Misconduct in science affects us all. It undermines public trust in the results and methods of science and threatens public funding and support for scientific research. To inform genetic researchers and trainees of their ethical responsibilities in this area, the Office of Genome Ethics has developed and implemented a basic course in science research ethics taught annually in the laboratory setting by a senior researchers or lab heads.

This is a case-based course focusing on incidents and issues commonly encountered in the preparation, conduct, and reporting of scientific research. Topics covered include: peer review, conducting research, authorship, and human experimentation. Each unit of the course focuses on at least one key case illustrating one or more of these issues. In keeping with the complex, and often personal dimensions of these issues, emphasis is on interactive discussion. The case facilitator serves as a discussion leader, but the value of each session depends on each participants prior reading of the case. Below is a topical syllabus of the materials in this course. If you would like more information, please contact the Office of Genome Ethics directly.

Topical Syllabus

Session 1: Introduction.

Case Study: A Stampede of Zebras

The aim of this session is to provide an overview of major issues in science research ethics and to underscore the importance of integrity in all aspects of science research. A Stampede of Zebras, written by NIH scientist Robert Martin, is an engaging drama that explores the issue of ethics in laboratory relationships. As you read this play, keep the following question in mind:

What is your estimate of the conduct of the various charac-ters in this play: Howard, Sherri, Jennifer, Chris, Mike, and Liz? What factors lead to the misconduct the play re-ports? What lessons for senior and junior researchers do you draw from this case?

Session 2: Confidentiality and the Peer Review Process

Case Study: Peer Review

This session focuses on the responsibilities of researchers for the handling of confidential information encountered in the normal processes of peer review. The case at hand presents the dilemma facing a scientist who, in the course of his work on study section, acquires information that could fundamentally alter the direction of research in his laboratory and in a profit-making company with which he is affiliated. As you read this case, keep the following questions in mind:

	How do you believe this researcher should balance his ethical obligations to his research team, the company for which he consults, and those affected by the peer review process?
	How can conflicts of this sort be prevented or minimized?

Session 3: Ethics in the Conduct of Science

Case Study: The New Technician

This session explores the ethical norms that govern the collection, selection, analysis, interpretation, and retention of data. Questions considered include the handling of errors or inconsistencies in the research process and norms governing the recording and reporting of outlier data. As you read this case consider the following questions:

	What factors can lead to inconsistent data, and how can these factors be minimized?
	What are the appropriate ways to deal with inconsistent or outlier data?

Session 4: Ethics in Authorship Attribution

Two Brief Case Studies

The objective of this session is to identify the norms governing the fair distribution of authorship credit in joint research. Preliminary questions include why authorship credit is important for individual contributors and for the readers of published research. In reviewing the two case studies in this section, consider the follow-ing questions:

Which contributions to a scientific paper merit authorship credit and why?How can disputes over authorship be prevented, minimized or best re-solved when they occur?

Session 5: Human Experimentation

Case Study: Gene Therapy for Hypercholesterolemia

Over the past few decades, a large number of ethical and legal norms have been developed for the conduct of research on human subjects. This session explores some of the leading standards in this area as they relate to a complex case of clinical genetic research. Approaching this case study as the member of an Institutional Review Board, consider this question:

What general rules should apply to gene therapy experimentation in general and to gene therapy involving children