“The Lab: Avoiding Research Misconduct" is a Virtual Experience Interactive Learning Simulation (VEILS) program. Participants will assume one of four playable roles: a graduate student, a postdoctoral student, a principal investigator, or a research integrity officer. In each segment, the character has to make decisions about how to handle possible research misconduct. The story spins off in different directions, depending upon the choices participants make as the character. The decisions that each character makes have consequences that not only affect that character’s future, but also the future of others in the lab. Each choice or combination of choices brings results that must be dealt with.”

The Characters

“You assume the role of four characters confronted with the pressures of working in a research laboratory:

• HARDIK RAO, a postdoctoral researcher, who deals with the competitiveness in an up-and-coming lab while balancing the responsibilities of a home life.
• AARON HUTCHINS, a principal investigator, whose overwhelming responsibilities as a professor, researcher, and grantwriter lead to his decline as a responsible mentor.
• KIM PARK, a third-year graduate student, who questions the use of her data by another researcher.
• BETH RIDGELY, a research administrator, who has accepted the role as the university's Research Integrity Officer and must quickly learn how to handle allegations of research misconduct.”

Take a few minutes to audition this engaging simulation.  In addition to its real-world approach, “The Lab” is a superb educational tool.  It provides credible situations that make ethical research conduct, mentor responsibilities, data sanctity and responsible authorship relevant and concrete.  We strongly urge graduate research programs to incorporate “The Lab” into their training curriculum. 

JIT instructions

In the Commons, the instructions for the JIT is a link to a sample form with this information on the top: For instructions and information pertaining to the use of and policy for other support, see Other Support in the PHS 398 Part III, Policies, Assurances, Definitions, and Other Information. Page 6 of that document states:

‘Information on active and pending Other Support is required for Key Personnel, excluding consultants. For individuals with no active or pending support, indicate “None.” Neither the application under consideration nor the current PHS award for this project should be listed as Other Support. Do not include Other Support for individuals listed as "Other Significant Contributors" unless their involvement has changed so that they now meet the definition of "key personnel."’

RPPR instructions (Version 7.0 dated January 31, 2014) state:

“D.2.c Changes in other support.

Has there been a change in the active other support of senior/key personnel since the last reporting period?

If yes, upload active other support for senior/key personnel whose support has changed and indicate what the change has been. List the award for which the progress report is being submitted and include the effort that will be devoted in the next reporting period. “

2. Be sure to download the latest versions of the applicant checklist, IRB applications, templates, and change request forms from the IRB Toolkit for Investigators.  Rather than saving these items on your hard-drive, we suggest you book-mark this link. IRB forms for investigators are frequently revised, either to clarify in response to investigators’ inquiries or to incorporate changes in regulatory and institutional policies.  Using outdated IRB forms can result in delays in the approval process.

Table of Contents

Ten Steps—Outlined

Step 1: Conduct a Self Evaluation

Step 2: Find Your Niche

Step 3: Draft Specific Aims

Step 4: Identify a Study Section

Step 5: Size Up Your Specific Aims

Step 6: Outline Your Experiments

Step 7: Build Your Team

Step 8: Define Resources

Step 9: Nail Your Budget

Step 10: Write to Excite