BackgroundEvolving research practices and new forms of research enabled by technological advances require a redesigned research oversight system that respects and protects human research participants.ObjectiveOur objective was to generate creative ideas for redesigning our current human research oversight system.MethodsA total of 11 researchers and institutional review board (IRB) professionals participated in a January 2015 design thinking workshop to develop ideas for redesigning the IRB system.ResultsIdeas in 5 major domains were generated. The areas of focus were (1) improving the consent form and process, (2) empowering researchers to protect their participants, (3) creating a system to learn from mistakes, (4) improving IRB efficiency, and (5) facilitating review of research that leverages technological advances.ConclusionsWe describe the impetus for and results of a design thinking workshop to reimagine a human research protections system that is responsive to 21st century science.
Introduction
Wisdom is reportedly associated with better health and quality of life. However, our knowledge of the neurobiology of wisdom is still in the early stages of development. We aimed to improve our understanding by correlating a psychometric measure of the trait with patterns of brain activation produced by a cognitive task theorized to be relevant to wisdom: moral decision‐making. In particular, we aimed to determine whether individual differences in wisdom interact with moral task complexity in relation to brain activation.
Methods
Participants were 39 community‐dwelling men and women aged 27–76 years, who completed moral and nonmoral decision‐making tasks while undergoing functional magnetic resonance imaging. Brain activation in select regions of interest was correlated with participants' scores on the San Diego Wisdom Scale (SD‐WISE).
Results
Individual differences in wisdom were found to interact with brain response to moral versus nonmoral and moral personal versus impersonal dilemmas, particularly in regions in or near the default mode network. Persons with higher scores on the SD‐WISE had less contrast between moral and nonmoral dilemmas and greater contrast between moral‐personal and moral‐impersonal dilemmas than individuals with lower SD‐WISE scores.
Conclusions
Results confirmed our hypothesis that individual differences in level of wisdom would interact with moral condition in relation to brain activation, and may underscore the relevance of considering one's own and others' actions and experiences in the context of wise thinking. Future studies are needed to replicate these findings and to examine specific neurocircuits.
Training in the responsible conduct of research (RCR) is meant to ensure that federally funded scientists have the knowledge, skills, and resources necessary to conduct science in line with agreed upon scientific norms and ethical principles. At its institutional best, RCR education begins early, with reinforcement in subsequent stages of career development. Studies suggest, however, that scientists perceive the push to think about ethical matters negatively, narrowly equating ethics with burdensome oversight and regulation, or with controversies in a few highly charged areas. For their part, RCR instructors contribute to this narrow conception of ethics education by placing disproportionate emphasis on the misconduct of the few and its career-destroying consequences. The result is an ethics that is both individualistic and uncritical, an ethics incapable of explaining the threat to scientific integrity posed by a rigidly hierarchical distribution of power, severe competition for funding, a “winner takes all” credit system, and many other features of ordinary science. What is needed is a broader, richer conception of ethics, one that focuses not only on individual instances of misconduct, but also on the growing gap between the normative ideals of science and its institutional reward systems.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.