Skip to main content
Skip to search
Skip to footer

Workshop on Responsible Professional Practices in a Changing Research Environment: 2011

On February 17, 2011, in conjunction with its Annual Meeting, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) convened a one-day workshop on Responsible Research Practices in a Changing Research Environment, supported with funding from ORI and the NSF Office of Inspector General.  The workshop highlighted emerging issues related to a changing research environment, which poses new challenges for researchers who seek to “practice” their craft responsibly. More than 80 people from diverse professional backgrounds attended a series of five sessions, which included best practices for fostering an environment of ethics in a research setting, strategies for effective communication between scientists and the media, challenges related to the research collaborations, an overview of some of the requirements of funding organizations, and a discussion of the relationship between policy advocacy and science.

Doing and reporting science is complicated, and ever more so in recent years as science has been increasingly subjected to competing claims from an expanding number of stakeholders. The integrity of research, from concerns about conflict of interest to those about the social responsibilities of scientists, is under greater public scrutiny than ever before. The organization of research is changing (think globalization and expanded national security restrictions), and so has the nature of public demands for access and accountability. This workshop focused on how scientists can navigate their way through this rapidly changing environment. AAAS plans to convene another workshop at its February 2012 Annual Meeting in Vancouver, Canada.

Synopsis | Resources | Biographies

Click on the links below for more detailed information on the individual sessions:

Session 1: Passion + Ethics + Trust: Recipe for a Successful Career in Science

  • Facilitator: Mark S. Frankel, Director, Scientific Freedom, Responsibility & Law Program, AAAS
  • Presenter: John C. Galland, Director, Division of Education and Integrity, Office of Research Integrity
  • Presenter: Peggy L. Fischer, Assistant Inspector General for Investigations, Office of Inspector General

The first session of the day focused on fostering an ethical research environment in the workplace.  Dr. Galland opened by noting the increasing demands on scientists, and the parallel growth of their responsibilities. He stressed the importance of an ethical research environment, commenting that knowledge of the rules of conduct is insufficient, and questioned how often institutions reassess their ethical environments. He observed that research ethics education has evolved to include not only information about the rules and regulations of the conduct of science, but also the fundamental values and ethics of research. Dr. Fischer expressed concern about the lack of professional ethics training available for researchers, but also for students and staff. Despite a broadening understanding of research ethics, the past decade has seen a marked increase in cases of research misconduct.  She emphasized the importance of virtues and character in cultivating an ethical researcher, noting that is important to instill an understanding of the rules and ethical principles as early as possible. Dr. Fischer recommended having a regulatory scheme in place to complement education in ethics and other professional best practices.

Click here to view the resources for this session.

Session 2: “I’m a Scientist and I’m here to help you.” The Complexities of Public Outreach

  • Presenter: Denise Graveline, President, don’t get caught–creative communications consulting

The second session offered guidance on how to communicate with the media, specifically with science journalists.  Ms. Graveline took the audience through the “dos and don’ts” of communicating with journalists. She emphasized that scientists are often the largest barrier to effective communication because many are reluctant to discuss their work with the media. She delineated the responsibilities of both scientists and reporters. Reporters must consult sources, weigh the evidence, and be brief. They are not, however, responsible for educating the public, pleasing the interviewee, or including all of the information they acquire. Scientists must represent their organizations, prepare ahead of time to answer questions, and share accurate information. They should not feel obligated to share personal opinions or speculate about the findings of scientific studies. Interview tips included requesting a specific time to be interviewed to enable the scientist to prepare, speaking with authority about your research, keeping answers short and precise while avoiding speculation about the facts or implications, suggesting questions the journalist might want to ask you, reviewing the thrust of the interview at its conclusion to avoid misunderstandings and misquoting, and never attempting to be “off the record,” since anything you say to a reporter is fair game. She stressed that science journalism helps to bridge the gap between researchers and the public, and has a critical impact on scientific research. Hence, communication is an important skill for researchers as well as for students and staff of science organizations.

Click here to view the resources for this session.

