examine attitudes of researchers, IRB members, patients, and data curators toward sharing qualitative research data; will develop guidelines for sharing data in a responsible manner; and will develop open access software to assist investigators in anonymizing qualitative research transcripts.


PSI Lab receives grant to examine “the role of culture and experience on the perception of and application of research regulations, norms, and values”

The PSI Lab recently received a second grant award from the US Office of Research Integrity to examine “the role of culture and experience on the perception of and application of research regulations, norms, and values.” This project builds upon an ongoing ORI-funded project to validate the Professional Decision-making in Research (PDR) and How I Think about Research (HIT-Res) measures. The project will run from August 1, 2014 through July 31, 2016. The abstract is presented below.

Project Title: The role of culture and experience in the perception and application of research regulations, norms and values

Principal Investigator: James M. DuBois, DSc, PhD: Division of General Medical Sciences; Washington University School of Medicine; Campus Box 8504; 660 South Euclid Avenue; St. Louis, MO 63110-1093. Phone 314-747-2710. jdubois@wustl.edu

Co-Investigators: Alison Antes, PhD, Division of General Medical Sciences, Washington University School of Medicine; Tammy English, PhD, Department of Psychology, Washington University in St. Louis.

PROJECT ABSTRACT

Researchers’ professional decision-making and adherence to rules and expectations for research integrity requires more than just knowing and following the rules. Researchers must understand and navigate the complex environment in which they work- this includes interpreting complicated rules and norms related to the conduct of research. Researchers enter their work roles with many established beliefs, attitudes, experiences, and amount of experience working in the research field. Although international researchers constitute a large percentage of the U.S. research workforce, very little data is available examining how people born and trained outside of the U.S. might think about research regulations and norms in the U.S. Differences in interpretations and perceptions might influence researchers’ professional decision-making and adherence to U.S. research regulations.

Therefore this research will examine how internationally-born and trained researchers and U.S.-born and trained researchers working in the U.S. perceive rules, norms, and values in science and how this affects professional decision-making in research. Additionally, we will explore mechanisms that might explain the impact of cultural background on perceptions and decision-making; these include experience working in the U.S., acculturation, personality traits, and exposure to events that are unethical according to U.S. research integrity norms.

In year one, we will develop two measures (a) the Evaluating Rules and Norms in Science Task (ERNST), and (b) the Rating Values in Science Task (RVST). The ERNST statements illustrating three different kinds of rules in research-regulations, norms, and questionable research practices. The RVST will assess the level of importance that investigators attach to different general values in science. In year 2, we will administer a battery of measures to a sample of 100 internationally-born and trained and 100 US-born and trained independent investigators and trainees funded by the NIH. These data will allow us to provide initial validity and reliability evidence for the ERNST and RVST and test our research questions regarding the relationship of culture and experience to professional decision-making in research, in addition to explore mechanisms that might explain the impact of culture.

The new measures will be useful in research and in educational contexts insofar as they will provide researchers, instructors, and trainees with important information regarding the understanding of rules for research within the U.S. cultural context. By identifying factors that might be addresses through tailored educational interventions that go beyond teaching the content of rules, the project will contribute to efforts to preventing research misconduct.


PSI Lab Receives RO1 Grant

The PSI Lab received a grant from NIH to examine preventing ethical disasters in the practice of medicine. Click here for more information.


P.I. Program Wins Innovation Award

Innovation AwardThe Health Improvement Institute bestowed is Annual Award for Innovation on the Professionalism and Integrity in Research Program for its “P.I. Program Workshop”.

Awards are given for demonstrated excellence in promoting the well-being of people who participate in research. Judges are drawn from academic, compliance, consulting, health services, legal, and research review organizations.


Save