Boston University RCR Program
Creating a Single University-wide RCR Program,
Across Two Campuses, based on Case Study
Discussions Facilitated by Faculty Mentors
Susan H. Frey, M.A.T, J.D.
Assistant Provost for Research Compliance
Boston University
85 E. Newton Street M840-B
Boston University Medical Campus
Boston, MA 02118
sfrey@bu.edu
http://www.bu.edu/orc/rcr/
Outline
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Single Advanced RCR Program-Two campuses 2 - 5
RCR Partnership: Compliance and Faculty 6 - 11
Core Program Format 12
Alternative Program 13
Core Program Curriculum 14-18
Core Program Package for Participants 19 -21
Core Program Facilitators 22 - 23
Core Program Evaluation 24
Core Program Data 25
Challenges Ahead 26
2
Boston University Advanced RCR:
a single program
• Commenced in current form on “Main” campus in
2004
• 2006 extended across two campuses-MED and “Main”
• Open to all doctoral students and postdoctoral
researchers
• In all sciences and engineering
• Mandatory for individuals covered by NIH and NSF RCR
requirements
• Cross campus registration-shuttle bus.
3
Boston University Facts
• 20 Schools and Colleges across two campuses (two
miles apart-shuttle bus)
• At least 300 doctoral degrees awarded annually in the
sciences (physical, biological, social, economic,
behavioral) and engineering
• At least 100 new postdocs enter per year in basic
science and engineering
• Advanced RCR
– Target Audience (excluding masters candidates) about 400
– Current attendance (graduate students and postdoctoral
fellows) is 200-250
4
Why a Single Program?
• Cross campus program builds community of
integrity
• Quality of the program can be monitored and
improved for the whole university
• Interdisciplinary audience ensures:
 emphasis on general standards of responsible conduct
common to all fields of science and engineering
5
RCR: A Compliance-Faculty
Instructional Partnership
Partnership of
• skills and expertise
• content areas
6
Nature of RCR
• RCR is a government initiated program not required to
be part of academic curriculum
• RCR seeks to orient investigators to the concerns and
expectations of the government and public about
science
• Topics developed by NIH working with scientists,
ethicists and social scientists and government
• RCR curriculum needs input from Compliance Officers
as well as faculty.
7
Partnership of Content Areas
• RCR Topics involve both professional ethics of science
and governmental regulation and law, e.g.:
– Data recording involves
• Responsibility of scientists to create reproducible
scientific literature based on peer review, integrity
• Responsibility of government and university to protect
patentable inventions under law
8
Partnership of Skills and Expertise
• Teaching/mentoring skill and science knowledge -faculty in science and engineering
• Institutional compliance experience -- administrative
leaders
–
–
–
–
Compliance officers
Institutional lawyers
Research deans
Ombuds
• Other expertise -- faculty in ethics, sociology of
professions, research public policy, etc.
9
Partnership in
Oversight/Leadership
• Office of Research Compliance –Assistant Provost Frey
• RCR Education Advisory Committee
– 11 Liaison Members – faculty appointed by deans to liaise
with 11 participating schools and colleges of the University
– 6 additional members from the faculty appointed to
provide expertise in RCR education and regulation and to
serve on RCR compliance subcommittee
10
RCR Challenges in the University
Culture
• Tension between NIH and NSF

(NSF has not endorsed NIH/CITI RCR topics or
requirements )
• Echoes tension between culture of Arts and
Sciences and Medicine and other professions


(Academic freedom concerns
Comfort with professional regulation)
11
BU Core Advanced RCR Program
• Includes 4 two-hour live workshops
 Led by the administrative leader with a faculty co-leader
 Each workshop is offered four times per year
 All 4 workshops to be completed over not more than two
years in any sequence.
• Workshop participants discuss two case studies
 in small groups (5-8)
 facilitated by faculty and postdoctoral researchers.
12
Alternative RCR at BU
• The RCREAC has established minimum guidelines for
approval of Alternative Advanced RCR Programs
 All RCR Topics; Use of cases ; at least 8 live hours
 Proposals are reviewed for RCR content and method
• Currently two Alternative RCR Programs
 Chemistry 2-credit course in professional skills
 Computer science 2-credit course in professional skills plus
attendance at RCR core workshop 4
13
BU Core Advanced RCR
Jisi Tang (GRS’14, ENG’14) (from left), Assaf Kfoury, a CAS computer science
professor, Susan Frey, an assistant provost, and Karina Stavitsky (GRS’12) discuss
ethics in research at a Responsible Conduct of Research program session. Photo
by Kalman Zabarsky
14
• “Workshop1: “Creating the Research Record and Managing Data: How and
Why” This unit explores data acquisition, data recording, data
management, and data presentation. The case studies will involve ethical
dilemmas that may arise (in any field of research) when planning for and
creating a proper scientific record and selecting data for presentation.
• Workshop 2: "Research Collaborations. Sharing, ethics, collegiality and
agreements“ This unit explores collaborative work, data sharing, scientific
interactions, resource sharing, authorship, mentorship, proprietary data,
collaborations between academia and industry.
• Workshop 3: "Publication: What, When, Why, How, by Whom“ This unit
explores the duty to publish and the multiple responsibilities of
authorship, who should be an author, and peer review.
