What do mentoring and training in the responsible conduct of research have to do with scientists' misbehavior? Findings from a National Survey of NIH-funded scientists.

PURPOSE: The authors examine training in the responsible conduct of research and mentoring in relation to behaviors that may compromise the integrity of science. METHOD: The analysis is based on data from the authors' 2002 national survey of 4,160 early-career and 3,600 midcareer biomedical and social science researchers who received research support from the U.S. National Institutes of Health. The authors used logistic regression analysis to examine associations between receipt of separate or integrated training in research ethics, mentoring related to ethics and in general, and eight categories of ethically problematic behavior. Analyses controlled for gender, type of doctoral degree, international degree, and disciplinary field. RESULTS: Responses were received from 1,479 early-career and 1,768 midcareer scientists, yielding adjusted response rates of 43% and 52%, respectively. Results for early-career researchers: Training in research ethics was positively associated with problematic behavior in the data category. Mentoring related to ethics and research, as well as personal mentoring, decreased the odds of researchers' engaging in problematic behaviors, but mentoring on financial issues and professional survival increased these odds. Results for midcareer researchers: Combined separate and integrated training in research ethics was associated with decreased odds of problematic behavior in the categories of policy, use of funds, and cutting corners. Ethics mentoring was associated with lowered odds of problematic behavior in the policy category. CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness of training in obviating problematic behavior is called into question. Mentoring has the potential to influence behavior in ways that both increase and decrease the likelihood of problematic behaviors.

A theoretical, practical, predictive model of faculty and department research productivity.

PURPOSE: Although numerous characteristics impact faculty research productivity, and although researchers have suggested comprehensive theoretical models to explain the relationship between these characteristics and levels of faculty research productivity, few studies have assessed these models. This study tests the ability of the Bland et al. (2002) model-based on individual, institutional, and leadership variables influencing faculty research productivity-to explain individual and group (department) research productivity within the context of a large medical school. METHOD: This study used data from a University of Minnesota Medical School-Twin Cities vitality survey conducted in 2000 that had a response rate of 76% (n = 465 faculty). A statistical software package was used to conduct t tests, logistic regressions, and multiple regressions on these data. RESULTS: The validity of faculty, department, and leadership characteristics identified in the Bland et al. (2002) model were confirmed as necessary for high levels of research productivity. Faculty productivity was influenced more by individual and institutional characteristics; group productivity was more affected by institutional and leadership characteristics. CONCLUSION: The characteristics and groupings (individual, institutional, and leadership) in the Bland et al. (2002) model predict faculty research productivity. Research productivity is influenced by the interaction of the three broad groupings, and it is the dynamic interplay of individual and institutional characteristics, supplemented with effective leadership, that determines the productivity of individuals and departments.