Session 3: The World is Flat and Science is No Outlier

  • Presenter: John C. Galland, Director, Division of Education and Integrity, Office of Research Integrity
  • Assisted by David Facchini and Harrison Pak

Using an interactive format, which included two professional actors from The Second City, the third session addressed some of the challenges for research collaborations. By acting out situations highlighting language barriers, problems with informed consent between a researcher and a research subject, and miscommunication, the audience was given insights into the importance of harmonization, communication, tolerance, and oversight among collaborators–whether it be multi-institutional, international, inter-laboratory, within local communities, or with industry, policy makers, or educators.

Click here to view the resources for this session.

Session 4: Meet the Funders: Finite Resources and Increasing Accountability

  • Facilitator: James T. Kroll, Head, Administrative Investigations, NSF Office of the Inspector General
  • Presenter: Penelope Firth, Deputy Division Director, Division of Environmental Biology, National Science Foundation
  • Presenter: Samantha Hunter, Policy Office Division of Institution & Award Support, National Science Foundation
  • Presenter:Miriam F. Kelty, Former Associate Director and Director of Extramural Activities National Institute on Aging, NIH

While the number of research proposals for federal funding has been on the rise, there are fewer sources of funding available. Moreover, proposals are often interdisciplinary in nature and include larger research teams. As a consequence, the average award size is going up to accommodate greater numbers of collaborators while award durations decrease.  Funding agencies are also instituting new accountability mechanisms for researchers and their institutions.  To address these matters, the fourth session had representatives from NSF and NIH describe some of the current requirements that scientists face in the funding process. Examples from Dr. Hunter of the National Science Foundation included the Post-Doc Mentoring Plan, which reviewers have often found to be too perfunctory, the new 2011 requirement for a Data Management Plan, and the broader impacts and intellectual merit requirements at the core of the agency’s peer review system. Dr. Firth mentioned that in her experience, “the difference between a great proposal and a great proposal that gets funding is often the broader impact of the science.”  While similar proposal requirements also exist at NIH, its ethics education requirements typically apply only to trainees, thereby omitting many other young scientists.  Dr. Kelty discussed the National Institutes of Health emphasis on ethics education for those engaged in human subjects research as well as the requirement for the inclusion of diverse populations in the research – unless there are solid scientific reasons not to do so.

Click here to view the resources for this session.

Session 5: Dr. Scientist Goes to Washington: Maintaining Integrity in the Policy Arena

  • Facilitator: Mark S. Frankel, Director, Scientific Freedom, Responsibility & Law Program, AAAS
  • Presenter: Roger Pielke, Jr., Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, University of Colorado
  • Presenter: Bill Foster, Former U.S. Representative, 14th District Illinois
  • Presenter: David Goldston, Director of Government Affairs, Natural Resources Defense Council
  • Presenter: Donna Minnis, Executive Director, Pemaquid Watershed Association

The final session of the day focused on advocacy by scientists. Dr. Pielke argued that scientists have an obligation to be involved in policy. For Pielke, the ideal role of the scientist would be that of the honest broker: a person who lays out all possible options, provides factual information, and does not attempt to sway the audience one way or another. He noted that the scientific community is in a position of authority and holds much respect from the public. For these reasons, he suggested that scientists should be engaged in policy debates, but should not go so far as to take on the role of advocate. Representative Foster, a physicist by training, stressed that when a scientist’s research enters the policy arena, it is critical to understand that presentation of the “facts” about a particular scientific matter does not necessarily translate into sound policy: science is just one of many components of decision-making for public policy. Mr. Goldston, former Chief of Staff of the House Committee on Science, emphasized that when engaging in a policy discussion it is critical for scientists to know their audience (their political ideology, voting history, political pressures, etc.) and to communicate their work effectively. Scientists should be prepared to offer concrete examples of how their research contributes to better public outcomes, and to be sensitive to the potential ethical pitfalls when engaging in advocacy. Dr. Minnis discussed the importance of personal values to scientists engaging in policy advocacy, highlighting the need for scientists to acknowledge their own biases and goals. She added that scientists should do what they are passionate about, but that it is equally important to be conscientious about how they convey their scientific findings to the outside community.

Click here to view the resources for this session.

