Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 17
4
Models and Resources in
Ethics Education
The material in this chapter is based primarily on presentations and
discussion during and after Session II, Pedagogical Methods and Materials.
Presenters and respondents were asked to address the following issues:
There is quite a variety of both methods and materials in effect. More than a
few consortia provide online tutorials; conferences are common. What kinds
of contents and range of techniques are in use? What are their strengths and
their limitations? Whom do they reach, and with what results? What informa -
tion do we have that enables us to judge their merits? What’s missing?
The moderator of this session was planning committee chair John
Ahearne, and speakers were Julia Frugoli, associate professor, Depart -
ment of Genetics and Biochemistry, Clemson University; Kelly Laas,
librarian, Center for the Study of Ethics in the Professions, Illinois Insti -
tute of Technology (IIT); Caroline Whitbeck, professor emerita, Case
Western Reserve University and founder of the Online Ethics Center;
and Sara Wilson, professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Kansas. Respondents were Jason Borenstein, director of
Graduate Research Ethics Programs and Co-Director of the Center
for Ethics and Technology at Georgia Institute of Technology; J. Britt
Holbrook, assistant professor, Department of Philosophy and Religion
Studies, University of North Texas; and Simil Raghavan, a graduate stu -
dent then completing her dissertation in the Department of Biomedical
Engineering, Johns Hopkins University.1
Kelly Laas reminded participants that in 1980 the Hastings Center
project on teaching ethics education in colleges and universities con -
1Dr. Raghavan completed her Ph.D. requirements in fall 2008.
7
OCR for page 18
8 ETHICS EDUCATION AND SCIENTIFIC AND ENGINEERING RESEARCH
cluded that programs should have five goals: stimulating the moral imag-
ination; recognizing ethical issues; developing analytical skills; eliciting a
sense of moral obligation and personal responsibility; and tolerating and
resisting disagreement and ambiguity. As indicated below, more recent
projects have extended and refined, but not diminished the value of,
those goals.
In his research, Charles Huff of St. Olaf College distinguishes
between decision-oriented approaches to teaching ethics and approaches
that are intended to develop ethical behavior over the course of an
entire scientific or engineering career. Research by Michael Mumford,
University of Oklahoma, identifies strategies for engaging students, post-
doctoral fellows, faculty, and administrators in developing knowledge
and skills to respond to ethical challenges.
The presenters agreed that institutions and researchers need a
menu of programs, ranging from university-level to in-lab, informal,
bench-level interactions, from which they can select the type of pro-
gram most appropriate for their circumstances. In addition, as partici -
pants reminded each other throughout the workshop, institutions and
researchers need guidance that is easy to follow and not overly time
consuming. Several suggested that checklists might be an efficient way
to call attention to ethical parameters in research practice (such as lab
guidance about authorship and credit requirements), but others noted
that a list would always leave out some important issues.
In this session, the presenters described instructional approaches to
ethics education and provided examples and suggestions about materials
appropriate for different fields or disciplines and different audiences.
They indicated a range of pedagogies in courses and workshops: face-
to-face and online; lectures and guest lectures; case discussions led by
faculty or by students in small or large groups; case writing; video cases;
formal debates; and reflective journal writing among them. In addition,
participants reiterated the importance of having support for ethics activ-
ities and materials development from the National Academies, Council
of Graduate Schools (CGS), and AAAS, as well as from professional
societies, individual institutions, and institutional groups.
INSTRuCTIONAL APPROACHES
Julia Frugoli explained that her university (Clemson University)
sponsors ethics education in the form of both courses and workshops.
The former can be most useful for students, she said, and the latter for
OCR for page 19
9
MODELS AND RESOURCES IN ETHICS EDUCATION
faculty. Workshops, especially if they are offered throughout the year,
can reach more people and more departments than in-course ethics
material. Both address similar topics, but courses can explore more of
those topics in depth.
At Clemson, the genetics and biochemistry departments have a
required, for-credit course on professional-development skills in the
molecular sciences for all incoming graduate students. The course
addresses many topics, such as lab rotations and mentoring issues, lab
notebooks and graphical presentations, peer review, and research ethics.
