Chapter 4

The Institute


This chapter describes the preparations for and activities during the Educational Institute for Responsible Research on Infectious Diseases: Ensuring Safe Science in the 21st Century (hereafter, the Institute), which was held in Aqaba, Jordan, in September 2012. As discussed briefly in earlier chapters, the Institute applies a model developed by the U.S. National Academies (the National Academies Summer Institutes in Undergraduate Biology Education, or NASI) to use active learning methods to improve the quality of undergraduate biology education to the challenges of creating networks of faculty able to teach about dual use issues in the context of responsible conduct of science. The choice of NASI as the model from among the many available approaches to faculty development programs (see Chapter 3) reflects the knowledge and experience that the Academies have accumulated in a decade of conducting them, the data that the project has collected and continues to collect about its efficacy (e.g., Pfund et al., 2009), and the fact that some members of the Institute’s organizing committee were selected because of their leadership in NASI to get the project off the ground. The project is a collaboration among the National Academies, the Bibliotheca Alexandrina, and The World Academy of Sciences (TWAS). The material in this chapter on active learning methods provides an opportunity to show how the concepts introduced in Chapter 3 can be presented and applied in an actual learning situation.

THE PLANNING MEETING AND PILOT

The original development of NASI included a pilot test of the design. Plans for a similar, smaller-scale pilot were included in the grant for the Middle East–North Africa (MENA) project. The insights from the pilot, carried out as part of the planning meeting held at TWAS in Trieste, Italy, in early June 2011, were essential to the development of the Institute. Experts from Europe, the United States, Egypt, and South Africa joined the members of the National Academies committee overseeing the project.42

The Trieste meeting built on the Warsaw workshop’s strong emphasis on active learning approaches to teaching and the inclusion of experts in pedagogy along with experts in dual use issues, responsible conduct of research, and various fields of relevant life sciences research (NRC, 2011c). The initial discussion of the project’s goals and fundamental concepts focused on dual use and responsible conduct of research and was followed by examples of general life sciences education, as well as “train-the-trainer” programs that make use of active learning methods. In addition to discussions, attendees had a chance to engage actively with some of the methods themselves. In particular, small groups of attendees were given the task of setting general goals and specific learning objectives for the Institute. The results of the

______________________

42 The list of planning meeting participants is shown in a 2011 letter report (NRC 2011e).



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



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 39
Chapter 4 The Institute This chapter describes the preparations for and THE PLANNING MEETING AND PILOT activities during the Educational Institute for Responsible Research on Infectious Diseases: The original development of NASI included a Ensuring Safe Science in the 21st Century pilot test of the design. Plans for a similar, (hereafter, the Institute), which was held in smaller-scale pilot were included in the grant for Aqaba, Jordan, in September 2012. As discussed the Middle East–North Africa (MENA) project. briefly in earlier chapters, the Institute applies a The insights from the pilot, carried out as part of model developed by the U.S. National the planning meeting held at TWAS in Trieste, Academies (the National Academies Summer Italy, in early June 2011, were essential to the Institutes in Undergraduate Biology Education, development of the Institute. Experts from or NASI) to use active learning methods to Europe, the United States, Egypt, and South improve the quality of undergraduate biology Africa joined the members of the National education to the challenges of creating networks Academies committee overseeing the project.42 of faculty able to teach about dual use issues in The Trieste meeting built on the Warsaw the context of responsible conduct of science. workshop’s strong emphasis on active learning The choice of NASI as the model from among approaches to teaching and the inclusion of the many available approaches to faculty experts in pedagogy along with experts in dual development programs (see Chapter 3) reflects use issues, responsible conduct of research, and the knowledge and experience that the various fields of relevant life sciences research Academies have accumulated in a decade of (NRC, 2011c). The initial discussion of the conducting them, the data that the project has project’s goals and fundamental concepts collected and continues to collect about its focused on dual use and responsible conduct of efficacy (e.g., Pfund et al., 2009), and the fact research and was followed by examples of that some members of the Institute’s organizing general life sciences education, as well as “train- committee were selected because of their the-trainer” programs that make use of active leadership in NASI to get the project off the learning methods. In addition to discussions, ground. The project is a collaboration among the attendees had a chance to engage actively with National Academies, the Bibliotheca some of the methods themselves. In particular, Alexandrina, and The World Academy of small groups of attendees were given the task of Sciences (TWAS). The material in this chapter setting general goals and specific learning on active learning methods provides an objectives for the Institute. The results of the opportunity to show how the concepts introduced in Chapter 3 can be presented and                                                              42 applied in an actual learning situation. The list of planning meeting participants is shown in a 2011 letter report (NRC 2011e). 39

OCR for page 39
40 Developing Capacities for Teaching Responsible Science in the MENA Region small groups’ deliberations provided the letter report also includes discussions of the foundation for the final day’s general discussion detailed lessons that the meeting provided for of next steps, which served as the basis for the the design of the Institute. That text is provided committee’s conclusions about the overall in Appendix C. The actual work of designing the design of the Institute, which were presented in a Institute is described in the next section. letter report (NRC, 2011e). The conclusions were intended DESIGNING THE INSTITUTE to serve as global guidelines applicable…to any country wishing to adopt this educational The design of the Institute followed the steps model that combines principles of active outlined in the planning meeting in Trieste and learning and training with attention to norms described in the letter report. The committee of responsible science. It aims to address the members formed three subgroups to (1) design unmet need of respectfully incorporating into the content, (2) develop the pedagogy, and (3) existing science teaching and research review and evaluate the applications from (especially in the field of emerging infectious prospective participants. The content and diseases) the ideas of conducting science pedagogical elements were chosen to support the responsibly, of cultivating a culture of implementation of the Institute’s goals as laboratory safety, and of raising awareness formulated in Trieste to cultivate future leaders within the local scientific community of the consequences of misusing research with dual in responsible science and research integrity use potential (NSABB, 2008; NRC 2009c). (NRC, 2011e:17). For participants unfamiliar (NRC, 2011e:10) with the ethical and legal responsibilities of physical and life scientists or issues in the Five general considerations were identified responsible conduct of science, the Institute to frame the Institute: would provide an introduction. For those who had experience with these topics, the Institute  Responsible conduct of research/research would provide an opportunity to gain a deeper integrity as core themes. appreciation and share their insights. Since  The importance of respecting and adapting to science faculty in many parts of the world the national context of the workshops’ host receive little formal training in teaching or countries. knowledge of the emerging scientific research on  The advantages of the science of learning and human learning and cognition that can help to scientific teaching approach. improve pedagogy (e.g., NRC, 2000), the  The value of creating networks of faculty and committee anticipated that participants’ institutional support for the sustainability of familiarity and experience with active learning efforts. techniques would be equally varied. The  Essential role of assessment and evaluation. committee believed it was important to provide (NRC, 2011e:12-14) some of the basics of best teaching practices, as supported by cognitive science and discipline- The full text of the conclusions is worth based education research, in addition to the quoting at length (see Box 4-1) because of their scientific and ethical aspects of responsible influence on the development and science. To help Institute participants better implementation of the project’s next phases. The understand elements of responsible conduct of