Speaker Biographies

Penelope Firth is the Deputy Director of the Environmental Biology Division at the National Science Foundation. Her background is in stream ecosystem ecology and she pursues scholarly interests in biodiversity, climate change, ecosystem services, coupled natural and human systems, and transformative novelty. Dr. Firth received her Ph.D. from Virginia Tech in 1983. She worked for several years in the private sector and moved to Washington to support NASA’s program on bioregenerative life support systems for the Mars mission. In 1991, Dr. Firth moved to NSF, where she served in a variety of roles coordinating interagency environmental research activities, helping to develop a Federal environmental technology strategy, and serving as architect of the NSF/EPA Partnership for Environmental Research. She started and managed the NSF/EPA/USDA Water and Watersheds competition for NSF before being asked to serve as the executive secretary of the National Science Board (NSB) Task Force on the Environment. Dr. Firth played a significant role in the development of the NSB report Environmental Science and Engineering for the 21st Century, The Role of the National Science Foundation. She directed NSF’s Ecosystem Studies Program from 1997-2001, and helped to create NSF’s Dynamics of Coupled Natural and Human Systems program. During 2001-2002, she was detailed to the American Association for the Advancement of Science where she developed several sets of web-based lessons that integrate human history with natural history. Upon her return to NSF, Dr. Firth was promoted to Deputy Director of the Division of Environmental Biology. During 2006-2007 and 2009, she served as Acting Director of the Division. Currently, Dr. Firth leads the NSF Dimensions of Biodiversity team that developed a vision and strategic plan for a 10-year campaign to characterize the integrated taxonomic, genetic and functional dimensions of biodiversity on Earth. The first research projects received funding in FY2010.

Peggy L. Fischer is currently the Assistant Inspector General for Investigations for the National Science Foundation, where she is responsible for the Office of Investigations within the Office of Inspector General.  As the AIGI, Dr. Fischer ensures that all criminal, civil, and administrative allegations brought to OIG are appropriately investigated and resolved.  This includes investigation into the administrative allegations of research misconduct, and proactive investigative program to ensure the integrity of NSF’s systems and operation, as well as a dynamic outreach program to serve NSF and its communities. Dr. Fischer recently received a Presidential Rank award for her investigative work and her efforts to facilitate an international understanding of research misconduct investigations. She has been with the Foundation since 1992, including as a Senior Scientist in the Office of Inspector General, where she managed the research misconduct investigative case effort for the Office. She has been a Senior Program Officer for the National Research Council’s Board on Biology and held two postdoctoral positions after receiving her doctorate in cell biology at the University of Connecticut.

Bill Foster was elected in March 2008 and served until January 2011 as the Representative of Illinois’s 14th Congressional district in the U.S. Congress. Before being elected to Congress, Dr. Foster worked as a researcher at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (Fermilab), where he was a member of the team that discovered the top quark, the heaviest known form of matter. He also led the team that designed and built several scientific facilities and detectors still in use today, including the Recycler Ring, a giant particle accelerator. At age 19, he co-founded the Electronic Theatre Controls, Inc. that now manufactures over half of the theater lighting equipment in the United States. He has been elected a Fellow of the American Physical Society, received the Rossi Prize for Cosmic Ray Physics for the discovery of the neutrino burst from Supernova SN1987a, received the Particle Accelerator Technology Prize from the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, and was awarded an Energy Conservation award from the U.S. Department of Energy for his invention and application of permanent magnets for Fermilab’s accelerators.

Mark S. Frankel is director of the Scientific Freedom, Responsibility and Law Program at the American Association for the Advancement of science (AAAS), where he develops and manages AAAS’s activities related to professional ethics, science and society, and science and law.  At AAAS he has directed or co-directed projects on research integrity and scientific misconduct, codes of ethics in scientific and engineering societies, the ethical and policy implications of human stem cell research, the implications of advances in neuroscience research for the legal system, and personalized medicine, among others.  Since late 2010, he has been serving as Acting Director of the AAAS Science and Human Rights Program. Dr. Frankel is a former member of the Board of Directors of the National Patient Safety Foundation and currently serves on the Boards of the Food and Drug Law Institute and the Center for Law, Science & Innovation at Arizona State University.  He is also a member of the Science and Ethics Advisory Group at Roche Genetics in Basel, Switzerland.  Dr. Frankel serves on the editorial boards of Science and Engineering Ethics, Ethics & Behavior, and the Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics.  He is editor of AAAS’s quarterly publication, Professional Ethics Report, and a Fellow of AAAS.