Frugoli noted that the professional-development approach reinforces
the idea that faculty and students are professionals, not just individuals
“alone in the lab.” Although few faculty members attend the classes,
some take part when students ask, for instance, for examples of lab
notebooks to take to class for discussion.
Students can also improve professional practices. For instance, in
Frugoli’s department students produced electronic notebooks tagged by
date; faculty members subsequently
showed an interest in adopting that We really want to get to . . .
procedure. The department has also having [ethics or professional
sponsored one-day workshops for development] integrated into all
faculty and students, who received kinds of programs, from the lab
meeting to core courses, as a
certificates for participating.
module or part of a discussion
The courses and workshops at group, to what your thesis
Clemson can meet NSF and other incorporates . . . like a section
training-grant guidelines, and stu- on . . . ethical and social
dents have indicated that they liked implications.”
both types of activities, although
Julia Frugoli,
for different reasons. At the pres-
Clemson University
ent time, however, participation in
a workshop is not required. Thus
the people who participate may not be those who most need this type
of training. Sara Wilson of the University of Kansas pointed out differ-
ences between engineering and science to which ethics education must
be sensitive. Kansas offers an introductory course for graduate stu-
dents in a number of related scientific fields in chemistry, pharmacology,
and nursing that focuses on science topics, such as data integrity and
appropriate reporting of statistical methods. Another course, for bio-
engineering graduate students, emphasizes appropriate engineering
analysis, computational error, and model sensitivity. However, because
engineers conduct research both in “science mode” (hypothesis-driven,
OCR for page 20
20 ETHICS EDUCATION AND SCIENTIFIC AND ENGINEERING RESEARCH
often experimental) and engineering mode (design, forensics, modeling),
they must address issues in both areas. By the same token, scientists
operating in “engineering mode” might find a focus on engineering
topics useful. Each course is offered for one credit.
Wilson then compared topics related to (1) RCR in both science and
engineering with topics related to (2) RCR and practice in engineering
alone. Topics in the first category would include data integrity, appro-
priate reporting of statistical methods, conflicts of interest, publication
and openness, allocation of credit, authorship practices, confidentiality,
fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, mentorship, and the use of human/
animal subjects. Topics in the second category would include all of
those, particularly in the engineering-in-science mode, as well as topics
specific to engineering, which, she said, can be divided into three groups:
(1) professional practice and business, (2) design, and (3) modeling.
Topics in the professional practice and business group include: work-
ing within areas of competence; client/employer/agent relationships
and avoiding conflicts of interest; business practices; public statements;
and licensure. Topics in the design group include: goals and trade-
offs; human health and welfare considerations in the design of devices,
structures, and constructs; global and social impacts of engineering
design; appropriate engineering analysis (expecting the unexpected);
and codes and standards. Topics in the last group, modeling, include:
assumptions; validation; computational error and model sensitivity; and
extrapolation.
Caroline Whitbeck, Online Ethics Center, noted that research super-
visors are critical to the articulation of standards in their fields. Although
some ethical questions are multi- or transdisciplinary, she said, some are
discipline-specific and require different answers for different fields. In
addition, new standards, norms, or values sometimes have to be devel -
oped in response to new conditions or problems, or even disciplines.
In all of these cases, supervisors play a critical role in helping gradu-
ate and postdoctoral students identify requirements for good practice
and interpret the behavior of others. Whitbeck believes that, although
experienced investigators often have a “sophisticated understanding of
how to behave . . . [they] may not know how to talk about what they
have learned.” Therefore, programs to assist faculty and assess mentor-
ing activities are also important.2
2Whitbeck describes a method of involving supervisors, focused on 10 topics for the responsible
conduct of research at www.onlineethics.org/cms/008.aspx.
OCR for page 21
2
MODELS AND RESOURCES IN ETHICS EDUCATION
Simil Raghavan, Johns Hopkins University, expanded on that idea.