OCR for page 39
The Institute 41 research (RCR), responsible science (RS), and taught, what they each hoped to achieve by best practices in pedagogy, the committee attending the Institute, and their contributions created pairs of content and active learning to science. The application is shown in techniques. Definitions of these techniques are Appendix G. A total of 56 applications from provided in the Glossary; further descriptions of qualified individuals were received. Of those, the the active learning techniques with examples staff in consultation with the committee selected from biology of how they can be applied are 32 participants, 28 of whom attended. shown in Table 3-1, and additional resources are The Institute in Aqaba was attended by a cross- in Appendix D. section of individuals from the MENA region: The Schedule at a Glance (Figure 4-1) shows Algeria (4), Egypt (14), Jordan (3), Libya (1), and the thematic and chronological architecture of Yemen (6), of whom 8 were women and 11 were the Institute, which emulates the design of NASI. part of a team or from the same institution. A facilitator-training day preceded the initiation Based on the experience of NASI, teams were of the Institute. Over the course of 5½ days, the encouraged to include at least one senior faculty participants took part in morning member. The list of participants and their content/pedagogy sessions and spent the affiliations is in Appendix F. afternoons and evenings in small groups to develop teaching modules based on selected Facilitator Preparation topics and using active learning tools. These modules were presented to, and discussed by, An integral aspect of NASI is the preparation of the faculty and participants. On the last day, the its facilitators and frequent opportunities for participants met together by country and them to work together each day to address presented their ideas for implementing the problems and develop solutions to those Institute’s content and pedagogy in their home problems collectively. Initial preparation of institutions and countries to everyone attending facilitators takes place the day preceding each the Institute. NASI. The preparation sessions help new facilitators recognize the difference between Recruitment of Participants teaching and facilitation and allow them to practice strategies to maintain their roles as A crucial action identified at the planning facilitators rather than educators (Table 4-1). As meeting at TWAS was the need to engage early with all aspects of NASI, facilitator preparation in strategic discussions about supporting the draws on findings from the sociological and cohort of participants in the Institute upon their organizational research literature on group return to their home institutions (NRC, dynamics. Introducing facilitators to this body of 2011e:15). Using the extensive communication work, which focuses on various stages of group networks of the Bibliotheca Alexandrina as well formation and cohesion (e.g., Tuckman, 1965; as its experience in managing competitive Richards and Moger, 1999; Stetson, 2009) and application processes, teams of participants from encourages them to share this information with different MENA countries were invited to apply. the members of their groups, can help individual In addition to their academic accomplishments, group members recognize their strengths and applicants were judged on the basis of a personal weaknesses associated with group work. statement, which elaborated their individual Recognizing these factors can, in turn, help teaching philosophy, the types of courses they participants to better facilitate group situations    

OCR for page 39
42 Developing Capacities for Teaching Responsible Science in the MENA Region BOX 4-1 Conclusions from the Planning Meetinga Responsible conduct of research/research integrity as core themes. Building on a prominent theme from the Warsaw workshop and other NRC reports about education related to dual use issues (NRC, 2004, 2009b, 2011c), broader principles of responsible conduct and research integrity rather than the “dual use” theme were chosen as the foundation for faculty development. By embedding the EPI [Egyptian Prototype Institute] in general discussions on professional conduct, participants accepted the idea that this more general approach would likely be more enduring and sustainable than focusing only on dual use issues. It also resonated with the participants from Egypt for whom a more comprehensive framework beyond research with dangerous pathogens is a more realistic educational opportunity. Such an inclusive approach would also enable future workshops to take advantage of other initiatives…. Importance of respecting and adapting to the national context of workshop host countries. One of the insights from earlier efforts to develop education programs on responsible conduct of science and dual use issues is the wide variation in higher education structure and process, and national education policy and how those differences could affect the design and implementation of programs (NRC, 2011c; Rappert, 2010).  The difficulty of introducing new material, especially beyond core science topics, into crowded curricula is a common concern among nations. In some countries introducing entire new courses into existing curricula can have a direct impact on the development and implementation of faculty networks both at an institutional and national level and efforts to develop nationwide approaches may be difficult. In some countries where institutions of higher education are largely autonomous (e.g., the United States), development of new courses can essentially result from an instructor’s initiative, with only limited approval needed from immediate supervisors. In nations with a centralized ministry of higher education (e.g., Egypt) a new course could require approval by national authorities, an often lengthy process.  One of the most sensitive areas for teaching about dual use and related issues is the political and historical context of different countries, which in some cases may make faculty reluctant to become involved in anything associated with “security.” This supports the point already made above about the advantages of embedding dual use issues within the broader framework of responsible conduct. It also may affect the choice of the local partners, for example, understanding whether formal or informal endorsement by certain government or education officials is essential or how important it might be to work with an institution that by virtue of its prestige or connections can provide flexibility for teaching new courses for its faculty.    

