About

Gundula Bosch, PhD, MEdHP, MS, is a scientist and educator leading global education reform through training programs in critical, broad, and interdisciplinary scientific thinking. She is the Program Director and Director of the R3 Center for Innovation in Science Education (R3ISE) at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Her research focus lies in implementation science and the development of valid metrics to assess outcomes and impact of interventions in graduate science and health education, both nationally and globally. As an interdisciplinary scientist with joint appointments at the Johns Hopkins Schools of Public Health and Education, Dr. Bosch has developed and leads the R3 Graduate Science Programs, which emphasize the three R’s of good scientific practice: Rigor, Reproducibility, and Responsibility. Her work aims to bring formal training in critical thinking, quantitative reasoning, sound research methodology, interdisciplinary collaboration, ethical decision-making, responsible communication, and social justice into graduate student training across biomedicine, public health, engineering, and technology. Under her leadership, the R3ISE team offers graduate-level programs and collaborates with a global network of scientist-educators to provide these training experiences to trainees at Johns Hopkins and partner institutions worldwide. Dr. Bosch holds a PhD in Biology from the Max-Planck-Institute of Biochemistry and a master’s degree in Education from Johns Hopkins University. Her background includes a joint appointment at the Johns Hopkins Schools of Public Health and Education, with a research focus on implementation science, research ethics, meta-science, and trans-disciplinary science and public health education. She has been recognized with numerous awards for her teaching excellence, innovation, and service, including induction into the Sigma Xi Scientific Research Honor Society and the Delta Omega Public Health Honorary Society.

Research topics

• Engineering ethics
• Computer science
• Biology
• Sociology
• Psychology

Selected publications

• Interdisciplinarity at the nexus of biomedical science training: The R3 Center for Innovation in Science Education

  iScience · 2025-06-01

  articleOpen accessSenior author

  The R³ Center for Innovation in Science Education (R³ISE), established at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, addresses critical gaps in scientific education by instilling the core values of rigorous research, reproducible methods, and scientific responsibility in our students. Through graduate- and professional-level courses, certificate programs, workshops, and open-access resources, R³ISE fosters critical thinking, communication, leadership, and other skills essential for scientists. In this Backstory piece, faculty, students, alumni, and network partners reflect on their experiences with R³ISE, which were highlighted in the past year's annual symposium. In this symposium, themes such as ethical leadership, translating classroom theory into practice, and strategies to combat misinformation highlighted R³ISE sustained efforts and proposed further directions. These reflections exemplify how the R³ISE community continues to grow—fostering scientific integrity, resilience, and empathy within a global network committed to excellence and responsibility in the biomedical sciences.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Use of the ‘double diamond’ design framework to nurture creativity in life sciences research

  Trends in Biochemical Sciences · 2024-05-21 · 10 citations

  review
  PublisherDOI

• Catalyzing communities of research rigour champions

  Brain Communications · 2024-01-01

  articleOpen access

  The biomedical sciences must maintain and enhance a research culture that prioritizes rigour and transparency. The US National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke convened a workshop entitled 'Catalyzing Communities of Research Rigor Champions' that brought together a diverse group of leaders in promoting research rigour and transparency (identified as 'rigour champions') to discuss strategies, barriers and resources for catalyzing technical, cultural and educational changes in the biomedical sciences. This article summarizes 2 days of panels and discussions and provides an overview of critical barriers to research rigour, perspectives behind reform initiatives and considerations for stakeholders across science. Additionally, we describe applications of network science to foster, maintain and expand cultural changes related to scientific rigour and opportunities to embed rigourous practices into didactic courses, training experiences and degree programme requirements. We hope this piece provides a primer for the wider research community on current discussions and actions and inspires individuals to build, join or expand collaborative networks within their own institutions that prioritize rigourous research practices.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Teaching students to R3eason, not merely to solve problem sets: The role of philosophy and visual data communication in accessible data science education

  PLoS Computational Biology · 2023-06-08 · 4 citations

  articleOpen accessSenior authorCorresponding

  Much guidance on statistical training in STEM fields has been focused largely on the undergraduate cohort, with graduate education often being absent from the equation. Training in quantitative methods and reasoning is critical for graduate students in biomedical and science programs to foster reproducible and responsible research practices. We argue that graduate student education should more center around fundamental reasoning and integration skills rather than mainly on listing 1 statistical test method after the other without conveying the bigger context picture or critical argumentation skills that will enable student to improve research integrity through rigorous practice. Herein, we describe the approach we take in a quantitative reasoning course in the R3 program at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, with an error-focused lens, based on visualization and communication competencies. Specifically, we take this perspective stemming from the discussed causes of irreproducibility and apply it specifically to the many aspects of good statistical practice in science, ranging from experimental design to data collection and analysis, and conclusions drawn from the data. We also provide tips and guidelines for the implementation and adaptation of our course material to various graduate biomedical and STEM science programs.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Introduction to Educational Scholarship

  2023-01-01 · 1 citations

  book-chapter
  PublisherDOI

• Improving research integrity: a framework for responsible science communication

