In an April post to this website, we commented on ORI’s video on common concerns that arise in research labs with international postdocs.  That video illustrated ways that communication issues are often barriers in the international environment of scientific labs.  Along with language issues, cultural perspectives add complexity to conveying information, and the more sensitive the subject, the more difficult the task of conveying ideas and the more likely that misunderstandings will arise.

A resource for thinking about these issues is The Geography of Thought, in which Richard Nisbett discusses studies done on cognitive thinking in various cultures.  Although the book focuses on Western and Eastern cultures and societies, the effort to understand the cognitive process is also useful in understanding differences between all groups.  One reviewer pointed out that the research in the book challenges the assumption that thinking is the same across all cultures.

This book, like the video described in the April post, does not focus specifically on issues of responsible conduct of research or of image integrity.  Nonetheless, it sets in context the complex nature of interactions and ideas across cultures.  We need to understand more than language differences to have clear communication on matters of research and especially ethics.

Just as science is global, so must the reach for research integrity be across cultures.

The Office of Research Integrity (ORI) has created video scenarios about common concerns that international postdocs and their U.S. colleagues face in working collaboratively in research laboratories.  Some of the videos deal with communications challenges while others deal with everyday problems with visas, finances, and  the details of studying and conducting research in a foreign culture.

Although the series does not directly address research integrity, it is clear that communication issues are often barriers to productive research work.  If problems with culture compromise communication between postdocs and mentors about ordinary work issues, they affect even more the mentor’s ability to convey expectations about the complex issues of research integrity.    In our experience from questions following seminars, and  consultations, cultural differences can easily lead to miscommunication and errors in research ethics, and there are few resources for either party when attempting to resolve the outcomes.  This video is a needed beginning to a long overdue dialog.

The videos are available at http://ori.hhs.gov/mentoring-international-post-docs

Would the science record be better served if we were able to see falsified data images from retracted papers to better understand the errors?   In late November 2012, the U.S. Office of Research Integrity (ORI) sanctioned University of Kentucky researcher Eric Smart, PhD, after determining that he had falsified or fabricated 45 figures in 10 published articles (plus grant proposals). Most were images of Western blots. Thomsen’s Scientific Web of Knowledge reported that “some of [them] were cited more than 100 times.” How does this affect the science record?

Retraction Watch has been a powerful partner in the examination of falsification in the published record, doing the hard work of gathering retraction notices and categorizing them, generating data from these retractions, highlighting research about retractions, and collecting wide-ranging comments, all in one readily available blog.

This summer, the Council of Graduate Schools  published its report on research and scholarly integrity in graduate education.  According to an August 14 article ** by Beth Mole in the Chronicle of Higher Education, based on a report by The Project for Scholarly Integrity, graduate students felt that they understood research ethics but the report revealed that students nonetheless needed help in dealing with issues of research misconduct.