Folklore, fad, and fashion: The concept of misconduct in science redefined

This study is an analytical investigation of the nature and implications of the current conceptions of scientific misconduct, arguing that the question of what constitutes misconduct in science is significantly more complex than what conventionally has been believed. Complicating the definitions of misconduct are the differences between professional science and non-scientific professions, in their respective norms of what constitutes valid knowledge, and what counts as appropriate and inappropriate practice. While institutionalized science claims that there is clear differentiation between its standards of validity and those of the non-scientific professions, this paper argues that, when it comes to misconduct, the perceived boundaries between the scientific and non-scientific professions are breached; the practice standards that science currently employs in self-policing misconduct have come to resemble the minimal juridical standards of practice that other professions employ. This study attempts, despite erosion of these traditional boundaries, to move from legalistic standards of scientific practice to intramural standards of practice, and in so doing, to hold scientific practice to a higher standard than ordinary public conduct. The result is a clearer understanding of scientific misconduct to aid those individual scientists who are required to make onerous determinations about the appropriateness of specific practices by their peers. ^

Investigator/IRB-led community communication in genetic research: A descriptive feasibility pilot study

This pilot study, conducted in the Houston, TX, area, established a structured dialogue among a university Institutional Review Board, its researchers, and its local community members (i.e. pool of potential research participants) for the purpose of further educating all three parties about genetic research and community concerns related to such research. An IRB-designed educational presentation aimed at assisting potential subjects in making an informed decision to participate in genetic research was provided to four community groups (n=54); this presentation also included a current example of genetic research being conducted in the community as explained by the researcher, and a question-and-answer session designed to assist the IRB and the researcher in understanding the community's concerns about genetic research. Comparisons of pre- and post- presentation community questionnaires indicate that the joint presentation was effective in increasing community knowledge about genetic research, most notably related to the risks and benefits of this research to the individual, as well as the understanding that protections are in place for research participants. While researchers are optimistic about the idea of a collaborative effort with the IRB and the community, the feasibility of such a program and the benefit to the participating researchers remain unclear; additional research is necessary to establish the most effective method of communication for all groups involved, as well as to obtain statistically significant results with regard to race/ethnicity, gender, and education levels of community participants. ^

Doctor-patient communication in the medical interaction: Context, implications, and practice

Effective communication; whether from an interpersonal, mass media, or global perspective, is a critical component in public health. It is an essential conduit in increasing public awareness of available health resources, potential health hazards and related disease prevention strategies, and in delivering better health care. Within this context, available literature asserts doctor-patient communication as central to healthcare delivery. It has been shown to affect patient health outcomes, satisfaction with care, adherence to treatment recommendations, and even understanding of medical information. While research supports the essential imperative of interventions aimed at teaching doctors and patients the communication skills necessary for a successful and meaningful medical interaction, most interventions to date, focus on teaching these communication skills to doctors and seem to rely, largely, on mass media for providing patients with the information needed to increase communication efficacy. This study sought to fill a significant gap in the doctor-patient communication literature by reviewing the context of the doctor-patient exchange in the medical interaction, the implications of this exchange in resulting care of the patient, and the potential improvements to practice through interventions aimed at improving the communication exchange. Closing with an evaluation of a patient-centered communication intervention, the “How to Talk to Your Doctor” (HTTTYD) program that combines previously identified optimal strategies for improving communication between doctors and patients, this study examined the patients’ perspective of their potential as better communicators in the medical interaction. ^ Specific Aims, Hypotheses or Questions (Aim I) To examine the context of health communication within a public health framework and its relation to health care delivery. (Aim II) To review doctor-patient communication as a central focus within health care delivery and the resulting implications to patient care. (Aim III) To assess the utility of interventions to improve doctor-patient communication. Specifically, to evaluate the effectiveness of a patient-centered community education intervention, the “How to Talk to Your Doctor” (HTTTYD) program, aimed at improving patient communication efficacy.^