OCR for page 39
The Institute 43  The importance of local context for the successful design of a faculty development program underscores the need of a preparatory site visit(s) as part of the planning process. One outcome of the Trieste workshop was the decision to send a small team of staff and Committee members to Egypt to meet with local faculty, university officials, and government administrators in Fall 2011. The purpose of these meetings is to inform university and government leaders about the planned workshop, and acquire their active support for its successful execution, for the participation of junior faculty, for any follow-on activities originating from the participants, and for the initiation of a network of faculty-workshop participants who will subsequently become trainers for other faculty and their students. An important point to discuss will be the mechanism by which the participants will be chosen so that local mechanisms will be considered. As mentioned in the previous bullet, the advice of well-chosen local partners is invaluable in understanding the political sensitivities and planning a successful visit. Advantages of a “science of learning” approach. The enthusiasm among participants for their experience with active learning reinforced the message from the Warsaw workshop about the value of such approaches in education about dual use and related, broader issues. The relevance of adopting such methods for classrooms and laboratories across the world is supported by the decision by the World Health Organization to revamp its biosafety train-the-trainer programs to adopt similar active learning methods (WHO, 2006, 2010). Sustainability of efforts: Value of a network approach and institutional support. As already mentioned, a continuing challenge for efforts to promote new concepts, materials, and pedagogical approaches is the competition for space in a crowded curriculum. It is essential that, from the beginning, the planning for any such effort include a focus on strategies to make the project sustainable. The lessons from efforts in many other areas reinforce the value of building networks of faculty who can share experiences and provide mutual reinforcement (NRC 2010). For example, creating opportunities for participants in a faculty development workshop to get together after their initial experience in implementing what they have learned has proved extremely valuable to sustaining commitment and momentum (Pfund et al., 2009). In a broader context, building institutional support for sustaining not only the network but the faculty’s ability to introduce others to these concepts as well as support for both teaching and research would help foster the culture of responsible science. Assessment and evaluation. The “science of learning” approach emphasizes concrete goals and continual, measurable outcomes of student performance, whether qualitative or quantitative. Effective evaluation depends on incorporating assessment as an integral part of the follow-on activities and as such would inform any strategies to sustain these educational efforts. a This text is reproduced from NRC, 2011e:12-14.    

OCR for page 39
44 Developing Capacities for Teaching Responsible Science in the MENA Region TABLE 4-1 Characteristics of effective teaching compared with effective facilitating Effective Teaching Effective Facilitation Emphasizes learning by individuals but also can Emphasizes collective learning. foster collective learning. Imparts knowledge and conceptual frameworks to Guides the processes for the development of students. knowledge and skills. Emphasizes new knowledge acquisition and Emphasizes processes of learning, reflection about understanding in specific content domains but also learning, and new, deeper understanding of helps students understand the need for reflecting preexisting knowledge from many domains (e.g., on their learning. personal, professional). Teacher often serves as the knowledge expert. Knowledge and expertise are shared among the facilitator and other learners. Source: The table has been adapted and modified from Miller and Pfund (2011). among their own colleagues or students, as  Respecting each member of the group and elaborated in Table 4-1. her/his contributions. That is, effective Given the success of these strategies and listening as well as talking, respectful activities and the fact that most facilitators at the questioning of statements or opinions Institute had no experience with this role, two offered by group members, nonjudgmental members of the planning committee and one discussions and interactions. staff member for this project, who have been  Keeping the group focused on the task at associated with NASI many years, organized a hand. Understanding the difference between preparatory session for all the facilitators of the relevant tangents and those that lead the Institute. Facilitation goes beyond the use of group away from their goals and tasks. good teaching practices and, as noted in a recent Using time thoughtfully. Although edition of the facilitation manual that was facilitators agreed each afternoon on the developed for NASI, “Effective facilitation is a goals and work to be accomplished the nuanced balance of leadership and participation, following day, effective facilitators recognize assembly and deconstruction—each of which differences in group dynamics (these can (and should) be practiced” (Miller and differences include those between groups as Pfund, 2011:3). Additional differences between well as those within groups that might teaching and facilitating are described in Table develop over time as group members have 4-1. additional opportunities to interact with In these sessions, facilitators also learned each other). In some cases, slowing down about understanding and dealing with different the pace of work is important while in others interpersonal relationships and conflicts that the group will be able to work more quickly often develop among group members through than anticipated. Rigid adherence to a the course of an Institute. These kinds of schedule that is designed prior to an dynamics include: Institute could interfere with actual progress

OCR for page 39
FIGURE 4-1 Schedule at a Glance: Thematic and chronological structure of the Institute.    

OCR for page 39
46 Developing Capacities for Teaching Responsible Science in the MENA Region of work and group cohesion in some cases. Undergraduate Biology Education (e.g., Pfund et  Allowing time for reflection and thought. al., 2009; Handelsman et al., 2006; Labov and Silence among participants in a classroom or Young, 2013) introduced key topics for effective, a group situation can appear to indicate lack evidence-based teaching practices in three of progress or disconnect between the sessions: How People Learn, Assessment, and facilitator and participants. However, well- Active Learning. These sessions provided a used silence can help group members clarify framework for helping Institute participants their thinking and, sometimes, modify their transition from what cognitive science tells us positions about a contentious issue about how people learn to practical applications particularly prompted by group discussions. for development of instructional material for the The effective facilitator builds silent periods classroom and measurement of students’ into group sessions and tells participants the learning gains. A number of examples, purposes for such periods. resources, and references related to active  Taking care to avoid becoming a participant. learning are provided in Appendix D. When there are lulls in conversation or As in all sessions at the Institute, those lapses of progress, it sometimes feels easier making presentations and those facilitating for facilitators to assume some of the roles discussions actively engaged participants in what and responsibilities of participants. was being taught and gave them practice with Facilitators need to provide guidance and active learning and reflection. These themes structure without taking over the group’s were modeled not only in the pedagogy sessions agenda or its distribution of work. Indeed, if but also in each of the content sessions so that the group is progressing well in meeting its participants could immediately apply the skills goals and plan of work, facilitators also need being taught during both types of sessions. This to recognize when to leave the group on its format also helped participants to better own. An effective group will need its incorporate these concepts and skills into the facilitator less and less as the Institute modules they were creating, providing an progresses. environment where they could be both iterative and reflective about their learning (this kind of A number of publications are available to self-analysis of one’s learning is termed assist those who wish to replicate this type of “metacognition”; NRC, 2000). facilitator training in their home institutions as part of a “train-the-trainer” program (see, for example, Branchaw et al., 2010:257-260; Pfund Session 1: How People Learn et al., 2012). The first session, How People Learn, introduced participants to the essential findings from meta- analyses of the cognitive science literature, THE INSTITUTE ITSELF providing a rationale for why faculty should view teaching science differently than traditional Pedagogy Sessions norms and practices (NRC, 2012a). The goals of the session were to provide participants with a Throughout the week-long Institute, presenters pedagogical framework for creating their RCR who have been involved with the National modules and for improving their teaching. The Academies Summer Institutes for session highlighted that all learners come to the

