Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Research Integrity: Perspectives from Korea and the United States

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Handbook of Academic Integrity

  • 272 Accesses

Abstract

Growth of the research enterprise in Korea and the United States has been accompanied by calls for an increased focus on research integrity. Concerns have grown both because of cases of research misconduct and apparent lapses in the reproducibility of science. Education and training are believed by many to have an important role in helping researchers to meet these challenges. The purpose is to answer the simple question of how should one act, to choose not to lie, cheat, or steal, but also how to handle less clear instances (e.g., who should bear both the credit and responsibility of authorship). While there may well be areas in which Korea and the United States differ substantially, it is clear that basic values such as honesty, objectivity, and responsibility are held in common by researchers internationally. The question therefore is not so much whether these values are accepted but how to foster a climate in which it is easier to honor those values than not. One answer to that question is simply to promote a research environment in which both educational programs and researchers advocate for good practices in science (e.g., good data management, giving credit where due, and open discussion).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson, M. S., Horn, A. S., Risbey, K. R., Ronning, E. A., DeVries, R., & Martinson, B. C. (2007). What do mentoring and training in the responsible conduct of research have to do with scientists’ misbehavior? Findings from a National Survey of NIH-funded scientists. Academic Medicine, 82(9), 853–860.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Antes, A. L., Murphy, S. T., Waples, E. P., Mumford, M. D., Brown, R. P., Connelly, S., & Devenport, L. D. (2009). A meta-analysis of ethics instruction effectiveness in the sciences. Ethics & Behavior, 19(5), 379–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bebeau, M. J. (2002). Influencing the moral dimensions of professional practice: Implications for teaching and assessing for research integrity. In N. A. Steneck & M. H. Sheetz (Eds.), Proceedings of the first ORI research conference on research integrity (pp. 179–187). Washington, DC: Office of Research Integrity. http://ori.hhs.gov/documents/proceedings_rri.pdf. Accessed 23 Oct 2014.

  • Begley, C. G., & Ellis, L. M. (2012). Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature, 483, 531–533. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v483/n7391/full/483531a.html. Accessed 23 Oct 2014.

  • Bioethics and Safety Act of Korea. (2013). No.11250. http://elaw.klri.re.kr/eng_service/lawView.do?hseq=26353%26lang=ENG. Accessed 23 Oct 2014.

  • Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school: Expanded edition. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drake, M., Griffin, P., Kirkman, R., & Swann, J. (2005). Engineering ethical curricula: Assessment and comparison of two approaches. Journal of Engineering Education, 94, 223–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eastwood, S., Derish, P., Leash, E., & Ordway, S. (1996). Ethical issues in biomedical research: Perceptions and practices of postdoctoral research fellows responding to a survey. Science and Engineering Ethics, 2, 89–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elliott, D., & Stern, J. E. (1996). Evaluating teaching and students’ learning of academic research ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics, 2, 345–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fang, F. C., Steen, R. G., & Casadevall, A. (2012). Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(42), 17028–17033. http://www.pnas.org/content/109/42/17028. Accessed 23 Oct 2014.

