Formal instruction in the responsible conduct of research (RCR) has been a component of research training in the basic and biomedical sciences for over 30 years, due in large part to federal requirements for RCR education in research training programs funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and National Science Foundation (NSF). With the increasing complexity of basic and biomedical science, federal guidance on the scope of RCR education has likewise evolved to include more and more topics. In 2022, both NIH and NSF significantly expanded the subject matter included in federal policy on RCR instruction, raising concerns among RCR educators about what is required in teaching “RCR”. This article examines the topic lists from key professional recommendations and subsequent federal policies on required RCR instruction. Careful analysis of these historical and contemporary documents helps to resolve the challenge of what “must” be taught to trainees today.

Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) education has been part of the US research landscape for nearly 35 years. Although at least in part a response to cases of research misconduct, RCR requirements and implementations by instructors often repurpose RCR to focus on many different possible conceptions of “responsible conduct.” In reviewing today’s landscape, it is clear that interventions vary widely with respect to goals, audience, topics covered, settings in which education is delivered, pedagogical approaches used, and institutional commitment. Surveying the status quo in each of these areas is taken here as a starting point for a series of recommendations to better promote RCR. A case is made for shifting from hoping RCR education will directly decrease research misconduct (unlikely) or using NIH recommended topics as a checklist, but instead supporting researchers to engage in conversations about the ethical challenges present in their practice of research.

Formalized Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) programs have become a compliance requirement. Yet evidence consistently demonstrates that compliance-based ethics training focused on teaching regulations and “rules” fails to create ethical cultures. Research and practice in behavioral ethics have demonstrated that there is value in moving away from rule-based, normative, ethics education toward approaches rooted in descriptive explainations about how and why individuals make unethical decisions, and focused on environmental and cultural influences. We examine the circumstances—and subsequent assumptions—that lead to compliance-based RCR training, unpack those assumptions, and identify their outcomes. The question at the heart of compliance-based training is “What must we teach people so they will make ethical decisions?” The command-and-control nature of this question fails to encompass needed elements for broader research integrity, namely, developing ethical habits and building skills for ethical decision-making. Asking instead “How do we develop people to articulate and act in alignment with ethical values?” helps to shift toward more effective and sustainable ethics education. Educating about ethical decision-making develops people who are more practically wise and who can influence the cultures of the environments in which they work. We conclude by offering examples of ethics education and development that are asking the right question and include information about our own leadership development program for elite laboratory scientists that is seeking to support ethical and healthy working cultures.

In this paper, we discuss our approach to developing engaging course content linked to distinct learning outcomes on the topic of academic authorship. Academic authorship is a critical element of research culture and responsible conduct of research (RCR) courses. Drawing on instructional design methods, our online course aims to stimulate critical thinking about ethical authorship practices and to help students develop skills for resolving authorship-related conflicts. The course is scaffolded to facilitate engagement by tying video and podcast-style media, a choice-based interactive simulation, and traditional case study activities, to specific learning objectives. We describe how each instructional technique enhances student engagement and learning for the paired objective, and the benefits of the holistic course design. Finally, we illustrate how RCR instructors can incorporate our materials in full or in part into their own course curricula and encourage others to use our course development approach when designing their own courses.

National Institutes of Health’s policies for Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) instruction for individual career development awards (K-awards) stress appropriateness to the career stage and tailoring to the individual’s needs. Early-career faculty have unique needs for RCR instruction. While our institution requires RCR education for ALL graduate students and postdoctoral trainees, we found that many K-awardees 1) are early-career faculty not eligible to participate in postdoc programs, and 2) many had received formal RCR instruction at only basic or intermediate levels. We identified 45 K-award recipients with active grants, 26 of whom needed RCR instruction. We developed a program specifically designed for early-career faculty researchers. Through the first three iterations of the course, we had a total of 24 participants, ranging from senior postdoctoral and clinical fellows to instructor-level and assistant professors. This paper describes our experience and challenges in developing and conducting this course.

The context of compliance creates special challenges for research ethics education. It can serve as a positive force in promoting research integrity because it forces academic institutions to provide research ethics training, and it forces some people to complete research ethics training. However, when compliance mandates create patchwork coverage with inconsistent requirements, they can have the paradoxical effect of trivializing the very thing they intend to promote. After providing a background on research ethics education mandates from US federal funding agencies, I review the way in which academic institutions tend to respond to these mandates and I explore the impact of these compliance requirements on the goals of research ethics education. Finally, I consider recent calls to harmonize federal agency requirements, and close by sharing the way in which we are trying to harmonize the requirements at my own institution.

In this 2022 SEAC Presidential address, I explore the intricate interplay between the notions of greed and Effective Altruism (EA). These notions bear profound implications for both our individual obligations and our collective duties. The dialectic between greed and EA reveals a fundamental conflict. Greed is commonly aligned with the self-centered pursuit of riches, authority, or distinction, often neglecting the well-being of others and the enduring repercussions of one's actions. In contrast, EA stands as a philosophy and societal movement advocating the application of reason and empirical evidence to pinpoint the most efficacious avenues for aiding others and engendering a constructive global influence. Central to EA is the tenet of impartiality and equitable regard for all interests when selecting beneficiaries, resonating across domains such as the prioritization of scientific exploration, entrepreneurial endeavors, and policy undertakings geared towards alleviating suffering and preserving lives.

