Re-engineering Ethics Training: An Interview with Dena Plemmons and Erica Baranski

January 21st, 2020, Center for Open Science


re-engineering ethics in STEM labs


The Institutional Re-engineering of Ethical Discourse in STEM 
(iREDS) curriculum is a new research ethics training that facilitates interpersonal communications among lab members—students, faculty, and staff—to consider, as a working community, the best practices of their research. The training was developed in direct response to the breakdown of ethics application often lost in the space between classroom lectures and everyday lab practices.


COS recently partnered with the iREDS team to integrate OSF with their latest trial, "A randomized trial of a lab-embedded discourse intervention to improve research ethics
.” We asked lead author and co-PI Dena Plemmons (University of California, Riverside) and author Erica Baranski (University of Houston) to share more of their insights into the revitalization of community-oriented ethics training and what they discovered during the trial.


Why the need to re-engineer ethics training at the institutional level? 

Dena: Ethics training which is completed alone in front of a computer, as online training is [especially if there’s no additional opportunity to discuss with others what’s been learned in that training], misses the essential aspects of communication and negotiation in exploring ethical responsibilities. Ethics training which takes place in a classroom, while allowing for the possibility of communication, will almost never include the people with whom you do your science, nor will it be directly tied to that science, again missing the piece where it’s necessary to enter into discussion and negotiation with team-mates to mutually decide on ethical approaches and practices in your work. This project brings all those fundamental elements together: the communication and the negotiation in the place where one actually learns and practices one’s science; this approach is, I would argue, a necessary adjunct to other kinds of training. 


Why is discourse necessary to promote a more ethically sound research culture?

Erica: Discourse of any kind helps establish and sustain lab culture. Discourse centered around the responsible conduct of research will hopefully work to instill a lab culture where ethical research practices, and open communication around these issues, is the norm.

Dena: We conduct our research in webs of relationships, with different rights and responsibilities; thoughtful, respectful and inclusive communication is crucial to protecting and nurturing those relationships, and to mutually defining those rights and responsibilities. 


The iREDS team recently conducted “A randomized trial of a lab-embedded discourse intervention to improve research ethics.” What stood out to you in the study?

Dena: It was heartening to see all the lab members, including the PI, be so willing and eager to engage in these dynamic conversations about data management and authorship. With very, very few exceptions, the discussions involved everyone equally, asking questions, offering experiences and opinions;  we saw real inclusion and equality as they together explored the ethical dimensions of these practices, and examined how they as a lab were managing those practices for the best outcomes. 

Erica: From a results standpoint, I would say the finding that attitudes and behavior around the topic of authorship changed as a result of our training four and a half months later. Decisions around authorship can be a sensitive and sometimes contentious topic for many labs. Our results demonstrate that discourse around authorship has a fairly strong and positive impact on this incredibly important aspect of the scientific process. 


Why was a technology platform (i.e. OSF) used in the study?

Erica: The demonstration of a technology platform was crucial to our training for two reasons. First, it enabled lab members to learn how technology, specifically the OSF, can help streamline the research process while supporting the responsible conduct of research. Second, it served as a visual aid that made the concepts we were discussing more accessible, and the solutions to common authorship and data management issues more obvious. 


Read more about how the iREDS curriculum is helping promote ethical development in STEM research: Getting Scientists to Talk Ethics

Recent Blogs

The Content of Open Science

What Second Graders Can Teach Us About Open Science

What's Going on With Reproducibility?

Open Science and the Marketplace of Ideas

3 Things Societies Can Do to Promote Research Integrity

How to Manage and Share Your Open Data

Interview with Prereg Challenge Award Winner Dr. Allison Skinner

Next Steps for Promoting Transparency in Science

Public Goods Infrastructure for Preprints and Innovation in Scholarly Communication

A How-To Guide to Improving the Clarity and Continuity of Your Preregistration

Building a Central Service for Preprints

Three More Reasons to Take the Preregistration Challenge

The Center for Open Science is a Culture Change Technology Company

Preregistration: A Plan, Not a Prison

How can we improve diversity and inclusion in the open science movement?

OSF Fedora Integration, Aussie style!

Replicating a challenging study: it's all about sharing the details.

Some Examples of Publishing the Research That Actually Happened

How Preregistration Helped Improve Our Research: An Interview with Preregistration Challenge Awardees

Are reproducibility and open science starting to matter in tenure and promotion review?

The IRIS Replication Award and Collaboration in the Second Language Research Community

We Should Redefine Statistical Significance

Some Cool New OSF Features

How Open Source Research Tools Can Help Institutions Keep it Simple

OSF Add-ons Help You Maximize Research Data Storage and Accessibility

10 Tips for Making a Great Preregistration

Community-Driven Science: An Interview With EarthArXiv Founders Chris Jackson, Tom Narock and Bruce Caron

A Preregistration Coaching Network

Why are we working so hard to open up science? A personal story.

One Preregistration to Rule Them All?

Using the wiki just got better.

Transparent Definitions and Community Signals: Growth in the Open Science Community

We're Committed to GDPR. Here's How.

Preprints: The What, The Why, The How.

The Prereg Challenge Is Ending. What's Next?

We are Now Registering Preprint DOIs with Crossref

Using OSF in the Lab

Psychology's New Normal

How Open Commenting on Preprints Can Increase Scientific Transparency: An Interview With the Directors of PsyArxiv, SocArxiv, and Marxiv

The Landscape of Open Data Policies

Open Science is a Behavior.

Why pre-registration might be better for your career and well-being

Interview: Randy McCarthy discusses his experiences with publishing his first Registered Report

Towards minimal reporting standards for life scientists

Looking Back on the Prereg Challenge and Forward To More Credible Research

OSF: Origin, growth, and what’s next

A Critique of the Many Labs Projects

The Rise of Open Science in Psychology, A Preliminary Report

Strategy for Culture Change

New OSF Registries Enhancements Improve Efficiency and Quality of Registrations

Registered Reports and PhD’s – What? Why? How? An Interview with Chris Chambers

How to Collaborate with Industry Using Open Science

How to Build an Open Science Network in Your Community

Seven Reasons to Work Reproducibly

COS Collaborates with Case Medical Research to Support Free Video Publishing for Clinicians and Researchers

Advocating for Policy Improvements at Your Institution

Announcing a joint effort to improve research transparency: FAIRSharing and TOP Guidelines

OSF as a tool for managing course-embedded research projects

Journals test the Materials Design Analysis Reporting (MDAR) checklist

Now you can endorse papers on OSF Preprints with Plaudit

Many Labs 4: Failure to Replicate Mortality Salience Effect With and Without Original Author Involvement

Approach and vision for the OSF Preprint infrastructure

Conflict between Open Access and Open Science: APCs are a key part of the problem, preprints are a key part of the solution

Re-engineering Ethics Training: An Interview with Dena Plemmons and Erica Baranski

Answering Your Preregistration Questions

UBC leads the way as first Canadian institutional OSF member

2019 Recap: OSF Growth and Open Knowledge Exchange

Getting Started with OSF

This website relies on cookies to help provide a better user experience. By clicking Accept or continuing to use the site, you agree. For more information, see our Privacy Policy and information on cookie use.