  • Hixson, J. R. (1976). The patchwork mouse. Garden City: Anchor.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine, 2(8), e124. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalichman, M. (2014). A modest proposal to move RCR education out of the classroom and into research. Journal of Microbiology and Biology Education, 15(2), 93–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalichman, M. (2013). A brief history of RCR education. Accountability in Research, 20(5–6), 380–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalichman, M. W., & Friedman, P. J. (1992). A pilot study of biomedical trainees’ perceptions concerning research ethics. Academic Medicine, 67, 769–775.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalichman, M. W., & Plemmons, D. K. (2007). Reported goals for responsible conduct of research courses. Academic Medicine, 82(9), 846–852.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J. Y., & Park, K. B. (2013). Ethical modernization: research misconduct and research ethics reforms in Korea following the Hwang affair. Science and Engineering Ethics, 19, 355–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knowles, M. S. (1990). The adult learner. A neglected species (4th ed.). Houston: Gulf Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, I. J. (2009). Problems with human embryonic stem cell research and research ethics in the case of Hwang Woo-Suk and his colleagues. In J.-R. Yoon (Ed.), ELSI issues on current biotechnology: Selected from journal of ELSI studies (pp. 2003–2008). Seoul: Systema.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, I. J. (2012). Why research ethics is important? Korean Journal of Aesthetics and Cosmetology, 10(2), 195–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, I. J. (2014). A study on survey and analysis of research ethics activities in Korea. The National Research Foundation of Korea.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macrina, F. L., & Munro, C. L. (1993). Graduate teaching in principles of scientific integrity. Academic Medicine, 68(12), 879–886.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martinson, B. C., Anderson, M. S., & de Vries, R. (2005). Scientist behaving badly. Nature, 435, 737–738. doi:10.1038/435737a.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGee, R., Almquist, J., Keller, J. L., & Jacobsen, S. J. (2008). Teaching and learning responsible research conduct: Influences of prior experiences on acceptance of new ideas. Accountability in Research, 15, 30–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Education of Korea. (2007). Guidelines for securing research ethics. Instruction No. 236.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Education of Korea. (2014a). Guidelines for securing research ethics. Instruction No. 60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Education of Korea. (2014b). Academic Promotion Act. Instruction No. 11690.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Science, ICT & Future Planning of Korea. (2014). Co-management regulation on National Research Development. Instruction No. 25544.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mumford, M. D., Connelly, M. S., Brown, R. P., Murphy, S. T., Hill, J. A., Antes, A. L., Waples, E. P., & Devenport, L. R. (2008). A sensemaking approach to ethics training for scientists: Preliminary evidence of training effectiveness. Ethics & Behavior, 18, 315–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NIH (1989). Requirement for programs on the responsible conduct of research in national research service award institutional training programs. NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts, 18(45), 1. http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/historical/1989_12_22_Vol_18_No_45.pdf. Accessed 23 Oct 2014.

  • NIH (2009). Update on the requirement for instruction in the responsible conduct of research. NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts, Release Date: November 24, 2009. NOTICE: OD-10-019. http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-10-019.html. Accessed 23 Oct 2014.

  • NSF (2009). B. Responsible conduct of research. Proposal and award policies and procedures guide. Part II – Award and administration guidelines, p. IV-3. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf10_1/nsf10_1.pdf. Accessed 23 Oct 2014.

  • Office of Science and Technology Policy. (2000). Federal research misconduct policy. Federal Register, 65(235), 76260–76264. DOCID:fr06de00-72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pimple, K. D. (2007). Using case studies in teaching research ethics. http://poynter.indiana.edu/files/2113/4849/7612/kdp-cases.pdf. Accessed 23 Oct 2014.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powell, S., Allison, M. A., & Kalichman, M. W. (2007). Effectiveness of a short-term course in the responsible conduct of research for medical students. Science and Engineering Ethics, 13(2), 249–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prinz, F., Schlange, T., & Asadullah, K. (2011). Believe it or not: How much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 10(9), 712. http://www.nature.com/nrd/journal/v10/n9/full/nrd3439-c1.html. Accessed 23 Oct 2014.

  • Steen, R. G. (2011). Retractions in the scientific literature: Is the incidence of research fraud increasing? Journal of Medical Ethics, 37, 249–253. doi:10.1136/jme.2010.040923.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steneck, N. H., & Bulger, R. E. (2007). The history, purpose, and future of instruction in the responsible conduct of research. Academic Medicine, 82(9), 829–834.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stern, J. E., & Elliott, D. (1997). The ethics of scientific research: A guidebook for course development. Hanover: University Press of New England.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This project was supported by US Grants NSF 1135358 and NIH NR009962, UL1RR031980, and UL1TR000100. The authors have no financial conflicts of interest to declare.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ethics Education, Seoul National University of Education, 96 Seocho Jungang-ro, Seocho-gu, Seoul, 137-742, South Korea

    In Jae Lee

  2. Research Ethics Program, University of California, 9500 Gilman Drive, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, 92093-0612, USA

    Michael Kalichman

Authors
  1. In Jae Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael Kalichman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Kalichman .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia

    Tracey Ann Bretag

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media Singapore

About this entry

Cite this entry

Lee, I.J., Kalichman, M. (2015). Research Integrity: Perspectives from Korea and the United States. In: Bretag, T. (eds) Handbook of Academic Integrity. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-079-7_63-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-079-7_63-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-287-079-7

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference EducationReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Education

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation