I would like to draw your attention to a major bias in the current approach to training PhD students and postdocs: the confusion between "key competences" and "complementary competences".

A lot of times - as can be seen in the training schemes proposed by universities or in Marie Curie projects - key competences tend to refer to "scientific, technical" ones, while complementary training is offered in science communication, ethics, project management (to mention only those three key competences). The latter are de facto treated as "adds on" which the doctoral or postdoctoral trainee will be able to acquire or develop if they have time, if they have the opportunity to leave the lab and spend some time thinking about "the real world". No wonder then that PhD students are viewed as "extra pairs of hands" in the lab or defined as "lifelong students unable to meet the requirements of a project and respect its milestones". Read more at http://www.01net.com/article/340990.html

The training in "complementary skills" (i.e key skills!) is most often provided by people outside the lab and thus is disconnected from the research project of the young researcher - which is a major flaw for two main reasons: (i) the trainee is less likely to make the connections between what is presented during the training received "outside" and the research conducted in the lab (ii) it gives a poor image of the research community: after all, supervisors are supposed to train the younger generations and help them acquire and develop those competences which are key to the conduct of research. In other words, are we to understand that a thesis has nothing to do with a "real" project, that "science communication" is not central for a researcher in society and that ethics can be treated independently from the daily activities? All recent reports and research on communication and integrity insist that what goes on in the laboratory is crucial and will be crucial in the near future.

The Linguistics and Research Practices project and the Réflexives seminars are based on the hypothesis that training FOR and THROUGH research can provide the young researcher with the key competences expected from a young professional and a responsible and autonomous citizen. Recent reports by E. Bourgeois (2004) and M.Rocard (2007) have brought this hypothesis back to the foreground.

Based on this hypothesis, our project has from the start developed within the scientific community, with the support of all actors concerned, Heads of scientific departments, of research units, and first of all with the supervisors who participate in the seminars with the trainees , to ensure that the training is closely related to the scientific activity, to the research projects and that it will be pursued once the training period is over - which no training provided "outside", as an "add-on" can guarantee.

Read the details in "Réflexives: an action research project and the seminars"

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

"We need a collective openness in the research culture, and an atmosphere where people are feeling comfortable in rising questions," Professor Melissa Anderson from the University of Minnesota, sharing her findings and presentation with the 300-some audience at the first World Conference on Research Integrity in Lisbon this week.

read more at http://www.alphagalileo.org:80/microsite/index.cfm?fuseaction=readitem&ItemType=1&itemid=523484&tlo=10468

Read MC Roland's article published in the May issue of EMBO Reports, Vol8: 424-428

Please visit the "Responsible Conduct of Research" section of this website for a complete description of the seminars the Réflexives team conducted in 2006 in the framework of EU-funded projects for Early Career Researchers' training

see "European seminars"

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

On November 21, I visited the Experimentarium in Dijon, at the European Center for Taste and Smell (Centre Européen des Sciences du Goût - CESG http://www.cesg.cnrs.fr/): 4 young researchers (PhD students) were meeting with pupils from a local school to explain them their research and their job. Their research themes included rock science, mother-child relationship, optical fibers and the situtation of indigenous populations all over the world.

The young researchers were challenged to explain the interest of their research and not only to present an attractive or surprising experiment. They were expected to talk about their job - what makes it different from that of a teacher or of an engineer. Their objective was to foster reflection and dialogue with their young visitors. The image of research and of the researcher is at stake.

These meetings are also an excellent opportunity to train PhD students for research and for the communication of research - two closely related activities in my view. They should be the opportunity to help PhD students distantiate themselves from their everyday routine, clarify the interest and the meaning of their research, get "the big picture" in order to formulate the problems and the questions which will create dialogue and excite the curiosity of their visitors. Briefly, the Experimentarium activities can help young researchers acquire and develop the key competences expected from autonomous and responsible researchers and citizens.

Learn more about the Experimentarium at:

http://www.u-bourgogne.fr/experimentarium/