OCR for page 39
The Institute 47 learning process with life experiences and given that much less information is now vetted preconceptions that often can lead to conceptual through trusted sources than previously.43 barriers to learning scientific concepts that are Instructors can also help students become frequently non- or even counterintuitive, and more effective learners through reflection on that for any discipline we need to help the their own learning and development of a learner develop metacognitive skills and a conceptual framework for science (NRC, 2000). conceptual framework for organizing Providing learners with opportunities to review information (content) and putting it in the their learning progress is an important aspect of context of other information. the learning process. It is also critical to help Given that life experiences impact how learners develop a conceptual framework, people approach learning, it is important to view particularly through the practice of science, so learners based on their worlds, rather than those they can more readily incorporate new content. of the instructors. For this reason, presenters Likewise, throughout the Institute the facilitator addressed how college students (undergraduates team challenged participants’ own and graduate) today are different from when misconceptions, helped them reflect on their most of the participants were in college. For learning, and provided a pedagogical framework example, the world is more globalized and for developing modules. information comes almost instantaneously from The tenets of scientific teaching are that the Internet and through cell phones, which are teaching science should be done with the same relatively new modes of communication. In the rigor, creativity, and general methodological United States, the so-called Millennial approaches that one would apply to research, Generation faces different challenges from those including the process of discovery (Handelsman, of the Baby Boomers and Generation Xers, and 2004). For example, when undertaking new these differences matter when it comes to their research, scientists always search the literature to approaches to learning. Therefore, faculty determine what is known about the subject, the should be aware of these differences and provide methodologies used to investigate it, and how learning experiences that are well suited for they can build on that body of knowledge. They these students. For example, spending time in develop hypotheses and design experiments to class to provide students with primary content test them frequently. When a particular information is less necessary now than in the approach proves untenable, they redesign both past since information is readily available the questions and approaches to addressing anytime and anywhere. A larger issue is helping them. They share their data with other scientists students make sense of this information, both informally and through peer-reviewed connecting it to other kinds of information and papers. When employing scientific teaching, concepts, recognizing and addressing naïve or similar procedures would be used to design incorrect conceptions that they may have courses, teaching laboratories, and field developed about some subject matter due to experiences for students. personal experience or being taught or learning To help participants understand how to a concept incorrectly, and helping them learn apply scientific teaching to their own what information is bona fide and what is not, classrooms, they were provided with a structure                                                              43 In some of the early learning literature (e.g., NRC, 2000), ideas that are incomplete or incorrect were referred to as “preconceptions” and “misconceptions,” respectively.    

OCR for page 39
48 Developing Capacities for Teaching Responsible Science in the MENA Region for developing educational materials and order cognitive skills (LOCS) and higher-order learning experiences—“backward design”—that cognitive skills (HOCS) (see Figure 4-2; Crowe et has been subjected to significant research to al., 2008; Zoller, 1993). The lessons learned in determine its efficacy (Wiggins and McTighe, this session helped participants to reflect on the 1998). Most traditional forms of teaching start use of assessment in their teaching and were by the instructor first designing the syllabus, immediately applied to the modules they were selecting the text, and creating teaching creating. materials, followed by construction of The main difference between summative assessments. Although this approach may seem and formative assessments is that summative reasonable and is currently widely used by assessment is the endpoint of measuring postsecondary faculty, it is mostly instructor- learning and formative assessment is centered as the learning objectives and measurement of learning throughout the assessment of those objectives (exam questions) learning process (Handelsman et al., 2007). were designed after the teaching was complete. Examinations (summative assessments) are the A more student-centered approach is to clearly products of learning whereas assessments during state all measurable learning objectives and write learning (formative assessments) can help guide associated assessments prior to instruction so the instructor and learners to change their that instruction is based on that template, practices and strategies for teaching and keeping learners at the front and center of learning, respectively. Summative assessments course development and the teaching process. can be given in many forms (exams, written The concepts promoted during this session papers, final presentations or some other form of laid the foundation for how the Institute work). Formative assessments can include participants would develop their modules each techniques such as short quizzes at the day, and illustrated how they could change their beginning or the end of class sessions for which teaching practices on their own campuses. students receive a few or no points, or questions during class where students can state their Session 2: Assessment answers using flash cards that they hold up or The second session, Assessment, introduced through the use of electronic response systems participants to new ways of thinking about (also known as “clickers”). assessment and how it can be used to improve Because summative assessments are high- stakes learning as well as to measure learning gains. for the learner, they drive learning and therefore Presenters began this session with a discussion can be powerful learning tools. The first part of of the differences between summative and the session stressed how educational materials, formative assessments and how these fit into including the modules that participants would theframework of backward design. Throughout develop during the Institute, should be designed the session the presenters emphasized the in ways that best guide the learner through the importance of articulating clear, measurable learning process, and that the instructor’s learning objectives for both guiding teaching intentions and expectations for assessments and material development and enhancing should be stated at the outset. learning. Hands-on activities allowed A clear statement of what learners should participants to practice writing measurable know or be able to do (learning objectives) learning objectives at different levels—what are before they are taught the material can help referred to in the research literature as lower- guide them in the learning process, particularly

OCR for page 39
The Institute 49 Cognitive Bloom Level Level A Simple Phrase to Guide Categorization HOC Evaluate “Defend or judge a concept or idea” Synthesize “Create something new” Analyze “Distinguish parts and make inferences” LOC/HOC Apply “Use information or concepts in new ways” LOC Comprehend “Explain information or concepts” Know “Recall information” FIGURE 4-2 Bloom’s Taxonomy and Cognitive Levels. HOC, higher-order cognitive skills; LOC, lower-order cognitive skills. The original levels of cognition proposed in 1956 have been modified by others. For example, Overbough and Schultz (http://ww2.odu.edu/educ/roverbau/Bloom/blooms_taxonomy.htm, date unknown) have proposed the following descriptors ranging from the lowest to highest levels: Remembering, Understanding, Applying, Analyzing, Evaluating, Creating. Additional sources of information about these modifications to Bloom’s Taxonomy are available through links on the website by Overbough and Schultz. SOURCE: Created by the committee. if they understand that the learning objectives challenge level of the content practiced and are tied to summative assessments. Instructors tested. Bloom’s Taxonomy of Education can use the framework of backward design not Objectives Handbook I: Cognitive Domain is a only to align the content of their formative and classification system to distinguish six categories summative assessments but also to adjust the (see Figure 4-2) or levels of human cognition cognitive levels at which the learner is engaged and has been effectively used for over 50 years to during learning and testing. Around any content develop curricula (Bloom, 1956). As mentioned area, the instructor’s learning objectives can be above, one of the most useful distinctions lies directly tied to, and aligned with, both not in the differences among the six categories summative and formative assessments. To this but rather in the difference between categories end, participants engaged in a series of activities that require higher-order cognitive (HOC) and that allowed them to practice aligning lower-order cognitive (LOC) skills (Zoller, summative and formative assessments so that 1993). Simplifying the taxonomy into two they could better understand the relationships groups helps one to quickly assess how between these two important aspects of learning. challenging the learning objectives and An important aspect of aligning summative assessments will be to the learner (Crowe et al., and formative assessments is that both the 2008). After introducing this concept, content and the cognitive level at which the participants learned to categorize questions and learner must work should be taken into activities based on Bloom’s Taxonomy. consideration. Most instructors find it fairly easy During this session of the Institute, to align what they teach with what will be on the participants focused on the importance of test, but a more difficult task is aligning the assessment and how different forms of    

