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.