Before joining the Office of Research Integrity in 2009, John Galland was director of the University of California Davis Laboratory Management Institute. While at the Institute, Dr. Galland developed a curriculum and unique pedagogy for educating scientists in the practical business of running a research program. This pedagogy was described in numerous journals including Nature, Science, Cell and The Chronicle of Higher Education. The curriculum was delivered through an annual program for postdoctoral scholars at UC Davis and a summer certificate program offered to people worldwide. Both programs consisted of 140 contact hours of instruction. Additional educational programs were conducted for industry, government, national laboratories, other academic institutions, and scientific associations. Dr. Galland also taught a graduate course titled Philosophy and Ethics for the Biological Scientist’ at the UC Davis School of Veterinary Medicine. In 2004, Dr. Galland became one of 20 partners in the Howard Hughes Medical Institute/Burroughs Wellcome Scientific Management Program for Postdoctoral Fellows and Faculty and acknowledges their influence on the program at UC Davis. Dr. Galland received both his MS and PhD at UC Davis and before returning to the institution he was professor of veterinary medicine at Kansas State University.

David Goldston became Director of Government Affairs at the Natural Resources Defense Council, a leading environmental group, in July 2009.  Prior to that, he had spent more than 20 years on Capitol Hill, working primarily on science policy and environmental policy.  He was Chief of Staff of the House Committee on Science from 2001 through 2006.  After retiring from government service, Goldston was a visiting lecturer at Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs in 2007 and at the Harvard University Center for the Environment in 2008 and 2009.  From 2007 through November 2009, he wrote a monthly column for Nature on science policy titled “Party of One.”  He also was the project director for the Bipartisan Policy Center report “Improving the Use of Science in Regulatory Policy,” which was released in August 2009.  He serves on the National Academy of Sciences’ Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board.  Since 2006, Goldston has also co-chaired an American Physical Society study on energy efficiency and has served on panels producing reports under the auspices of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and OMB Watch.  He holds a B.A. (1978) from Cornell University and completed the course work for a Ph.D. in American history at the University of Pennsylvania.

Denise Graveline is the president of don’t get caught, a Washington, DC, communications consulting firm that works to make sure you don’t get caught unprepared, speechless or without a message.  She helps federal agencies, universities, nonprofits and businesses with communications strategies, training and message development. Her background includes extensive experience communicating about science, medicine, the environment and technology.  She’s worked as a journalist and has directed communications and media relations at the two largest scientific societies, the American Chemical Society and the American Association for the Advancement of Science; at The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation; and served as the Deputy Associate Administrator of Communications, Education and Public Affairs at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Today, she is the author of The Eloquent Woman, a blog on women and public speaking. Named “Washington PR Woman of the Year” in 2002 by Washington Women in Public Relations, Graveline is a member of the National Association of Science Writers. She also has trained thousands of scientists, engineers, physicians, senior executives, and government officials to give presentations with presence.

Miriam F. Kelty consults on research ethics, scientific integrity and research management. Her doctoral training at Rutgers University was interdisciplinary in psychology, psychobiology and animal behavior. While director of scientific programs at the American Psychological Association (APA), she helped conceptualize and stimulate a number of new research areas such as population psychology, environment and behavior, and health psychology. For 20 years Dr. Kelty was Associate Director of the National Institute on Aging, U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Director of Extramural Activities. After participating in the development and publication of Ethical Principles for the Conduct of Psychological Research with Human Participants by the APA, she joined the staff of the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. This group produced more than a dozen studies, including the Belmont Report, which has been the basis of human research protections in the U.S. and abroad. At NIH, Dr. Kelty started the Inter-Institute Bioethics Interest Group, a forum for discussion of emerging and ongoing ethical issues in research. As a consultant she continues to advise NIH and other organizations on ethical issues in research such as consent processes, biorepositories and use of stored samples, international research and recruitment and retention of clinical trial participants. In addition to speaking on research ethics, she conducts workshops on responsible conduct of science. Her leadership and her contributions to research ethics have been recognized by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Service, NIH, academic and association awards. She is active in scientific and professional organizations, is a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychological Society, and the Gerontological Society of America. Currently Dr. Kelty serves on the Institutional Review Board for the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, the ethics committee for the Clinical and Translational Science Awards, and the Human Research Committee for the APA.