OCR for page 39
54 Developing Capacities for Teaching Responsible Science in the MENA Region the new group. The facilitators used a similar studies, internationally known syphilis expert approach in that groups discussed one of the Dr. John Cutler led U.S. and Guatemalan four questions above, came to consensus, and researchers in experiments designed to test then each group contributed to the larger penicillin as a prophylactic against “normal discussion. The general consensus of the exposure” to syphilis. Between 1946 and 1948, participants was that the experiments should not Dr. Cutler’s group paid syphilis-infected be allowed to go forward, citing safety and Guatemalan sex workers to have sex with concerns about release of infectious virus. There uninfected prison inmates to measure rates of was a lively discussion of the challenges of transmission. Additionally, some uninfected developing animal models for human disease. women had syphilis inoculum placed on their The participants recognized and elaborated on cervix before they had sex with uninfected the responsibilities of researchers for prisoners. Later, researchers conducted an environmental and community safety. inoculation study in a Guatemalan institute for the mentally ill. Participants who tested positive Case 3: The Guatemala syphilis studies48 were treated with a presumed curative dose of Continuing the theme of Conducting Research penicillin, but few were told that they were being Responsibly, this case addressed the ethical given live doses of syphilis as part of a study. standards of research with human subjects and Researchers acknowledged privately that this the harm that research on infectious diseases work was ethically controversial, but many were may cause when research participants’ interests eager “to study syphilis from the standpoint of are made secondary to scientific goals. The case pure science.” of U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS) research Institute participants used the “think, pair, on “normal exposure” to syphilis was chosen share” method to examine several conceptual because it reflects many practical and ethical and practical issues, including: challenges in today’s infectious disease research. It also demonstrates the development of  how the scientific method shapes the risks to comprehensive ethical standards for which research participants may be exposed, epidemiologic research and provides a stark  how the perceived threat posed by an example on how professional dedication to an infectious disease affects the assessment of important scientific goal can blind researchers to risk and benefit associated with related ethical considerations relevant to their work. research, The case took place in the mid-1940s, when  whether intentional exposure to disease syphilis still caused widespread death and might be acceptable in research, disability. During this period, the USPHS  the perceived advantages of undertaking explored various uses of penicillin in preventing infectious disease research in developing and treating syphilis in populations where it was countries, and reported to be endemic. In one such series of  the perceived advantages and risks of international collaboration for researchers                                                              from developing countries with those from 48 Original study developed for the Institute. The more scientifically developed nations. background readings for this case were Reverby (2011), WMA (2008), and the report of the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues (2011). This case was unfamiliar to most Institute (Although the full report was too long to be included, the participants. From the background reading and preface was included and the report discussed.)

OCR for page 39
The Institute 55 discussion, participants developed knowledge of supervisors, the coauthors on his published the practical challenges of conducting manuscripts, the institutions where he had prevention research on serious infectious worked, the scientists who had relied on the diseases in ways consistent with today’s ethical veracity of his research reports to shape the standards for international infectious disease direction of their own research, and the patients research. The group agreed that the ethical whose treatment may have been influenced by standards of today generally protect the welfare his publications. of human participants and safeguard the quality Some positive things have come from the of the research results, and that this balance Darsee case. In addition to alerting scientists to demands the researcher’s responsible conduct of the need for providing closer supervision of science on many levels. trainees and taking authorship responsibilities more seriously, the Darsee incident contributed Case 4: The case against John Darsee49 to the development of guidelines and standards To conceptualize the topics of collaborative concerning research misconduct by the USPHS, research, authorship and publication, and peer U.S. National Institutes of Health, U.S. National review, the case of Dr. John Darsee was used to Science Foundation, medical associations and introduce Theme 3. Darsee was highly regarded institutes, universities, and medical schools. as a student and medical researcher throughout This case was chosen because it his undergraduate and postgraduate training. At demonstrates a number of important concepts Harvard University, he worked as a research and principles related to responsibilities of fellow in the Cardiac Research Laboratory individual scientists as members of a larger headed by Dr. Eugene Braunwald. His special responsible scientific community, including: area of research concerned the testing of heart drugs on dogs. In less than two years at Harvard  ethical concerns that can arise when he was first author on seven publications in very conducting collaborative research, good scientific journals.  the essential responsibilities and professional In 1981, colleagues in the Cardiac Research relationships of mentors and trainees, Laboratory observed Darsee mislabeling data  responsibilities of authorship, and recordings from an experiment he was  flaws in the peer review system. performing. Over the next several months, it To engage participants, the facilitator became clear that Darsee had been fabricating or presented the case and then each group falsifying data for years, possibly back to his discussed the case. A spokesperson for each undergraduate days. The consequences were group presented the group’s consensus and this profound, not just for Darsee but for the was followed by a larger group discussion. This members of the laboratories where he had format was appropriate for this case since many conducted his investigations, his mentors and of the participants are academicians and the issue of authorship responsibilities was                                                              particularly relevant to them. There were 49 Case and questions adapted from “Case Study 1: Overly individuals in each group at various stages of Ambitious Researchers - Fabricating Data" National academic development, so the different Academy of Engineering Online Ethics Center for Engineering 7/20/2006; perspectives could be shared. www.onlineethics.org/Education/precollege/scienceclass/secto ne/chapt4/cs1.aspx. The background reading was Kochan and Budd (1992). An additional reference is NAE (2007).    