She described an annual faculty retreat sponsored by her department,
during which students lead discussions on case studies they have devel -
oped. The program has two parts. In the first part, students meet in small
groups to discuss the cases; in the second part, each group presents a
case to the entire department for discussion. This activity provides stu -
dents with “memorable interactions,” she said, although questionable
positions are not always challenged, especially if they are advocated by
high-status faculty members.
INSTITuTIONAL APPROACHES
Dartmouth university
In Session I, Joseph Helble, Dartmouth, described the university-
wide ethics program for graduate students at his university. The program,
which began in 2004, was developed in collaboration with Dartmouth’s
Ethics Institute. It includes a broad-based ethics training course for all
new science and engineering students. The course begins during orien -
tation and continues throughout the term. Faculty and senior gradu -
ate students act as facilitators during orientation, which encourages
community building. In the ethics course, instructors use a case-based
approach, focused on issues of professionalism, mentoring, data collec -
tion, and authorship.
After taking the course, a majority of graduate students surveyed
reported having a clearer understanding of their ethical responsibilities
and insight into issues that they had not previously considered. The
survey results also indicated that the program promotes a strong sense
of community among graduate students. Dartmouth is currently track -
ing the incidence of honor-code violations to see whether the program
has made a difference in this regard. The initial data are positive, but
determining their significance will require comparison with data for
several more years.
Helble reported that program weaknesses include the lack of cases
relevant to some fields, a lack of interest on the part of some students,
and difficulty in demonstrating the relevance of some concepts to
students who have not yet begun working in laboratory or research
environments. In addition, some international students, who have been
educated in academic environments in which getting the right, praise -
worthy solution is the highest priority, do not understand problems
OCR for page 22
22 ETHICS EDUCATION AND SCIENTIFIC AND ENGINEERING RESEARCH
related to sharing and copying from other students. Helble asked
how such ideas can be challenged without appearing to demean other
cultures.
university of Oklahoma
Michael Mumford of the University of Oklahoma described a two-
day, 16-hour course developed by his research team. The course, which
is separate from normal coursework, focuses on what these researchers
call “sensemaking” in ethical decision making—an approach that uses
case studies, social reinforcement through interactive, cooperative learn-
ing emphasizing the social nature
of ethical problems, and strategies
We are not teaching people
to help students identify and think
ethics. . . . We have to cover
through them. Students are encour-
too many fields. Rather, we
aged to recognize the dimensions of
are teaching them strategies
problems, ranging from their ori-
by which to construct a viable
gins to their relevant values; to seek
response.
outside help; to question their own
Michael Mumford,
judgment; to deal with emotions;
University of Oklahoma
to anticipate the consequences of
actions; to analyze personal motiva-
tions; and to consider the perspectives of others. This course, which is
being taught to graduate students in all departments on the Norman
campus, requires a significant commitment of university resources.
Council of Graduate Schools
Daniel Denecke of the Council of Graduate Schools in Wash -
ington, D.C., described ongoing projects sponsored by the council.
In 2004, CGS began an RCR project, with a grant from the Office
of Research Integrity and received a grant from NSF for a second
project in 2006. The goal of both projects is to develop a cadre of
knowledgeable graduate deans, as well as to gain experience in best
practices for the start-up and institutionalization of ethics education
in graduate schools. CGS will document its results, so that they can
be adopted by others. A third project that began in 2007 focuses
primarily on biomedical and behavioral sciences and emphasizes
comprehensive approaches to promoting and institutionalizing schol-
arly integrity and a national dialogue on resources and models for
OCR for page 23
2
MODELS AND RESOURCES IN ETHICS EDUCATION
ethics education among senior administrators in the nation’s graduate
schools.3
In the first project, the Council of Graduate Schools identified
several “best practices” for start-up activities: (1) establishing an advi -
sory board that includes core research faculty; (2) providing public
forums; (3) offering two-tiered instruction (both disciplinary and
trans-disciplinary); (4) addressing
ethical reasoning and deliberation;
You don’t want to send the
(5) making RCR training manda-
message this is just about bad
tory; and (6) developing and con-
people . . . behaving badly. . . .
ducting multilevel assessment (e.g., But it’s about setting the . . .
on both individual and institutional bar high for scholarship to be
change). encompassing right conduct.