James T. Kroll has been the Head of Administrative Investigations for the National Science Foundation’s Office of the Inspector General since April 2001.  He is primarily responsible for investigating and resolving all allegations that, if substantiated, would result in administrative action rather than civil or criminal prosecution.  These include allegations of research misconduct under NSF proposals and awards; certain types of employee misconduct; violations of NSF regulations, policy or directives; improprieties in program management that can not be practicably resolved by management itself; and other issues that are not of a civil/criminal nature. Prior to working for the OIG, Dr. Kroll served 21 years as a meteorological officer with the U.S. Air Force.  During his Air Force tenure, he served in a number of positions including, Chief of Meteorological Modeling at the Air Force’s climatology center; Commander of the Griffiss Air Force Base weather detachment; Atmospheric Sciences Program Officer at the Air Force Office of Scientific Research; Chief of Total Force Policy for HQ Air Force Weather; and finally as an Air Force Liaison to National Weather Service. Dr. Kroll completed his undergraduate studies at Rutgers University where he received his B.S. in Meteorology in 1980.  He later attended North Carolina State University where he received his M.S. in Atmospheric Sciences in 1985 and his Ph.D. in 1988.

Donna Minnis earned her undergraduate and Master’s degrees in wildlife management from West Virginia University (1989) and Michigan State University (1991), respectively. For her doctorate degree from Michigan State University (1996), she turned her emphasis to the human element in the natural resources conservation equation, focusing on conflict resolution and public involvement. From 1996 to 2000, she served on faculty in the Department of Wildlife and Fisheries at Mississippi State University, focusing on all aspects of the “Human Dimensions” of wildlife management, including conservation policy and law enforcement.  In 1997, Dr. Minnis co-chaired with Dr. Rebecca Stout-McPeake a national symposium on ”Confronting the Questions of Advocacy” at the annual conference of The Wildlife Society.  The focus of this symposium and their subsequent journal article on the topic was, “What is advocacy and how should wildlife professionals respond to situations where advocacy may be an option?”  Since 2001, Dr. Minnis has lived on the coast of Maine and has gained a variety of work experience outside of academia, including in her current position as Executive Director of a local environmental 501(c)3 public charity, Pemaquid Watershed Association, which she has held since December 2006.  She draws on a decade of first-hand experience in the realm of university research and a decade of experience in the proverbial trenches of environmental conservation as she formulates her perspective on the role of “Dr. Scientist in D.C.” and in any other advocacy arena that a conservation professional finds him/herself.

Roger Pielke, Jr. has been on the faculty of the University of Colorado since 2001 and is a Professor in the Environmental Studies Program and a Fellow of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES). At CIRES, he served as the Director of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research from 2001-2007. Dr. Pielke’s research focuses on the intersection of science and technology and decision making. In 2006, he received the Eduard Brückner Prize in Munich, Germany for outstanding achievement in interdisciplinary climate research. Before joining the University of Colorado, from 1993-2001 he was a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. Dr. Pielke is a Senior Fellow of the Breakthrough Institute. He is also author, co-author, or co-editor of seven books, including The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics published by Cambridge University Press in 2007. His most recent book is The Climate Fix: What Scientists and Politicians Won’t Tell you About Global Warming (September, 2010, Basic Books).