The rapid pace of technological development often outstrips the ability of legislators and regulators to establish proper guardrails on emerging technologies. A solution is for those who develop, deploy, and use these technologies to develop themselves as moral agents—i.e., as agents capable of steering the course of emerging technologies in a direction that will benefit humanity. However, there is a dearth of literature discussing how to foster moral agency in computer science courses, and little if any research on the effectiveness of such courses in computer science. This paper addresses this gap by providing an overview of an undergraduate course on technology ethics. It then shares and discusses a subset of data collected from a mixed-methods study using a pre-post design that sought to examine the course’s effectiveness in developing students’ moral, intellectual, and civic virtues, as well as related dispositions.

Whether teachers should take on the role of an advocate in the undergraduate classroom is a thorny question, which has been answered in a variety of ways in the pedagogical literature. What seems to be lacking, however, is information concerning student perceptions on teacher advocacy. Do students believe it is appropriate for a teacher to present and disclose his or her own views on controversial topics? In this paper, the author describes the results of two separate surveys conducted in an effort to answer the question about student perceptions on this practice. Furthermore, the author provides a number of suggestions, based upon the results of these surveys to help mitigate some of the problems associated with advocacy, for those who practice it in the classroom.

Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol is more than a happy tale—it is a text of moral self-reflection that challenges us to think about the nature of moral duty, human happiness and personal transformation. The story speaks to fundamental questions: How are morality and the good life related? How does a self-centered person open their heart to the welfare of others? What are the steps in moral change? The story’s characters function as mirrors by which we can examine our own moral dispositions. A Christmas Carol is an engaging way to discuss important and relevant moral topics with students. We first describe the format of our interdisciplinary course—we then discuss how we teach topics of personal ethics found in Dickens’ tale.

Nel Noddings identifies four core problems with the primary education system in the United States. First, there is no established caring relationship between educational authorities and students. Second, there is no continuity in student-teacher relationships. Third, Common Core neglects deep existential questions in its educational approach. Fourth, Common Core does not emphasize connections between the disciplines to each other or to real-life problems. The four problems with the primary education system identified by Noddings contribute to the fake news problem in the following way: The first two problems sow the seeds for future distrust of expertise; The third problem deadens students’ critical thinking skills and curiosity for knowledge; and the fourth problem plays into the structure of how fake news is designed and consumed. I will argue that Noddings’ education reform proposal is the ideal solution for addressing these problems.

Little is known about the aims and impact of university-based ethics centers. Less is known about how centers leverage their unique campus positions to engage undergraduates in transformative ethics education. This article provides a foundation for future research on university-based ethics centers. First, this article addresses the history of ethics education in higher education, the rise of university ethics centers, and the factors necessary for successful ethics programs. Next, this piece shows the geographic distribution of ethics centers and which centers provide undergraduate-focused ethics education. Finally, this article enables future research on effective ethics center structure, leadership, and outreach.

This study examines the effectiveness of teaching business ethics. It fills an important gap in the literature by utilizing students’ own personal reflections and reassessments involving an actual workplace ethical dilemma they have already faced. After submitting a personal ethical dilemma at the beginning of a business ethics course, students are later asked following the course whether they believe they would behave in a similar manner if they faced the same ethical dilemma again, and for what reasons. The paper is organized as follows. Part one briefly summarizes the normative and descriptive research that has been conducted on the effectiveness of teaching business ethics. Part two outlines the qualitative research methodology used in the study followed by a discussion of the results and implications. The study finds that nearly one third of students would now act differently if they faced the same ethical dilemma again in the future.

The business enterprise is a major instrument in the creation of a just society. However the tension between profit and ethicality requires sound decision making and business ethics instruction is central to creative alternatives to business leaders. Therefore, instruction is aided with a model for framing one’s thoughts about ethics and while several earlier business ethics models exist, they tend to be closed and at times parochial. This paper draws on insights from other academic disciplines to offer a broader yet flexible framework for professors, students, scholars, and decision makers. At the center of the model is the four stage framework of Rest et al. as impacted by four sets of variables—individual, organizational, environmental, and issue. These are rooted in the work of Dunlop’s Industrial Relations Theory and Jones’ Moral Intensity. A literature review of important variables is presented and the paper concludes with several take aways for instruction and policy suggestions.

Background: Research ethics training courses are gaining hold in the academia. Learning is affected by learner’s conception of the topic. Thus, knowledge regarding research ethics understandings of the participants of the training courses is needed. Methods: A data driven qualitative content analysis was utilized in a survey after a compulsory research ethics course for doctoral researchers in Finland. In an anonymous online survey, 17 respondents answered open questions concerning research ethics and its relevance. Results: Doctoral researcher’s views can be understood with four core categories: (1) the relevance of research ethics; (2) motivation for learning and following research ethics, (3) the nature of research ethics; and (4) changes due to taking a research ethics course. All categories have subcategories. Conclusions: The views of the doctoral researchers greatly vary along the continuums formed by the core categories and subcategories. Understanding their views is important for the development of the training courses and teaching.

In recent years, ‘philosophy as a way of life’ [PWOL] courses have emerged as an exciting new pedagogical approach. I explain here what a PWOL-course is. In doing so, I argue that the standard method for teaching such courses—what I call the ‘Smorgasbord Model’—presents us with a basic problem: viz., how to enable students in the context of a modern university setting to experience fully what a PWOL is. I propose a solution to this problem by exploring a PWOL that most teachers and students alike already find themselves immersed in, what I describe as political liberalism applied to the context of the university classroom. I show how this overlooked fact not only offers us a novel resource for teaching a PWOL-course. It also helps us as philosophy teachers—in a meta-pedagogical sense—to become more self-reflective about and appreciative of our underlying ethical commitments when teaching philosophy.