OCR for page 39
56 Developing Capacities for Teaching Responsible Science in the MENA Region Case 5: Who is an author?50 each of the five groups discussed one of the Continuing the theme of Being Part of the following and presented their position to the Responsible Scientific Community, this case larger group: addressed the common and often contentious issue of the qualifications for authorship and the  the arguments for including the former collegial responsibilities that come with research faculty member as an author and what other publication. During the discussion, participants actions, if any, she would need to undertake put themselves in the role of a young with this manuscript to qualify, investigator who is preparing to submit an  the arguments against including the former article based on a collaborative research project. faculty member as an author, and what to The protagonist is in the sixth month of a tell the department head, two-year research fellowship at an academic  whether to include others (the medical center, with hopes of joining the faculty. biostatistician, resident physician, nurse, One part of the fellow’s work is to continue a undergraduate microbiology student, line of research originally started by a junior department head) as authors, and faculty member who left the university to have a  the order in which to list the named authors baby. The former faculty member is now a and the qualifications for each position. physician in private practice. Before she left, she designed the original protocol and collected Questions about the qualifications for blood samples and data on 40 patients. With the authorship lead to some of the most significant help of a former biostatistics professor, the disputes in science, and such conflict affects research fellow revised the methodology and got many academic communities. In the Institutional Review Board approval for a new background reading and discussion, participants protocol. The research fellow worked with a examined the importance of assigning resident physician and a nurse, collected blood authorship on a manuscript at the beginning of a samples and medical histories from an collaborative project. Using the criteria for additional 145 patients, and then analyzed the authorship from the International Committee of samples and data from all of the samples with Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) Uniform the help of an undergraduate microbiology Requirements for Manuscripts, participants student research assistant. The research fellow developed strategies for preventing confusion or wrote up the manuscript and made two data conflict over authorship by agreeing on criteria tables with the biostatistics professor. The and group expectations early in a project. department head provided edits and helpful Most participants at the Institute were suggestions, but also emailed the manuscript to published authors and all agreed that the former faculty member asking for her publication—particularly in English-language insights. She replied to the research fellow, journals—was important to their careers. A asking to be the second author because she number of participants knew of the ICMJE’s wanted to return to academic medicine. Uniform Requirements, and many found it Using the modified jigsaw method of case useful to examine how they applied in specific discussion, as described above and in Table 3-1 circumstances. Several individuals noted that                                                              they would use these standards in their own 50 Original case developed for the Institute. The background work, particularly in discussion with superiors readings were Albert and Wager (2003), ICMJE (2010), and and trainees. WAME (2013).

OCR for page 39
The Institute 57 Research with Dual Use Potential  dangerous agents could be stolen or diverted for nonpeaceful purposes. Great achievements in molecular biology and genetics have produced advances in science that Several examples were discussed, including have revolutionized the practice of medicine. that any medical advance that improves the ease The very technologies that fueled these benefits of engineering, handling, or delivery of to society, however, pose a potential risk as treatment has the potential to be applied by well—the possibility that these technologies those wishing to do harm and can be considered could also be used to create the next generation “dual use,” that each year hundreds of articles on of biological weapons. Under Theme 3, Being dual use research are published, making them Part of the Responsible Scientific Community, accessible to any member of the research discussion of potential threats from community, that thousands of pieces of scientific biotechnology and life sciences was facilitated by equipment are purchased on the Internet a PowerPoint presentation. For the purposes of without oversight or regulation, and that this this discussion, dual use was defined as “research openness creates the risk that available that, based on current understanding, can be information, reagents, or equipment might be reasonably anticipated to provide knowledge, used to create new or more dangerous biological products, or technologies that could be directly weapons. misapplied by others to pose a threat to public The presenter used the Socratic method by health, agriculture, plants, animals, the posing specific questions that elicited discussion. environment, or materiel.”51 A number of types of risk from dual-use research were discussed,  Does a select agent list make us more or less including: safe?  What steps can be taken to ensure that  technologies that deliver beneficial drugs to resources/equipment/knowledge are not the body could be used for weaponizing used inappropriately? biological agents,  Is it a question of “Who could” or “Who  research could have unintended would”? consequences,  dangerous agents could be released The active learning strategy used for this accidentally from the lab through infected session was a presentation followed by group personnel or other means (e.g., faulty discussion, where the facilitator reviewed the key exhaust systems), issues, each group discussed the issues among  research results and methods can be themselves, and then a spokesperson for each published in easily accessible journals and group summarized the group’'s consensus. This on the Internet, format was appropriate for this case since the  knowledge or techniques could help to experience level of the participants varied so create “novel” pathogens with unique widely. properties or create entirely new classes of threat agents, and                                                              51 This is the definition adopted by the U.S. National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB, 2007). See Box 1-1 in Chapter 1.    

OCR for page 39
58 Developing Capacities for Teaching Responsible Science in the MENA Region Case 6: Studies in H5N1 influenza virulence52 Health Organization (WHO) held an Following on the PowerPoint-led discussion on international meeting in mid-February 2012 experiments with dual use potential, this case with 22 scientists and public health experts who focused on two sets of highly controversial concluded that the work should be published in experiments carried out with influenza virus full after the moratorium. At the end of March H5N1, an avian influenza strain that has shown of the same year the NSABB voted that the two alarming morbidity and mortality in the limited papers should be published in their entirety after number (fewer than700) of human infections reviewing revised manuscripts and receiving that have occurred since its identification in additional information. The papers were 1997 in Hong Kong. To discuss the experiments, published in the summer of 2012, and the flu it was important to establish first that the researchers ended their moratorium in January participants’ knowledge base was at a sufficient 2013. and similar level. Therefore, the session began Before the case was presented, each group with each group working together to standardize was asked to prepare a poster about the H5N1 their backgrounds in influenza biology. replication cycle and pathology so that those less Afterward, a brief outline was presented to familiar with the content were informed. After describe the series of events that led to the crisis this exercise, the case was presented and the in H5N1 research and subsequent moratorium participants were asked to work in groups to on continued experimentation, imposed in address the following questions representing the January 2012. key points that this case study presents: The controversy began when influenza researchers announced in September 2011 at a  Why are these experiments deemed to be flu conference in Malta that they had created dual use research of concern? Summarize mutant forms of the H5N1 influenza virus that the experiments and discuss the possible were transmissible between ferrets. The two nefarious uses of the information that might research labs involved submitted manuscripts to be gained from these experiments. the journals Science and Nature. The National  Should scientists perform the research or Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity not? (NSABB) of the United States was asked to  The uproar surrounding the two recent review the two manuscripts. The NSABB H5N1 studies spotlights the issue of whether recommended that the manuscripts be revised or not research on potentially dangerous and published with redacted details on the lab-generated pathogens should have been specific mutations and with additional conducted in the first place. What are the discussion of public health values of the work, as benefits and the risks? Do the benefits well as a description of increased safety and outweigh the risks? security research practices. A group of leading  Should the results be published or not? flu researchers declared a moratorium on the  Should this kind of work be regulated? type of research that had caused the controversy  A global issue that stems from the ongoing pending international discussion. The World H5N1 debate is how to regulate such research. Who should be in charge of                                                              52 Original case developed for the Institute. The background granting approval for potentially dangerous readings for this case were Berg et al. (1975), Enserink and studies? At what biosafety level should they Malakoff (2012), Maher (2012), Morris (2012), and Nature be conducted? Who should have access to (2012).