. . . And that’s part of . . .
In the second project, CGS
mentorship too.
identified “best practices” for insti-
tutionalizing programs on cam- Daniel Denecke,
puses. These practices included: Council of Graduate Schools
(1) identifying differences between
student and faculty perceptions of
training in ethics and ethical climate; (2) using survey data to motivate
the proposed activities/programs; (3) linking to mandatory requirements
and/or documenting the completion of training; and (4) scanning avail-
able resources for gaps when developing new content in-house.
Persistent challenges for ethics education and mentoring for gradu -
ate students and postdoctoral fellows, Denecke said, include faculty
buy-in, professional development for students, and assessments of aca -
demic climate. Support from graduate deans is essential for these initia -
tives. In project documents, the Council of Graduate Schools uses the
language of scholarly or research integrity to discourage a “compliance
mentality” and encourage an understanding of research integrity as the
way things are done.
Discussion
One theme that emerged in discussions throughout the workshop
was the need for institutional change. Charles Huff of St. Olaf College
had pointed out that many people who want to do the right thing need
resources, including best practices and recommendations for measur-
3For information on the CGS activities, see http://www.cgsnet.org/Default.aspx?tabid=.
OCR for page 24
24 ETHICS EDUCATION AND SCIENTIFIC AND ENGINEERING RESEARCH
ing progress. Measurements should assess organizational structures and
processes, he said, and the results may lead us to ask questions, such
as whether the moral imperative to include underrepresented groups,
for instance, is based on the rights of individuals or on the potential to
change research environments and institutions for the better.
Another reason for institutional change, according to J. Britt Holbrook
of the University of North Texas, is the difficulty of linking instruction in
research ethics to tenure. Holbrook noted that incorporating ethical con-
siderations in the criteria for NSF funding might encourage that linkage.
A number of participants argued that programs on ethics and sci-
ence, technology, and society on a broader level than research practice
should also be recognized. Holbrook described a Ph.D. Plus option in
nanotechnology and society at Arizona State University for which engi -
neering Ph.D. students add a chapter to their dissertations about the
societal implications of their work. In fact, he said, humanitarian service
is now included in numerous undergraduate and graduate engineering
programs.4
As many participants noted, all of these additions and changes to
the curriculum require trade-offs. Reaching many students or covering
many topics may come at the expense of in-depth examination of the
issues—“trade-offs of quality for quantity.” Some of them pointed out
that large numbers of students can participate in online training, but,
given limited time and resources, fewer can participate in face-to-face
interactions. Others noted, however, that the online training might not
be as effective because of the absence of direct interaction and limited
exposure to the material. In addition, all of these alternatives need better
assessment methods.
In the opinion of Joseph Whittaker, Morgan State University, advo-
cates for ethics activities and programs must acknowledge these quality-
control issues. He believes that to be effective future programs must do
the following:
• Expand “trainer of trainers” capabilities.
• Facilitate benchmarking, that is, finding, learning, and adopting
best practices.
4Linda Abriola, NAE Member, Dean, School of Engineering, Tufts University, and Kevin Passino,
Electrical and Computer Engineering, Ohio State University, described programs at their schools
at the NAE CEES Workshop on Engineering, Social Justice, and Sustainable Community Develop-
ment, October 2-3, 2008, at the National Academy of Sciences.
OCR for page 25
2
MODELS AND RESOURCES IN ETHICS EDUCATION
• Develop centralized information databases to encourage/facilitate
knowledge transfer, sharing, and implementation.
• Consider ethics knowledge an asset, and promote it as a product
or service that the university provides.
• Identify challenges and barriers to training, implementation, and
knowledge sharing.
Given their particular circumstances, Whittaker suggested that
responsible institutions assess their current culture or state of environ -
ment; determine how their leadership, strategies, and demographics
impact the practice, choices, and information-transfer initiatives that
affect ethics practices; identify the best approaches—a grand design or
small, scalable, progressive start-up; develop plans that maximize exist-
ing resources; and determine if better results would be achieved with
coordinated governance or oversight.
