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