Resources

General Information on Research Integrity and Responsible Conduct of Research

American Association for the Advancement of Science, Scientific Freedom, Responsibility, & Law Program. Research Integrity. http://www.aaas.org/spp/sfrl/projects/research_integrity/

Council of Graduate Schools. Project for Scholarly Integrity. http://www.scholarlyintegrity.org/

National Institutes of Health, Office of Extramural Research. Research Integrity. http://grants.nih.gov/grants/research_integrity/index.htm

National Science Foundation, Office of Inspector General. Reports and Publications. http://www.nsf.gov/oig/pubs.jsp

National Science Foundation, Office of Budget, Finance and Award Management. Responsible Conduct of Research. http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/rcr.jsp

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Research Integrity. http://ori.hhs.gov/

Developing a Culture of Ethics in Research Organizations

Council of Canadian Academies, Expert Panel on Research Integrity. (2010). Honesty, Accountability, and Trust: Fostering Research Integrity in Canada. Ottawa, Canada. http://www.scienceadvice.ca/uploads/eng/assessments%20and%20publications%20and%20news%20releases/research%20integrity/ri_report.pdf

European Science Foundation, Member Organization Forum on Research Integrity. (2005). Fostering Research Integrity in Europe: Executive Report. France: IREG Strasbourg. http://www.esf.org/activities/mo-fora/publications.html  (Note-the article is the first publication listed on the page)

Federal Sentencing Guidelines. (2004). Chapter 8 –Part B- Remedying Harm from Criminal Conduct, and Effective Compliance and Ethics Program. http://www.ethicspoint.com/Upload/Event/Materials/Federal_Sentencing_Guidelines_Manual_-_Chapter_8.pdf

Grant, G, Odell G, and Forrester R. (1999). “Creating effective research compliance programs in academic institutions” Academic Medicine, 74, 951-971. http://journals.lww.com/academicmedicine/Abstract/1999/09000/Creating_effective_research_compliance_programs_in.7.aspx

Grinnell, F. (1992). The Scientific Attitude, Second Edition. New York: The Guilford Press.

Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. (2002). Integrity in Scientific Research: Creating an Environment that Promotes Responsible Conduct. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10430#toc (Available to read online)

Johnson, K.W. (2005). Designing an Outcome Based Ethics and Compliance Program Evaluation. Arlington, VA: Ethics Resource Center. http://www.ethics.org/resource/next-steps-designing-outcomes-based-ethics-and-compliance-program-evaluation

National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine of the National Academies. (2009). On Being a Scientist: A Guide to Responsible Conduct in Research: Third Edition Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12192 (free pdf available for download)

Soule, E. (2005). Embedding Ethics in Business and Higher Education:  From Leadership to Management Imperative. Washington, DC: Business-Higher Education Forum. http://www.bhef.com/publications/documents/embedding_ethics_05.pdf

Global Research Issues

Anderson, M.S. and Steneck N.H. (2011). International Research Collaborations. Much to be Gained, Many Ways to Get in Trouble. New York: Routledge.

Glickman, S.W. et al., (2009). “Ethical and scientific implications of the globalization of clinical research.” New England Journal of Medicine, 360 (8), 816-823.http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsb0803929

Global Science Forum, Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development. Best Practices for Ensuring Scientific Integrity and Preventing Misconduct. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/37/17/40188303.pdf

Global Science Forum, Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (2009). Investigating Research Misconduct Allegations in International Collaborative Research Projects: A Practical Guide http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/42/34/42770261.pdf

Global Science Forum, Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (2009). Coordinating Committee for Facilitating International Research Misconduct Investigations: Final Report. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/29/4/42713295.pdf

National Science Foundation, Office of International Science and Engineering. International Research Integrity. http://www.nsf.gov/od/oise/intl-research-integrity.jsp

Communicating Science, and Science in Communities

Bubela, T. et al., (2009). “Science communication reconsidered.” Nature Biotechnology, 27(6), 514-518. (Available with subscription).

don’t get caught (2010). 12 questions to ask reporters. http://www.dontgetcaught.biz/2010/01/12-questions-to-ask-reporters.html

Economic and Social Research Council (2002). Towards a better map” Science, the public and the media. United Kingdom. http://www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/Images/Mapdocfinal_tcm6-5505.pdf

Global Science Forum, Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (2009). Improving the Dialogue with Society on Scientific Issues. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/18/37/42887346.pdf

Graveline, D (2011). “The all in one for eloquent scientists: Resources and role models.” The Eloquent Woman. http://eloquentwoman.blogspot.com/2011/02/all-in-one-for-eloquent-scientists.html