INSTRuCTIONAL RESOuRCES
On Being a Scientist, a publication of the National Academies (now
in its third edition), is a welcome resource, particularly for faculty and
students in the natural and physical sciences and engineering. Another
basic resource is Adisor, Teacher, Role Model, Friend: On Being a Mentor
to Students in Science and Engineering (National Academy Press, 1997).5
The AAAS Program on Scientific Freedom, Responsibility and Law
has produced many publications and videos on scientific integrity and
maintains an online AAAS-NAS compilation of resources on research
integrity.6 Participants provided citation resources before the meeting. 7
During the workshop, participants also mentioned two other types of
resource: train-the-trainer and ethics-across-the-curriculum activities.
Noted among these programs were the annual Teaching Research Ethics
workshops at Indiana University.8
Workshop speaker Kelly Laas of IIT addressed the issue of elec -
tronic resources. She noted that students find blogs, wikis, and social
networking sites most useful, but faculty members need websites to help
5Available at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=789.
6http://www.aaas.org/spp/sfrl/projects/research_integrity/scientific_integrity/. This resource is being
transferred to the CGS Scholarly Integrity project; it will be available at http://www.scholarlyintegrity.
org/Resources.aspx.
7The list is available at http://www.nae.edu/?ID=040.
8http://poynter.indiana.edu/tre/.
OCR for page 26
2 ETHICS EDUCATION AND SCIENTIFIC AND ENGINEERING RESEARCH
them quickly find resources for teaching students. Practitioners may
find an interactive case-discussion site (e.g., www.ethicscasediscussions.
org) most useful.
Lass indicated that to stimulate students to develop the intellectual,
social, and emotional resources they will need to recognize and respond
to ethically challenging professional circumstances, online environments
should put users in active roles, helping them to use their knowledge
and skills in life-like situations. Online resources should also put stu -
dents in contact with others on sites where they can discuss and share
ideas, and they should encourage students to seek out answers and find
new resources (e.g., through online tutorials, case libraries, or ethics
resource centers).
Online tutorials, such as CITI (Collaborative Institutional Training
Initiative)9 and the Columbia University online training modules,10 Lass
said, can quickly and effectively convey information to busy students
and researchers. Tutorials can also promote the creation of “ethics com -
munities.” The OpenSeminar in Research Ethics,11 for example, has
initiated a blog.
However, maintaining and updating these sites has been difficult.
Laas noted that online resource sites could be improved if materials
were indexed in various ways (e.g., by ethical issue, discipline, cases, or
audience) and if site managers continue to solicit new case studies and
materials to update their sites.12 As a result of the America COMPETES
Act, demand for online resources may increase, especially for well-
organized databases of available ethics materials, developed syllabi and
full texts of readings, experts or experienced instructors in RCR and
science and engineering ethics, and an online discussion forum for infor-
mation exchange among instructors. In addition, all of these sites should
incorporate new technologies and content as they become available.
Laas pointed out, and numerous participants agreed, that new tech-
nologies and learning evolve together. Online resources must not only
9Found at www.citiprogram.org, the CITI Program is a subscription service that provides
research-ethics education to the research community. To participate, learners must be affiliated
with a CITI participating organization.
10http://www.fhcrc.org/science/education/courses/research_ethics/training/online/ .
11http://openseminar.org/ethics/screen.do.
12For a general resource on research ethics and engineering ethics, see www.onlineethics.org.
For a resource on bioethics, see http://www.ethicshare.org/. Codes of ethics for many scientific
and engineering societies are available at http://ethics.iit.edu/codes/coe.html. For general back-
ground as well as a wide range of materials on ethics and ethical controversies, see http://ethics.
sandiego.edu/.
OCR for page 27
27
MODELS AND RESOURCES IN ETHICS EDUCATION
solicit new material and review the quality and relevance of uploaded
material, they must also find ways to shorten retrieval time and allow
users to personalize their sites. She suggested that educators develop ways
to facilitate searches for materials most relevant to a discipline, problem,
role (e.g., student, teacher, or employer) and promote interactive learn-
ing environments.
OCR for page 28