OCR for page 39
The Institute 59 the full results? How should all of this be questions to address (see below). Two facilitators organized and monitored? were assigned to each group, while two more functioned as “floaters,” providing their This session also used role playing as the pedagogy and content-related expertise to all the active learning technique. Each group was groups. Each group was tasked to work assigned a single role to play in the unfolding independently during the afternoons to develop crisis, which led to animated debate among the teaching modules around their assigned topic groups. The group assignments were (1) the using active learning and appropriate assessment authors, who support and justify the research techniques; the groups’ presentations are approach, (2) the NSABB, which initially summarized below. Each group had opposed the publication of the experimental opportunities throughout the week to share its details, (3) WHO, which recommended the ideas and presentations with other working publication of the experimental details, (4) the groups and was required to make a formal public, who were frightened and skeptical, and presentation to the entire Institute at the end of (5) the media, which tend to use inflammatory the week. By the end of the week, each group language to promote a story. Each group had developed a peer-reviewed, teachable unit discussed its position and then defended its on some aspect of responsible conduct of science position to the larger group while staying in its and had learned how to implement scientific assigned role. teaching and mentoring workshops on their own The learning objectives for this case touched campuses. on many of the issues covered in other sessions, such as the responsibility of researchers for the safety of the environment and community in the design of experiments. The focus of the case on Topics for the Small Working Groups dual use allowed participants to define “dual use research of concern” in the context of a real-life Research Misconduct event and to explore the ethical and regulatory Misconduct is defined as fabrication, issues related to the experiments. Finally, the falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, participants were asked to identify the issues performing, or reviewing research, or in surrounding the debate over publication of reporting research results. Fabrication is making experimental details that might lead to creation up data or results and recording or reporting of dangerous material. them. Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research Small Group Work record. Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or As previously discussed, participants were words without giving appropriate credit.53 assigned to five groups at the beginning of the Research misconduct also encompasses the Institute, so that whenever possible each group failure to comply with legal requirements for included participants from all countries without protecting researchers, human and animal overlap of participants from the same team or subjects, and the public. It is important to institution. Groups received brief descriptions of their assigned topic as well as a number of                                                              53 See http://ori.dhhs.gov/definition-misconduct.    

OCR for page 39
60 Developing Capacities for Teaching Responsible Science in the MENA Region understand that research misconduct is not an and what might prompt this, as well as what honest mistake in reasoning, differences of would prompt individuals to plagiarize, opinion, disagreeing with recognized authorities, fabricate, or falsify data. At the end of their misinterpreting results, an error in planning or presentation the group posed a question to the carrying out an experiment, or an oversight in audience, inviting them to consider ten major attribution (ibid). reasons for misconduct and then discuss them. Questions for Discussion Responsible Authorship  Should other practices besides fabrication, Writing research papers is an essential activity falsification, and plagiarism be considered for a scientific career and for the scientific research misconduct? process. Articles are important for academic  Is it fair to use “significant departure from recognition and authors have a responsibility to accepted practices” to make judgments publish their results to further the scientific about a researcher’s behavior? enterprise. But the scientific process and  Should researchers report misconduct if they scientific publication have changed significantly are concerned that doing so could adversely over the years. Research has become more impact their careers? competitive, complex, and multidisciplinary,  What evidence is needed to demonstrate with collaborations among senior scientists, that a researcher committed misconduct clinicians, undergraduate and graduate students, intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly? technicians, postdoctoral fellows, medical  What are appropriate penalties for different students and residents, statisticians, and other types of misconduct? professionals in both national and international contexts. Each brings different expectations and Group Presentation experiences to issues such as who should be Given that the groups were asked to plan how to included as authors in a paper for publication teach others, most of the presentation centered and the value of their respective contributions. around slides that defined the goals, objectives, Good scientific practices include discussions teaching sessions, and assessment procedures to before, during, and after the research process to be undertaken. The goal set out by the group was ensure that the allocation of authorship is to encourage those being taught to think ethically determined, along with sound study critically about types of misconduct and during design and attention to the protection of human this process to discuss categories of misdeeds, subjects and the ethical use of animals. causes and consequences, and reporting Individual journals have guidelines for authors, strategies for communicating to others. The and the ICMJE meets regularly to update the presentation outlined a range of assessment Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts procedures for summative measures. These were Submitted to Biomedical Journals aligned with various active learning approaches (www.icmje.org/index.html) to address emerging including discussion, case studies, jigsaw issues. approaches, and encouraging participants to voice an opinion on questions raised during Questions for Discussion teaching sessions, either by using clickers or  What does it mean to be an author of a simply raising a hand. The discussions envisaged scientific paper? by the group would cover research misconduct

OCR for page 39
The Institute 61  What are the different positions in a list of institutions, and/or disciplines. Collaboration in authors and what does each position signify? life sciences research is increasingly more Why is the order of authors important? international in scope and partnerships are more  How would you define “prior publication” and more diverse. While collaborations have and why is this important when considering been a common characteristic of almost all authorship? scientific inquiries for over 50 years, a number of  What is the difference between problems can arise. Researchers have different acknowledgment and listing as an author? styles of research, conferences, journals,  Who takes responsibility for submission and language, ethics, standards, and schedules. follow-up of revisions, etc.? Misunderstandings and conflicts caused by these  What are the problems associated with using differences can lead to undue stress on the the same data in multiple publications? group. The best way to anticipate these kinds of  Should all authors be responsible for all of problems is to address potential conflicts before the information in the paper? the work is begun or immediately as they arise.  What are some of the problems that might ensue from publishing results early, before Questions for Discussion complete confirmation?  What are the various kinds of collaborations about which you know? Group Presentation  What factors drive the increase in The presentation began with a cartoon depicting collaborative and multidisciplinary research? a too familiar situation: a young researcher being  What are the kinds of problems that informed that his chances of publication would collaborators face? be augmented by having his laboratory chief as  What are some mechanisms that might first author of the paper. The goal of the group prevent conflicts between and among was to ensure that those being taught would gain collaborators? a clear idea of what responsible authorship  What are the essential elements of successful meant, why it was important to publish, and to collaboration? understand what would motivate individuals to  How can institutions promote and support do so. Slides were used to inform the workshop successful collaboration? participants how the group would approach its teaching. The group presented a case and asked Group Presentation the workshop audience to discuss whether it was Group 3 made use of visually arresting slides to appropriate that a certain individual be an provide some theoretical background on the author. The participants were then asked to use meaning of collaboration before turning to the clickers to answers six questions about who necessary goals, objectives, and teaching might qualify as an author, ranging from those approaches. Flipcharts, clickers, handouts, and doing laboratory work to others providing audience question and answer approaches were statistical advice. all used to convey the message. To illustrate collaboration further, the group presented a real- Collaborative Science life case involving a number of countries Collaborative science is the process of researching the antimicrobial properties of conducting research as a team of multiple essential oil from a plant found in the individuals across laboratories, departments, Mediterranean region, Juniperus communis.    