Nisbet, M.C. and Scheufele D.A. (2009). “What’s next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions.” American Journal of Botany, 96 (10), 1767-1778. http://www.amjbot.org/cgi/content/full/96/10/1767

Pace, M.L. et al., (2010). “Communicating with the public: opportunities and rewards for individual ecologists.” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 8(6), 292-298.
http://www.esajournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1890/090168

Resnik, D.B. (2010). “Scientific research and the public trust.” Science and Engineering Ethics. (Available with subscription)

Scientific Research Processes, Policies, and Regulations

Association of American Universities Task Force on Research Accountability. (2001) Report on Individual and Institutional Financial Conflict of Interest. http://www.aau.edu/research/COI.01.pdf

Holbrook, J.B. and Frodeman, R. (2007). “Answering the NSF’s question: what are the “broader impacts” of the proposed activity?” Professional Ethics Report, 10 (3), Summer.
http://www.aaas.org/spp/sfrl/per/newper50.shtml#NSF

National Institutes of Health, Office of Extramural Research. Financial Conflicts of Interest http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/coi/tutorial/fcoi.htm (PPT Tutorial)

National Science Foundation. (2010). Frequently Asked Questions on Proposal Preparation and Award Administration. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/faqs11_1.pdf?WT.mc_id=USNSF_80

Penslar, R.J. and Porter, P.B. IRB Guidebook. Office for Human Research Protections, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.  http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/irb/irb_guidebook.htm

The Broader Impacts Toolbox: Secrets to Succeeding in Science http://broaderimpacts.info/BIT/BI_Defined.php

Policy, Scientists, and Advocacy

Gascoigne, T. (2008). Science Advocacy: Challenging Task, Difficult Pathways. In D. Cheng (Ed.), Communicating Science in Social Contexts. Springer, 227-241. (Available with Subscription)

Graffy, E.A. (2008). “Meeting the challenges of policy-relevant science: bridging theory and practice.” Public Administration Review, 1087-1100. http://www.wsu.edu/~forda/CE%20543/Meeting%20the%20Challenges%20of%20Policy-Relevant%20Science.pdf

Fischoff, B. (2007). “Nonpersuasive communication about matters of greatest urgency: climate change.” Environmental Science and Technology, 7205-7208. http://sds.hss.cmu.edu/media/pdfs/fischhoff/NonpersuasiveCommMatters.pdf

Frankel, M.S. (2010). “Responsible conduct of research and advocacy.” Office of Research Integrity Newsletter, 18 (2), 1-13. http://ori.hhs.gov/documents/newsletters/vol18_no2.pdf

Lackey, R.T. (2007). “Science, scientists, and policy advocacy.” Conservation Biology. 21(1): 12-17. http://ncseonline.org/CMS400Example/uploadedFiles/03_NEW_SITE/2_Strengthening_the_Academic_Community/CEDD/SCIENCE-SCIENTISTS-AND-POLICY-ADVOCACY-CON-BIO-REPRINT-2007.pdf

Meyer, J.L. et al., (2010). “Communicating with the public: opportunities and rewards for individual ecologists.” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 8(6), 299-305. http://www.esajournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1890/090143

Minnis D.L and Stout McPeake R.J. (2001). “An Analysis of Advocacy Within the Wildlife Profession.” Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 6, 1-10. (Available with subscription)

Nelson, M.P. and Vucetich, J.A. (2009) “On advocacy by environmental scientists: what, whether, why, and how.” Conservations Biology, 23, 1090-1101. http://lymanbriggs.msu.edu/Nelson_Vucetich_Advocacy_09.pdf

Nielsen, L.A. (2001). “Science and Advocacy Are Different—And We Need to Keep Them That Way.” Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 6, 39–47. (Available with subscription)

Pielke, Jr., R.A. (2007). The Honest Broker. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Pielke, Jr., R.A. (2006). “When Scientists Politicize Science.” Regulation, 28-34. http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv29n1/v29n1-4.pdf

The Workshop is partially supported with funds from the Office of Inspector General at the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Office of Research Integrity, Department of Health and Human Services.

Related Scientific Disciplines