  BMC Research Notes · 2022-05-15 · 25 citations

  letterOpen accessSenior author

  Abstract Research integrity, an essential precept of scientific inquiry and discovery, comprises norms such as Rigor, Reproducibility, and Responsibility (the 3R’s). Over the past decades, numerous issues have arisen that challenge the reliability of scientific studies, including irreproducibility crises, lack of good scientific principles, and erroneous communications, which have impacted the public’s trust in science and its findings. Here, we highlight one important component of research integrity that is often overlooked in the discussion of proposals for improving research quality and promoting robust research; one that spans from the lab bench to the dissemination of scientific work: responsible science communication. We briefly outline the role of education and institutions of higher education in teaching the tenets of good scientific practice and within that, the importance of adequate communications training. In that context, we present our framework of responsible science communication that we live by and teach to our students in courses and workshops that are part of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health R 3 Center for Innovation in Science Education.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Understanding Internal Review Boards and Their Role in Biophysics Education

  The Biophysicist · 2022-09-23

  articleOpen accessSenior author

  As we review manuscripts submitted to The Biophysicist, we sometimes encounter misconceptions regarding the need for review and oversight of education research by internal review boards (IRBs). Clarifying this important requirement will help avoid unnecessary delays in publication processing. With this editorial, we hope our authors better understand which types of educational research require prior institutional ethics approval to ensure that all stakeholders' rights are respastected and protected.Many scientists associate medical research with human subject protection, which certainly had its origins in this realm. Countless crimes against humanity in human subject research studies conducted during the 20th century, first and foremost the human trials in Nazi Germany concentration camps, led to the formulation of the Nuremberg Code (1). Later on, in reaction to racist and inhuman medical experiments, such as in the Tuskegee Study (2), or questionable psychologic and behavioral trials as in the Milgram experiment (3), the Declaration of Helsinki (4) and the Belmont Report (5) were developed. These documents form the basis for our current human subject research value system, summarized in the Common Rule (6). Yet, frequently, when thinking about educational studies, scientists do not make a connection between the human origin of the data they plan to collect (e.g., when assessing learner performance) and the need to protect the rights and needs of those who provide the data, such as students. Nevertheless, as educational scholars, it is incumbent upon us to protect vulnerable groups involved in our work, which implies that we are aware of and apply the central principles expressed in the Belmont Report (5), we must do the following:Essentially, decision making in educational scholarship boils down to two main questions: Is the work considered research, and are human subjects involved? If the answer to both questions is yes, some level of IRB approval will be required.How do we know if what we are doing is research, as opposed to an internal, self-evaluative assessment of student learning, solely for purposes of course improvement? If we consider submitting results from educational work, such as structured, rigorous classroom or laboratory observations (e.g., to The Biophysicist for publication), this already answers the question. In that case, we have conducted a “systematic investigation, including development, testing, and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge” (6). As defined in the Common Rule (6), we have classified the analysis of our classroom approach as research because we intend to disseminate our findings to the readers of The Biophysicist.The second question pertains to whether or not human subjects are involved and count as sources of human subject data. Obtaining information through interactions with individuals (such as asking for opinions, attitudes, and feedback on teaching) and the use of existing information derived from living individuals that are not publicly available count as cases of human subject data collection. Did your students take a survey about the classroom experience? Are you accessing data about them, their classroom behaviors, and their attitudes about the subject or the lesson? Or are you collecting information about how well your learners mastered the subject matter? The data you are using to assess student progress did not arise by intuition. Individuals, most likely your students, were involved in its creation.Although the likelihood of physical harm during data collection in an educational setting might appear considerably low in comparison to the hazards that, for example, participants in a novel drug trial would undergo, there are risks involved that cannot be neglected. For example, if you proposed to do a controlled study in which you intentionally placed some students in a learning environment where you intentionally deprived them of appropriate guidance in a course, would that be ethical? Consider the student who performed worse in such an environment and subsequently received a poor grade as a result or failed to learn the material adequately. Maybe that decreased learning was compounded in subsequent courses such that, by senior year, the student required an extra year to graduate or could not gain admission to a graduate program. One might argue that this student underwent significant psychologic and even material harm (e.g., cost of an extra year of college) in the context of the study. In today's competitive education landscape, such consequences are not beyond the realm of possibility and, thus, are of interest to IRBs.Often underestimated in ethics approval submissions are aspects that relate to the notion of coercion or undue influence. Stemming from the Belmont Report principle of respect for persons (3), they are clearly stated in the “General Requirements for Informed Consent” of the Common Rule (4). In an educational setting, undue influence can refer to the undeniable power imbalance between students and instructors (e.g., if the instructor is the same person as the principal investigator of the educational research study). An example might best illustrate this somewhat abstract idea: If an instructor chooses to study a pedagogic approach in the classroom, there are numerous issues to consider. Will the instructor be aware of who has chosen to participate in the study and who has opted out? Will participation or nonparticipation bias the way grades are assigned, consciously or unconsciously? Might the students, hence, feel coerced to participate in the study to avoid anticipated disadvantages? Can the instructor be truly impartial? After all, they have a vested interest in showing that their work is successful, whether for the purposes of obtaining funding, improving reputation in the field, or achieving tenure.To avoid or at least reduce the previously mentioned power imbalances, biases, and conflicts of interest, such situations must be managed in an ethically appropriate manner. For instance, a third party can be involved in the process, such that the individual who has designed or is implementing the pedagogy is not the one who enrolls the participants or collects the raw data. Instead, research assistants trained in human subject research can enroll volunteering participants, handle the informed consent process, and collect and deidentify the data before analysis. The study director, who may also be the course instructor, will then not know which students are participating in the study. This removes the conflict of interest, keeps the research at arm's length from the assignment of grades, and helps ensure students' privacy and confidentiality.Speaking of privacy and confidentiality, there are several other good practice guidelines to consider when it comes to the storage and sharing of raw or processed human subject data. IRB applications, as well as most grant proposals, require information about how data obtained from human subjects will be managed. Authors submitting to The Biophysicist are advised to confer with the data management office of their institution for guidance if unsure how to adequately store and manage the educational human subject data collected. Additionally, the Center for Open Science (7) provides valuable guidance on data management, storage, and distribution.The previously mentioned concerns help illustrate why IRB review is relevant to educational research. The Biophysical Society Publications Staff and Editorial Board members of The Biophysicist aim to help our authors proceed with the highest of ethical standards in their work. This requires careful advance planning for its publication, from the very beginning of a project and onward. Depending on the study design, the project may be deemed exempt from IRB review, indicating that it has been reviewed by a single member of the IRB team and deemed compliant with the ethical principles of the Belmont Report. Alternatively, a project may be classified as requiring expedited review. This designation indicates that there might be a low risk of potential harm for the study participants and that a reduced level of review is appropriate. However, should an initial IRB appraisal result in an estimation of more than just a low level of risk for human subjects, the project may undergo full board review.The National Institutes of Health offers a decision tool (8) that provides initial guidance on whether one's educational project is to be considered research involving human subjects, and if yes, whether it may qualify as exempt, expedited, or requiring full board review. Regardless of the decision tree outcome, every researcher must submit documentation paperwork to their institution's IRB to receive official determination of status, council on potentially required adjustments of the study protocol, and finally project approval.The Biophysicist has added to its ethics review instructions for authors those aspects that editors and reviewers are looking for during the ethical evaluation of an educational research manuscript. It is worthwhile to review such materials in advance of starting your pedagogic study, as it will ensure that you follow these standards from the outset. We hope that you will choose to publish your work with us and other discipline-based education research journals, which will hold you to an equivalent standard for the ethical conduct of education research. Please remember that this requires appropriate preparation in advance of launching your project.Both authors approved the final version of the manuscript. The authors declare no competing financial interests. This material is based on work supported by the National Science Foundation (grant 1955062; GB).

