Are Ethics Training Programs Improving? A Meta-Analytic Review of Past and Present Ethics Instruction in the Sciences

Abstract

Given the growing public concern and attention placed on cases of research misconduct, government agencies and research institutions have increased their efforts to develop and improve ethics education programs for scientists. The present study sought to assess the impact of these increased efforts by sampling empirical studies published since the year 2000. Studies published prior to 2000 examined in other meta-analytic work were also included to provide a baseline for assessing gains in ethics training effectiveness over time. In total, this quantitative review consisted of 66 empirical studies, 106 ethics courses, 150 effect sizes, and 10,069 training participants. Overall, the findings indicated that ethics instruction resulted in sizable benefits to participants and has improved considerably within the last decade. A number of specific findings also emerged regarding moderators of instructional effectiveness. Recommendations are discussed for improving the development, delivery, and evaluation of ethics instruction in the sciences.

Keywords:

• ethics
• ethics instruction
• scientific ethics
• ethics training
• meta-analysis

FUNDING

The project described was supported by Grant Number ORIIR140010-01-00 from the National Institutes of Health and the Office of Research Integrity. The contents of this publication are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the Department of Health and Human Services or the Office of Research Integrity. We thank Alison Antes, Jason Borenstein, Jeffrey Engler, Michael Kalichman, Brian Martinson, and Michael Verderame for their contributions to the present effort.

Additional information

Funding

The project described was supported by Grant Number ORIIR140010-01-00 from the National Institutes of Health and the Office of Research Integrity. The contents of this publication are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the Department of Health and Human Services or the Office of Research Integrity. We thank Alison Antes, Jason Borenstein, Jeffrey Engler, Michael Kalichman, Brian Martinson, and Michael Verderame for their contributions to the present effort.