From ethical review and mentorship to collaboration and reproducibility, strong science depends on processes the public rarely sees.

When a scientific breakthrough captures national attention, the public usually sees the final result; a promising new therapy, a technological advance, or research that changes how we understand the world. What often goes unseen is the process that made that discovery possible: years of asking questions, testing assumptions, refining methods, challenging conclusions, and inviting others to do the same.

While the terminology may be new to many outside the research community, the principles behind it have long guided scientific research. At institutions like the University of Utah, rigor, transparency, ethical oversight, and continual improvement are not new initiatives; they are the foundation upon which research is built.

To better understand what those principles look like in practice, we spoke with Dr. Caren Frost, Senior Associate Vice President for Research Integrity & Compliance at the University of Utah. A research professor in the College of Social Work whose scholarship spans public health, anthropology, and community-engaged research, Frost helps oversee the university’s research integrity, ethics, and compliance programs while continuing her own research career.

“When we think about gold standard science, we’re really thinking about best practices in the research that’s being done,” Frost said. “Rigor, reproducibility, and replicability are things we should all be concentrating on and focused on.”

For Frost, those ideas are not simply institutional expectations. They represent the culture of science itself, a culture that assumes every study can be strengthened through careful design, open discussion, and continual learning.

Trust begins long before publication

A published journal article often represents years of work that most people never see.

Before data are collected, researchers develop study designs, seek feedback from colleagues, evaluate ethical considerations, and refine their methods to ensure the questions they’re asking can be answered responsibly. Throughout the life of a project, universities provide systems that support this work through research ethics education, institutional review boards, conflict of interest oversight, and research integrity programs.

These efforts are sometimes viewed as administrative requirements, but Frost sees them differently.

“When science is working well, people are sharing information,” she said. “They’re talking about what they’re doing. They’re asking, ‘Am I missing something? Is this the best method we ought to be using?’ Getting that feedback is how you really develop collaborative and interdisciplinary research. Without those conversations, you may still get results, but you don’t necessarily get the best possible ones.”

That willingness to invite questions is one of the defining characteristics of science. Researchers are expected to challenge one another’s ideas, evaluate evidence critically, and refine conclusions as new information becomes available. Trust is earned not because science claims certainty, but because it is designed to test itself continuously.

Discovery is built one question at a time

Scientific breakthroughs are often described as moments of inspiration, but researchers know they are more often the result of persistence.

One recent University of Utah success story illustrates that point. The HIV prevention drug lenacapavir, which has demonstrated remarkable effectiveness in preventing HIV infection, traces its origins to decades of basic research led by University of Utah biochemist Wesley Sundquist. His laboratory was not initially trying to create a medication. Instead, researchers were asking fundamental questions about how HIV assembles and infects cells. As those questions led to new discoveries, other scientists built upon that knowledge, ultimately leading to a therapy now recognized as one of the most significant advances in HIV prevention.

The path from curiosity-driven research to a life-changing medicine was not linear. It required years of experimentation, collaboration across disciplines, and continual refinement as scientists learned more about the virus.

“Sometimes it’s not necessarily that you’re showing something was wrong,” Frost said. “It’s just that with the information people had at that time, that’s what we knew. It’s about building on better ways to do things.”

That philosophy extends well beyond any single field. Across the scientific community, researchers continue working to strengthen study design, improve reproducibility, encourage transparency, and share data more openly. Those conversations are not admissions of failure; they are examples of science doing what it has always done; examining its own methods in pursuit of better answers.

Good science is taught

Responsible research is not learned through technical training alone. Graduate students, postdoctoral scholars, and early-career faculty spend years developing the skills to design studies, analyze data, and communicate findings. Just as importantly, they learn how to collaborate, navigate ethical decisions, communicate openly with colleagues, and contribute to a culture of scientific integrity.

For Frost, that learning happens through mentorship.

“Good science is learned through relationships as much as it is through research. Mentorship helps young scientists develop not only technical expertise, but also the habits of transparency, collaboration, and ethical decision-making that build trust in science.”

Strong mentorship benefits both the mentor and the mentee. Increasingly, universities are encouraging research teams to establish shared expectations early; discussing goals, communication styles, meeting cadence, responsibilities, and professional development from the outset. These conversations create a foundation of trust, strengthen research teams, and help young scientists develop both the technical skills and professional judgment needed throughout their careers.

The impact extends well beyond any single laboratory. Mentorship is one of the primary ways the culture of science is passed from one generation to the next. While experimental methods and analytical techniques can be taught in the classroom or at the bench, habits like curiosity, humility, openness to feedback, and accountability are developed through relationships with experienced researchers. Those values not only help individuals grow—they strengthen the integrity of the scientific enterprise itself.

Reading research with confidence

Very few discoveries are first encountered in the pages of a scientific journal. More often, people learn about new research through local news, national media, podcasts, newsletters, or conversations with colleagues and friends. Those stories play an important role in connecting research with the communities it serves, but they also condense years of work into a few paragraphs or a headline.

Frost notes that scientific papers are written primarily for other researchers working in the field.

“Even I sometimes read the statistical methods and think, ‘Okay, what did they do here again?'” she said with a laugh. “That’s why we have to be thoughtful about how we communicate what we’re doing.”

The next time a scientific breakthrough makes headlines, it’s worth remembering that the discovery itself is only the visible part of the story. Behind every published paper are years of questions, ethical review, mentorship, collaboration, unexpected results, and countless conversations among researchers committed to getting the science right.

That process may not always make the front page, but it is what makes scientific discovery worthy of public trust.

Learn more about U Research