
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Apr | ||||||
| 1 | ||||||
| 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
| 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 |
| 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 |
| 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | ||||||
|
||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Both of us, independently, have been “victims” of research misconduct – plagiarism as well as fabricated data. One day, while venting about these experiences, we agreed to co-teach a very practical graduate course on research ethics: “Research Ethics for the Life Sciences.” The hope was that we could ward off future problems for us, our profession, and, ultimately, society. Ethical misconduct is a big crisis in science. No longer are misdeeds buried in journals; they often make for international headlines.
Our dean and department heads were enthusiastic. They must have realized that while we were reminding them of a problem, we were also willing to step up and accept the challenge of making a difference.
Neither of us are ethicists, though that didn’t seem to matter. At first blush, bioethics, a field unto itself, might be included in a research ethics course for graduate students. But, we had more than enough ground to cover in our one-hour, one-day-a-week, 8:00 am course without including bioethics content. First and foremost, we wanted our students to learn and discuss the best practices in our fields of research. Twelve students enrolled in our experiment, a pragmatic and experiential course that primarily consisted of case study discussions.
We decided to focus on the areas where graduate students, technical staff, postdocs, and even established scientists run into trouble: plagiarism, authorship, grantsmanship, peer review, research misconduct, image fraud, whistle-blowing, conflicts of interest, patenting, and as a special topic, women in science. (See our syllabus under “teaching” at http://plantsciences.utk.edu/stewart.htm.)
The first homework assignment was to find plagiarism. They did. They found gratuitous cases, and some not so black and white. Here we parsed through what is acceptable and not acceptable from a scientific standpoint. More importantly, we discussed, rather than lectured, about best practices and what happens when shortcuts are taken. So it went for the entire semester.
For those of you who’d like to teach your own courses, here’s a bit of what we learned:
Team up with another faculty member. As coinstructors we often had disparate opinions; sometimes we agreed, and sometimes we debated. The students appreciated hearing the range of opinions from us and from their peers.
Case studies are a powerful tool. They personalized real events and problems. They helped us all empathize with wrongdoers and victims, roles we’ve found ourselves in from time to time.
Teach best practices in your discipline, and not just general issues of right and wrong. Keep it practical.
Have fun. Sometimes we felt like some of the examples could be condemning – with us being the condemned. Did I plagiarize when I recycled text from my own writing? These instances don’t sound like much fun, but the students observed that we all make mistakes and we’re all human. Don’t be afraid to laugh.
Keep class size small, with a limit of 20 students. In larger classes, shy students might not feel comfortable with sharing.
Don’t focus on morality. Focus on ethics. One of our students thanked us for that specifically.
We look forward to teaching this class again. Feel free to “plagiarize” our syllabus. Teaching this course should count toward teaching (obviously), research (making it more efficient and productive by keeping open lines of communication/expectations of staff and students), and service (to your colleagues and profession). We bet it will be the best course you’ve ever taught.
C. Neal Stewart, Jr., is professor and Ivan Racheff Chair of Excellence in Plant Molecular Genetics at the University of Tennessee, where J. Lannett Edwards is associate professor and graduate director in the Department of Animal Science.
Source: http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/54226/
Matthew C. Nisbet January 9, 2008 — Washington, D.C.
Matthew C. Nisbet School of Communication, American University, 4400 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20016, USA, nisbetmc@gmail.com
Robert K. Goidel Manship School of Mass Communication at Louisiana State University
Using the contemporary debate in the United States over embryonic stem cell research as a test case, we outline a theoretical framework that points to the central impact of value predispositions, schema, political knowledge, and forms of mass media use in shaping public perceptions of science. In the process, by proposing an alternative approach to the dominant science literacy model, we address the existing divide between survey-based and ethnographic studies. Analyzing nationally representative survey data collected in the US in the fall of 2003, our findings suggest that value predispositions related to Christian conservatism and social ideology, along with schema related to abortion and reservations about science, serve as primary influences on citizen evaluations of embryonic stem cell research and therapeutic cloning, while our measure of issue-specific political knowledge had no statistically significant impact. In addition, after all controls, attention to newspaper coverage along with various forms of genre-specific entertainment television use have unique influences on citizen evaluations, suggesting that the mass media provide an important part of the social context by which citizens judge controversial science. Other survey results since our data collection in 2003 lend support to our findings. Religious and ideological values appear to filter the influence of information disseminated by scientific institutions. We conclude by discussing future research that connects findings from ethnographic studies with survey-based approaches.
Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 16, No. 4, 421-440 (2007)