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Talking About Ethical Issues in Surgery—Results of a Novel Online Pilot Curriculum

  Journal of surgical education · 2019-07-12 · 4 citations

  article
  PublisherDOI

• Train PhD students to be thinkers not just specialists

  Nature · 2018-02-13 · 88 citations

  articleOpen access1st authorCorresponding
  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Graduate Biomedical Science Education Needs a New Philosophy

  mBio · 2017-12-29 · 68 citations

  articleOpen access1st authorCorresponding

  There is a growing realization that graduate education in the biomedical sciences is successful at teaching students how to conduct research but falls short in preparing them for a diverse job market, communicating with the public, and remaining versatile scientists throughout their careers. Major problems with graduate level education today include overspecialization in a narrow area of science without a proper grounding in essential critical thinking skills. Shortcomings in education may also contribute to some of the problems of the biomedical sciences, such as poor reproducibility, shoddy literature, and the rise in retracted publications. The challenge is to modify graduate programs such that they continue to generate individuals capable of conducting deep research while at the same time producing more broadly trained scientists without lengthening the time to a degree. Here we describe our first experiences at Johns Hopkins and propose a manifesto for reforming graduate science education.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

Frequent coauthors

• Ilinca I. Ciubotariu

  Purdue University System

  6 shared

• April S. Fitzgerald

  Johns Hopkins University

  4 shared

• Qiangwei Xia

  3 shared

• Carlos A. Buscaglia

  National University of General San Martín

  3 shared

• Christin L Daniels

  3 shared

• Jürgen Bosch

  Case Western Reserve University

  3 shared

• Dana M. Lapato

  Virginia Commonwealth University

  2 shared

• Yvette Shen

  The Ohio State University

  2 shared

Awards & honors

• Initiation into the Sigma Xi Scientific Research Honor Socie…
• Johns Hopkins School of Education MEHP Alumni Award (2021)
• Recognition for Teaching Excellence by the students and the…
• Discovery Award by the JHU Office of the Provost (2021-2024)
• Professional Development Innovation Initiative Award by the…