OCR for page 39
62 Developing Capacities for Teaching Responsible Science in the MENA Region Issues that the group identified as vital for Questions for Discussion discussion with others included the role of each  What are some of the qualities of a great individual in a collaborative project, the time teacher? How are these similar to and frame, finances, potential conflicts of interest, different from the qualities of a good and whether working with others provided any mentor? added value. Finally, the audience was asked to  Why might a successful researcher want to consider who ought to be first author and was be a mentor to a student just entering invited to use clickers to address a range of science? options.  What responsibilities do trainees have to their research supervisors? Mentor-Trainee Relationships and  Some universities require advisors and Responsibilities trainees to create a written agreement about Academic scientists traditionally have three their future work together. How can such a interrelated and complementary roles: they document help or harm a mentoring conduct research, they teach students, and they relationship? provide service to society. Undergraduate-level  How might a younger researcher serve as a teaching in science typically focuses on students’ mentor to an older scientist? general knowledge and basic laboratory skills.  Does a researcher ever stop needing a Graduate-level teaching is focused on the deeper mentor? knowledge and complex abilities that trainees need to become independent researchers. Group Presentation Graduate programs typically assign each trainee The slide presentation by Group 4 began with an an academic advisor and research supervisor to arresting quote to make clear that the audience oversee their academic progress, but most would not be able just to sit back and listen to successful young researchers can also point to speeches. Audience involvement was expected; one or more mentors. A mentor is typically a clickers were used to collect responses. The more senior researcher who takes special interest group noted that the issues would present many in guiding a trainee’s development as a challenges and opportunities for conflict and professional. The role of a mentor may vary with participants discussed some of the potential the discipline, institution, and type of research, sources. Quality—that is, what was needed for as well as the personalities of the mentor and good mentoring—and the responsibilities of trainee. A trainee may also have different mentors and trainees were recurring themes. mentors in different areas of his or her work. The group proposed using the case of a doctoral Because faculty have a great deal of authority student whose research program became over trainees, these relationships also hold the vulnerable through the absence of a supervisor. potential for abuse. Problems can arise when The student persisted with the work after faculty and trainees have different expectations various discussions with others, but the final of their roles and responsibilities, particularly in doctoral submission was rejected by the regards to workload and allocation of time, supervisor as inadequate. Trainees would be authorship credit, standards of productivity, and invited to explain what steps each participant in relationships with other faculty. the student’s program ought to have followed, including the student himself, the supervisor, the head of department, and the academic board.

OCR for page 39
The Institute 63 Safe Laboratory Practices: Keeping the Group Presentation Community Safe Once again using slides, Group 5 began by Laboratory safety is an essential feature of a explaining what safe laboratory practice is. This responsible scientific enterprise. The was followed by the goals for its teaching development of vaccines and other prophylactic, program. Teaching approaches would be very diagnostic, and therapeutic interventions (e.g., “hands-on,” emphasizing rigorous attention to antibiotics) for the treatment of infections detail, and trainees would have to understand requires increasingly complex experimental the purpose of specific containment procedures methods that pose complex risks. Infectious for organisms with different risk profiles. disease research typically requires the use of Periodic assessment was envisaged for students animals to model human disease. As the scope to test their knowledge and practice. The group and amount of infectious disease research has introduced the case of a student who realizes expanded, there has been an increase in the risk that the virus s/he has extracted from cells is of laboratory-acquired infections among high-risk and categorized as a bioterrorism research personnel. To protect their workers and agent. Again using clickers, the audience was the surrounding community, laboratory invited to choose an answer about what the directors must incorporate good laboratory student should do from a proffered list. As its practices into their programs, and young parting display the group presented a small play scientists must be trained in laboratory safety. in the form of a silent movie. With a facilitator Global efforts to create a code of conduct for life narrating, a group member spilled an unknown scientists have tried to address the following liquid (in the form of bits of paper), which a issues: first, do no harm; second, ensure the laboratory worker discovered. The play safety of laboratory workers and the illustrated the sequence of events to follow to surrounding communities; third, incorporate warn others and then both contain and clean up the principles of the Biological Weapons the spill, including donning plastic shopping Convention into daily practice. bags to simulate disposable laboratory boots and white ladies’ gloves as their laboratory Questions for Discussion equivalent.  What are the regulatory bodies in your country that oversee laboratory safety?  How are students taught about laboratory Facilitator Debriefing safety and safe practices?  What is the reporting structure in the event Each day during the Institute the facilitators that you perceive unsafe practices? met—typically toward the end of the day and  Is there protection for people who report while the groups were working on their unsafe practices? projects—to share their successes and  What kinds of laboratories should be used challenges, compare approaches to facilitation for dangerous experiments? that might be used by others, and agree on goals  What is the Biological Weapons Convention and work for the next day’s group sessions. A and how does it apply to biomedical final session, which took place after the Institute research? ended so that facilitators could reflect on the entire week of group work, is described in Chapter 6 as part of the evaluation process.    

OCR for page 39
64 Developing Capacities for Teaching Responsible Science in the MENA Region These sessions enabled the facilitators to meetings to plan for the next day, which allowed identify issues that impeded the optimal them sometimes to alter assignments in response function of the small groups, particularly in the to the dynamics of the small groups. initial stages of collaboration. For instance, a Toward the end of the Institute, one team of policy at NASI requires all members of a team facilitators began designing the survey that was from a college or university to work together in administered three weeks after the completion of small groups to develop their teachable units. the Institute. A separate team designed the However, the dynamics in some groups at the Request for Applications (see Appendix G) that Institute resulted in the facilitation team’s was disseminated to all participants. Through decision to declare that no two people from the that mechanism, participants could apply for same institution could work together in the small grants from the Institute to help them small groups. This action enabled all participants develop instructional materials and implement a to take part in group discussions without training session in their home institutions. The concern for how they were perceived or the need next chapter presents more information on the to defer, especially in the case where teams were grants as part of the discussion of post-Institute composed of a senior faculty member and more activities and implementation. junior colleagues. Facilitators also used these