• Workshop 4: "Objectivity in Research: Oversight of Conflicts of Interest
and Scientific Misconduct“ This unit explores institutional procedures
related to (1) reporting of "scientific misconduct" and (2) managing
conflicts of interest affecting research that may arise when University
researchers have financial interests that may be affected by their research.
15
Boston University
Advanced RCR
Program
Workshop 1: Creating
the research record
and managing data
Workshop 2: Research
collaborations: ethics,
collegiality and
agreements
Workshop 3:
Publication: What,
When, How, By
Whom?
Workshop 4:
Objectivity in
research: Oversight of
Conflicts of Interest
and Research
Misconduct
Mentor
/
Trainee
Respons
ibilities
Data
Publication Peer
Collaborati
Manage and
Review ve Science
ment and Authorship
and Data
Ownersh
Sharing
ip
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Research
Misconduct
Conflict of
Interest and
Conflict of
Commitmen
t
x
x
x
x
x
x
16
Participant’s Preparatory Reading
• Program Preparation materials: Online Power Point
(One hour)
 Required quiz
 links to additional resources
• Workshop preparation materials
 required readings (but no test, except through
participation in discussion)
 online CITI modules recommended, particularly in
diverse languages
17
Workshop Roles
• Large group: Co-leaders include Assistant Provost and
a Faculty Member
• Discussion groups:
– Individuals pre-assigned to assure variety of levels and
disciplines
– Each discussion group has
 Facilitator
 Recorder
 Spokesperson
18
Workshop Participant Package
•
•
•
•
•
RCR Program Welcome
Agenda
Workshop Discussion Guide
Case studies (2)
Flip chart for Summary
 Case recommendations
 Gray areas and unresolved questions for large group
19
Welcome
General Information including:
“Among the resources available to you in our community, for help with
ethical issues relating to integrity in science, are:
• Your mentor, thesis advisor, thesis committee
• RCR Discussion Facilitators and Leaders
• The responsible Principal Investigator on a research project
• The Chairman or Center Director of the PI (if PI is unresponsive)
• The Dean or Associate Dean for Research (if chair is unresponsive)
Also, available for confidential or anonymous help:
• The Assistant Provost for Research Compliance (Susan Frey,
sfrey@bu.edu)
• The Ombuds for Boston University (Francine Montemurro,
fmonte@bu.edu
• The BU Reporting Hotline (URL)”
20
Workshop : Small Group Discussion Guideline
Key Principles of Responsibility
List of Key Principles about Workshop Content Areas
•
[A list of about 6 key principles of ethical conduct, e.g., Research collaborators should seek clear
agreements about collaborative expectations before starting to collaborate; All those listed as a authors
should have made a substantial intellectual contribution to the work; etc.]
Discussion Group Goals
•
Apply these and other ethical principals, learned from your reading and experience, to the case studies.
•
Experience the challenges of applying these principles.
•
Seek group consensus through participation of all members on recommendations for responsible
conduct by key characters in the case studies, and other persons in the institution or scientific
community who may be involved.
•
Seek expanded awareness of the reasons why your recommendations are important to the individuals
involved, the scientific community and other possible stakeholders such as sponsors, insitutions and
journals.
•
Work Products of Discussion Groups
•
Case study 2-1: On Flip Chart Record
– The Group’s consensus recommendations for conduct of key characters and why; and
– A Challenging Question that your Group would like to pose to the large group about the case study
or the topic of collaboration.
•
Case study 2-2: On Flip Chart Record any agreements reached in your role-play negotiation and why.
21
Facilitator Preparation
• Facilitators receive case commentary (not given to
participants)
• Facilitators are prepared by the RCR administrative leader 1
hour before workshop; attention to inclusiveness and
participation; review of case analysis themes and case
commentary.
• Since 2004, over 400 faculty mentors, from departments
and centers as diverse as economics, bioinformatics,
medicine, astronomy, applied linguistics, computer
sciences, earth sciences, physical therapy, and many others,
have been oriented and credited with service as discussion
facilitators in Advanced RCR
22
Facilitator Recruitment
• RCREAC Liaison members request department chairs to
recruit facilitators based on past participation of
trainees from the department; personal touch needed
• RCR Compliance Coordinator tracks facilitator
registration (beating the bushes)
• Department chairs are copied on thank you notes and
requested to recognize the importance of facilitator
service to the University
23
Program Evaluation
Anecdotal and positive feedback:
•
•
•
•
Surveys to participants
Surveys to facilitators
Observation of discussion
Summary reports from discussion
24
Advanced RCR Projections
2011-12
Annual
Workshop
Occasions
Annual
Totals
Key Schools in
Core Program
Alternative
RCR Programs
Workshops
1, 2, 3 & 4
4 for each
workshop
16
occasions
per year
Participants
65 average
per
occasion
260 total in
program
GSAS: 70; MED:
65; ENG: 65;
SPH: 30
Other: 30
Chemistry
course: 25;
Computer
Science
course: 15
Facilitator
slots to fill;
(3 hr. slot)
7 average
slots per
occasion
7 X 16= 112
slots per
program
year
GSAS: 30; MED:
30; ENG: 30;
SPH: 15
Other: 10
Course faculty
for a full
semester 1- or
2-credit course
25
Program Growth
• Since 2004, we have experienced continuous program
growth, building from physical and biological sciences
into behavioral and social sciences
• Challenges ahead
 NSF requirements and greater extension of RCR to GSCAS
o Academic culture
o Numbers
o Masters candidates
26