A rhetoric on competences has developed for the past decade, calling for young researchers to be “highly skilled professionals”; it is not new – but louder and louder. Numerous reports have been produced by many European and North American associations and also within the Bologna process

http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/policies/educ/bologna/bologna_en.html) ,

and the list of skills which are called “core”, “key”, “soft” or “transferable” is impressive :

• Critical analysis
• Ability to conceptualize and to see the “big picture”. Is forward-looking. Understands the implications of his/her work in broader institute and industry perspectives
• Capacity to organize own and others’ work well
• Knowledge development/Sharing
• Strong commitment to quality
• Capacity to identify key issues and to disaggregate them into sub-issues that can be tackled separately
• Searching for creative ideas, thinkiing “out of the box”.
• Ability to stand up for people and his/her ideas/beliefs
• Capacity to understand and respect other individuals and cultures

Listening actively and responding constructively to others’ ideas, and considering others’ perspectives and inputs

The National Science Foundation has just announced that, starting in 2010, all researchers applying for funding from the NSF will have to provide evidence that they will educate their students and postdocs in the responsible conduct of research.

This decision is most welcome  in a time when research misconduct (fraud, falsification or fabrication of results, plagiarism) has become all too common.

Since 2004, the LPR/Réflexives project has set itself the objectives of training for the responsible conduct of research (RCR). Apart from conducting seminars at INRA and other French institutions and doctoral schools, the team has participated in European projects CEC-WYS and BIORHIZ to address the issues of RCR in science communication: conduct of research, communication of results towards peers and society, scientific writing and project management.

The issue is not to deliver new ethics rules or to teach norms to students and postdocs. It is to measure the gap between existing norms and practices within the scientific community.

It's up to researchers "to straighten the ship", it is part of their social responsibility.

If the sources are polluted, then the whole process of science communication is in danger and citizens' trust in science will decline...

read MC ROLAND's article published in JCOM "Quality and integrity in scientific writing: prerequisites for quality in science communication"

Dans sa thèse soutenue en 1995, Marie-Claude Roland s’interrogeait sur la signification, pour la recherche et les chercheurs, des défauts de style montrés du doigt dans les manuels de rédaction scientifique et dénoncés de façon souvent humoristique dans les recommandations aux auteurs. Elle concluait que ces défauts, consciencieusement reproduits par les scientifiques, sont devenus la marque de fabrication d'un style qui se veut scientifique et que les raisons pour lesquelles l'écrit scientifique s'est à ce point dégradé - au point d'obscurcir la pensée, de faire douter de l'originalité voire de l'honnêteté et de l’intégrité du scientifique - sont à rechercher dans le fonctionnement même de la science: l'idéologie ambiante, les pratiques auxquelles la communauté scientifique adhère, le système d'autocontrôle de la science, qui est le mécanisme-clef de la production scientifique, sans oublier la formation - ou l'absence de formation - des scientifiques.
Près de quinze années plus tard, ce texte reste d’une implacable actualité.

Pour télécharger la thèse en PDF, cliquez sur les liens ci-dessous :
Chapitre 1 - Chapitre 2 - Chapitre 3 - Chapitre 4 - Conclusion - Table des matières - Biblio

This Master thesis presents a study of researchers' representations of the activity of writing and of their personal writing practices. The objective was to pave the way for research on didactic approaches for improving scientists' writing competences.

The Master was followed by a PhD thesis and an intervention-research project at the French National Institute of Agricultural Research. 

To download the Master thesis (French version):

Part 1 - Part 2 - Part 3 - Part 4

Are researchers ready to address the issue of quality supervision and have supervisors and mentors commit themselves to explicit training programmes or will future researchers be trained by structures and consulting firms OUTSIDE the scientific entreprise?

Read MC Roland's article published in EMBO Reports, August 2007 issue

A Portuguese European Union Presidency and European Commission Event Initiated and Organized by the European Science Foundation & the US Office of Research Integrity

The European Science Foundation (ESF) and the US Department of Health and Human Services Office of Research Integrity (ORI) have organized a World Conference on Research Integrity in Lisbon, Portugal which has taken place on 16 to 19 September 2007.

Research Integrity has emerged in recent years as a critical topic in policy research and has gained significant political and public attention worldwide. “Good scientific practice in research and scholarship is essential for the integrity of science at a time when the need to build trust between science and society is becoming ever more important. It is vital that the conduct of science itself is based on the highest ethical considerations.” (European Science Foundation briefing, Good scientific practice in research and scholarship, december 2000).

It is well known that although regulations and standards exist, and all kinds of guides are available everywhere, there is no guarantee that all the golden rules will be implemented ; very often the literature is not read or makes little sense to the brave reader. In a widely published paper “On Being a Scientist”, the authors emphasize that “Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) and Ethics are not a complete and finalized body of knowledge, but that ethical issues need to be discussed, explored and debated and that all researchers have a responsibility to move the discussion forward”(On Being a Scientist: Responsible Conduct in Research, Second Edition (1995) http://www.nap.edu/openbook/0309051967/html/R1.html copyright 1995, 2000 The National Academy of Sciences )

Information on Integrity in Research and Responsible Conduct of research (RCR) is available on the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) website at http://ori.dhhs.gov/

Read the European Science Foundation guidelines

Download the presentation of the Réflexives seminars

Access the speakers' presentations on the Conference website
http://www.esf.org/activities/esf-conferences/details/confdetail242/conference-information.html

Read the ESF article http://www.esf.org/ext-ceo-news-singleview/article/research-integrity-conference-in-lisbon-tackles-fraud-falsification-plagiarism-329.html