One multi-disciplinary membership organization with a focus on practical and professional ethics, including science and engineering ethics and ethics education, is the Association for Practical and Professional Ethics.  The APPE website is at http://www.indiana.edu/~appe/. In APPE, there is a special group that focuses on responsible conduct of research; you can see its mission and membership at http://www.indiana.edu/~appe/rcrec.html.  A leading journal in the field is Science and Engineering Ethics at http://www.springer.com/philosophy/ethics/journal/11948

The evidence is mixed. Self and Ellison (1998) and Sindelar et al. (2003) demonstrated that in a full three-credit course on engineering ethics, the moral reasoning skills of students improve significantly. In a survey of students who had experienced sessions on responsible conduct of reserach, Plemmons et al. (2006) found that students felt they had acquired basic information, but had not improved skills or changed attitudes. These and other studies (Brown and Kalichman, 1998; Funk et al., 2007) have generally ignored differences in the methods of instruction, however.

Brown, S., & Kalichman, M. W. (1998). Effects of training in the responsible conduct of research: a survey of graduate students in experimental sciences. Science and Engineering Ethics, 4 (4), 487-498.

Funk, C. L., Barrett, K. A., & Macrina, F. L. (2007). Authorship and publication practices: evaluation of the effect of responsible conduct of research instruction to postdoctoral trainees. Accountability in Research, 14, 269-305.

Plemmons, D. K., Brody, S. Z., & Kalichman, M. W. (2006). Student perceptions of the effectiveness of education in the responsible conduct of research. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12 (3), 571–582.

Self, D.J. & Ellison, E.M. (1998). Teaching engineering ethics: assessment of its influence on moral reasoning skills. Journal of Engineering Education, 87, 29-34.

Sindelar, M., Shuman, L., Besterfield-Sacre, M., Miller, R., Mitcham, C., Olds, B., Pinkus, R. & Wolfe, H. (2003). Assessing engineering students’ abilities to resolve ethical dilemmas, in: Proceedings, Thirty-Third Annual ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Westminster, Colo., November 5–8, 2003, pp. S2A-25 to S2A-31.

The University of Massachusetts Amherst has initiated a digital ethics library that it says "will also provide resources necessary to examine the advantages and disadvantages of using stand alone, off-the-shelf, online training packages and programs for teaching ethics. While these programs and materials can be efficient methods of teaching ethics, many experts question their effectiveness (See Kalichman 2005; NAE 2009; Schrag 2005; Sieber 2005; Smith-Doer, Journal of Empirical Research in Human Research, 2009, and others). The beta library will be a resource for institutions as they decide how their institutions will ensure appropriate ethics training for researchers."  

Here are a few suggestions:

Under oec/resources/institutional programs there’s a link to the CGS PSI:  http://www.scholarlyintegrity.org/ShowContent.aspx? id=406#.  On the right hand side of that page, there’s a highlight to the Project on Scholarly Integrity:  A Framework for Collaborative Action.  That 2008 paper has a lot of good suggestions.  It is geared toward schools with graduate programs in the sciences, but many of the suggestions are generally useful. 

The description of the Penn State program below gives another approach, again focused on the sciences but generally useful: http://www.research.psu.edu/orp/sari/.  The Rock Ethics Institute at Penn State also has useful resources:  http://php.scripts.psu.edu/dept/rockethics/index.php.   Finally, Lesley University administrators and faculty interested in RCR might contact the Responsible Conduct of Research Educational Committee, a committee of the Association for Practical and Professional Ethics; information at http://www.indiana.edu/~appe/rcrec.html.  

This question should be asked of NSF directly, but here's my take on it.

The short answer is that NSF has explicitly stated that it "does not intend to issue NSF-specified standards" concerning the content or mode of instruction ("Responsible Conduct of Research," Federal Register, vol. 74, no. 160, Aug 20 2009, p. 42127). (More information on this policy can be found below.)

To me, this indicates that anything goes, including NIH training.

There are many options other than CITI. The Notice cited above repeatedly mentions two Web sites:

(1) "Ethics in Science and Engineering National Clearinghouse"
http://www.umass.edu/sts/digitallibrary/ (the administrative page)
http://www.ethicslibrary.org/ (the actual clearinghouse)

(2) "Online ethics Center for Engineering and Research"
http://www.onlineethics.org/CMS/about/UserGuide/18848. aspx (overview of enhancements for the American COMPETES Act)
http://www.onlineethics.org/ (home page)

Here is some more information about the mandate:

The Congress of the United States decreed, in Section 7009 of the America COMPETES Act ((42 U.S.C. 1862o-1), that institutions applying for NSF funding must have a plan to provide "training and oversight" in the "responsible and ethical conduct of research."

The final rule can be found in HTML format at
 http://frwebgate1.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEXTgate. cgi?WAISdocID=052704368619+4+1+0&WAISaction=retrieve

and in .PDF format at
 http://frwebgate1.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/PDFgate. cgi?WAISdocID=052704368619+4+2+0&WAISaction=retrieve

NSFs implementation plan is as follows:

"Effective January 4, 2010, NSF will require that, at the time of proposal submission to NSF, a proposing institution's Authorized Organizational Representative certify that the institution has a plan to provide appropriate training and oversight in the responsible and ethical conduct of research to undergraduates, graduate students, and postdoctoral researchers who will be supported by NSF to conduct research. While training plans are not required to be included in proposals submitted to NSF, institutions are advised that they are subject to review upon request. NSF will formally implement the new RCR requirement via an update to the NSF Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide (PAPPG). It is anticipated that the revisions to the PAPPG will be issued on October 1, 2009. NSF also will modify its standard award conditions to clearly stipulate that institutions are responsible for verifying that undergraduate students, graduate students, and postdoctoral researchers supported by NSF to conduct research have received RCR training. In addition, NSF will support the development of an on-line RCR resource containing research findings, pedagogical materials, and promising practices regarding RCR in science and engineering. The development and evolution of the ongoing online RCR resource will be informed by the research communities that NSF supports, and it will serve as a living resource of multimedia materials that may be used to train current and future generations of scientists and engineers in RCR." ("Responsible Conduct of Research," Federal Register, vol. 74, no. 160, Aug 20 2009, p. 42126)

About suggested training:

"NSF does not intend to issue NSF-specified standards and recognizes that training needs may vary depending on specific circumstances of research or the needs of students intending to pursue careers in a variety of science and engineering settings after completing their education. Therefore, it is the responsibility of each institution to determine both the content and the delivery method for the training that will meet the institution's particular needs for RCR training in all areas at that institution for which NSF provides support." ("Responsible Conduct of Research," Federal Register, vol. 74, no. 160, Aug 20 2009, p. 42127)

Ken

Yes, there are many other training programs available.  Two good starting points for finding materials are the Council of Graduate Schools' Scholarly Integrity website (http://www.scholarlyintegrity.org/ ) and the Office of Research Integrity's Educational Resources website (http://ori.dhhs.gov/education/rcr_resources.shtml ).  Regarding using NIH training program for the NSF requirements, I would say it depends in part on the types of researchers that you are trying to train.  Although there is overlap regarding what all researchers need to know about RCR (authorship, data management, research misconduct, etc.), the NIH training program primarily focuses on ethical issues relating to biomedical research.  Since many of the researchers NSF funds are outside of the biomedical realm (computer science, chemistry, atmospheric sciences, etc.), you may want to find materials more specifically tailored to their respective fields.

 

This is a good question, but a complex one. In general, I'd say that Fred Cuny's basic approach includes trying to be prepared to act quickly and effectively before a disaster strikes. The problem is that it seems they we are so often taken by surprise.  In the case of Katrina, hindsight might have told us that the levees put the area at high risk for bad things if they don't hold. And, it seems to me, there were engineers who had issued warnings about their inadequacy. Still, was anyone in a good position to anticipate the magnitude of the disaster that could result from their failure? 

Well, suppose that, realistically, we should always expect that sometime or other, some way or other, we will be taken by surprise in disastrous ways--even with our best efforts to take preventive measures. Once disaster strikes, Cuny would say that engineers will be needed. His book on disaster relief (Oxfam/Oxford) focuses mainly on how best to help after disaster strikes. This, he says, requires one to figure out both how to provide assistance & knowledge of what will really count as (long-term) assistance. This latter knowledge, he says, requires knowing how those who are victims see things, what they will be able to do for themselves once the rescuers leave, and so on. For Cuny, quick fixes are like bandaids--something that may be needed in the short run (to keep the bleeding under control). But Cuny was interested in long-term fixes. An understanding of local needs, abilities, etc. is something that one could try to acquire well before disaster strikes. This is because the understanding that is needed is not just of rescue tactics, but of what a community needs when things are going well (after the rescuers have left). 

I can't do justice to what Cuny had in mind in short space (after all, he wrote an entire book on this). But it seems that, ideally, good rescue work after disaster strikes requires leadership that is well informed about the life conditions (past, present, and future) of those who might be victimized by disasters (a disproportionate number of whom, unfortunately, typically are already living in poverty, neglect, or in oppressive circumstances). In any case, more than specialized engineering knowledge is needed & there needs to be a readiness to learn about these other matters of importance (as it is unlikely that even someone as conscientious as Cuny would have all the needed knowledge ready-to-hand). Formal, interdisciplinary education may well have a role to play here.

So, what kind of "corporate backing" might be most useful in light of Cuny's approach? Not money for bandaids only, he might have said. Money for educational programs designed to prepare engineers to do effective disaster relief work as engineers might be a good investment. Cuny and his disaster relief agency should not be the exception (as they have been perceived by many, including themselves, to be); they should be more commonplace in the engineering professions. The corporate challenge, then, could be to encourage and support engineering programs that can be expected to give us more engineers who will be ready and able to respond constructively to disasters like Katrina. At the same time, this sort of program could focus on the need for preventive measures, or at least measures likely to reduce the impact of Katrina-like disasters. 

I hope these comments are at least a little bit helpful, belated and broad as they are.

I’m not sure exactly what you mean by “parameters”, but I can tell you that this forum can be a little tricky to manage. You need to have someone at least somewhat familiar with the field who has the time to serve as a moderator. That person will need to be able to solicit responses from appropriate people. We’ve also wondered from time to time whether this format is really appropriate for our audience. It doesn’t get a lot of traffic, and we’ve seen similar forums on other sites that also seem to be unused. To be honest, we are still trying to work out the best format and place for this forum on the site and would welcome any feedback. I will see if I can get some feedback on this for you from others used to running online forums. 

I guess the main issue is screening inappropriate postings (especially rants and potential liable). Noticing the difference between the use of the OEC ethics Helpline and the Ethics Case Discussions, I observe that people are much less willing to share problems about research ethics, even when they control the level of detail.

The National Institute for Engineering Ethics has a collection of videos that portray ethical problems for practicing engineers.  They are more than 10-15 minutes though; more like an hour.  They can be stopped at various places where issues arise to provoke discussion.  NIEE distributed the videos to the deans of engineering schools, so I wonder what's become of those copies.  In any event, you can probably find out about them and maybe get copies from NIEE, and their url is <a href="http://www.niee.org/murdoughcenter/"> www.niee.org/murdoughcenter/</a>. 
 

Some engineering ethics videos on YouTube:

Skits by students at Kansas State University:
http://www.youtube.com/user/enggethics

Brief lessons by me:
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=746AE3CCB29B64B8

The NIEE ( www.niee.org ) offers longer, professionally filmed movies that dramatize realistic but fictional cases in engineering ethics. Gilbane Gold runs about 25 minutes, Incident at Morales runs 36 minutes, and Ethicana (just finished) runs about 50 minutes. Another video will appear next year.

The University of Nebraska-Lincoln recently posted some RCR Videos that may also be of use: http://research.unl.edu/orr/videos.shtml.

I think the closest I came to finding this was a series of five videocassettes recording the entirety of the hearings. I found them via WorldCat, a database of library holdings throughout the U.S.

Presidential Commission Board
William Rogers
1986
English Visual Material : Videorecording 5 videocassettes (1 hr. each) : sd., col. ; 3/4 in.
Houston, TX. : Johnson Space Center.

It looks as if the originals are being held by the National Archives Motion Picture, Sound and Video unit, Special Media Archives Services Division. Your best bet might be to speak with someone at the National Archives to see if he can get a copy of the videos through them. I did a search of NARA’s archival catalogue http://www.archives.gov/research/arc/ of “Rogers, Challenger” and pulled up all the records of the videotapes.

There are also a number of documentaries that exist, including the Space Shuttle Accident Investigation, put together by NASA, and available at http://www.archive.org/details/ ChallengerAccidentandInvestig ation through the Internet Archive. This one seems to be the closest I could find.

Hope one of these is correct!