Introduction
autism
MUMPS, RUBELLA, MEASLES
Responsible and ethical conduct in biomedical research is essential for providing a strong evidence base to inform clinical care and health policies. In the biomedical sciences, major scientific misconduct has devastating consequences. For example, an infamous study that falsely linked autism to the triple vaccine for measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR)These instances are universally accepted as misconduct. Nevertheless, recent research suggests that scientists perceive many scenarios as ethical “grey areas,” rather than clearly wrong or rightSome attempts have been made to clarify this definition in further detail, providing a clear distinction between DRPs and misconduct. For example, Rezaeian et al. considered data fabrication, data falsification, plagiarism, and failing to obtain ethical approval as fraud or serious research misconductSeveral research papers have assessed the prevalence of DRPs in different populations, but largely with experienced researchersDue to the pervasiveness and variability in the perceived seriousness of DRPs, early career researchers might find it difficult to avoid detrimental choices. PhD students are in vulnerable positions; they need publications to facilitate progress and are dependent upon their hosting team and supervisors. Mumford et al. described how researchers’ ethical decision-making can be influenced by the research climate and organizational normsOur aim was (1) to describe the research practices of biomedical PhD students facing dilemma situations related to research integrity and (2) evaluate the impact of inappropriate research environment on PhD students’ research practice. We particularly explored the impact of exposure to (a) a post-doctoral researcher who committed DRP in a similar situation and (b) the supervisor who did not oppose the DRP. Our hypothesis was that an inappropriate research environment could increase DRP performed by PhD students.