|
CISAB REU - MAY / JUNE 2003
REU 2003 Intern Evaluations of Ethics Component
1. Did you find these sessions on research ethics to be valuable? Why or why not?
A. Absolutely, because it made a lot of topics in research ethics
clearer, as well as explained the different types of standards,
guidelines, and rules that a ‘good scientist’ should always uphold.
Because I have never taken an ethics course, these sessions were very
informative and made me see the different ‘sides and angles’ of what a
researcher has to deal with.
B. To some extent, but qualified only insofar as I’ve been exposed to
research ethics before. I think that such sessions are definitely useful
and necessary for such a program, but wish they were more discussion
oriented, with a working knowledge of supplemental readings assumed.
D. Yes, they were very valuable because I knew little about research
ethics and never had a class on animal behavior. I found information on
animal research very valuable for future career goals.
E. I found the sessions to be somewhat useful. They raised a lot of
interesting questions and I was surprised to find a lot of disagreement
in the ethical case studies. The readings about animal-specific items
were most useful.
H. These sessions are very valuable to any aspiring scientist. I never
knew there were so many different ways of looking at each of the case
studies that were introduced.
2. What topic did you find most interesting & why? Should we have spent more time on it?
D. I really enjoyed the case studies because they were more hands-on
activities. We got to interact with each other and state our opinions.
There were debates and the ability to exchange views.
F. I think that decision-making that includes evaluating all factors and
beings implicated is the most interesting because of its complexity. The
way this course was designed aimed at emphasizing this aspect, however, I
do not think that there was an optimal level of discussion in that some
students barely ever voiced their opinions and concerns. Also, I would
have liked discussions and debates to have been more ‘heated’ or at least
for there to have been more disagreement leading to more in-depth
discussions.
G. The animal behavior ethics topics (yes, we should have spent more time
on it). It is interesting to hear the opinions of other students and to
read the ethical norms and standards and considerations of research in
the papers assigned.
H. I feel that we should have spent more time defining animal suffering.
It is confusing when deciding whether animal subjects are suffering in
some instances of research. There are some obvious instances but I wanted
to spend more time on the less obvious situations.
I. I thought the session on ‘ethical considerations of field and lab
research’ was most interesting and beneficial. It was something that all
researchers should know. I think we covered it pretty well within a short
amount of time.
K. Animal suffering because it is the most philosophically-loaded topic.
3. What topic did you find least interesting and why?
A. Scientific method because it’s a topic that’s been covered too much,
at least in my case.
B. I thought most of the material was quite interesting, but would have
liked the sessions to emphasize depth of understanding rather than
focusing on seemingly arbitrary divisions of research ethics.
C. I think that everything was very interesting but some of the readings
were not.
E. I found the general ethics principles the least interesting because
they were a review and not as useful as the applied ethical information.
I. I found everything to be very interesting because it was all new
information for me.
J. The whole scientific method / collegiality section was least
interesting. I have had it in many science classes already so it was in a
way repetitive for me.
4. What topic did we not cover in these sessions that you think we should have discussed?
A. Even though we mentioned it a bit I would have liked to cover the
‘animal rights’ issue a bit more.
B. I think we should have spent more time addressing different ethical
models in general.
C. We should have discussed misconduct and honest mistakes a lot more.
F. The ‘animal rights’ position. I feel as if from the start these
arguments were dismissed as unfounded (i.e., with no grounding) and I
consider this a basic flaw. I would have liked to discuss in more depth
the philosophical basis and justification of using animals for research,
other than always starting off with the strong belief that this is
perfectly justifiable and along the lines of ‘common sense’.
G. I didn’t feel that anything major was left out.
H. More historical situations that led to some of the animal rights act
should be discussed.
I. More societal issues with ethics and how researchers figure into it.
5. In conveying information on research ethics to you, what approaches (lecture, open
discussion, writing-and-discussing, a mix of everything, etc.) do you think worked well and
what approaches did not work, and why?
A. Writing-and-discussing is one of the best ways of doing this because
we can see what our original thoughts were in some cases and how the
opinions of others can change our way of thinking or looking at a problem
or issue from a different angle. But a small mix of all the approaches
works very well.
C. I feel that the open discussion worked very well, but I don’t think
the writing-and-discussing worked too well.
D. A mix of everything worked very well. Lecture was very good because
explanations of topics are more detailed. Open discussions were very fun
and interesting (seeing how others felt about topics and that everyone
has different views), writing cased me to put my thoughts down and by
discussing with others caused me to think about the issue in a different
way.
E. I think that more discussion and less lecturing would have been
useful. I did like the writing-and-discussion parts.
F. Lecture was OK, but I feel at times it was too ‘on the surface’. Open
discussion – although the space for it was always there, I do not think
it occurred as much as it should have. To solve this, I think that there
should have been more probing as to our former beliefs on the ‘benefits’
of using animals for research.
G. I think it is good to mix up approaches throughout the sessions to
keep people interested, which I thought was done.
I. I liked the mix of everything approach and found the group open
discussion to be most interesting.
6. In presenting research ethics, what are some areas where Todd could improve?
A. I think that he did a very good job and one could see how well he was
prepared for the discussions. Maybe he could have brought more real-life
cases where one could see what were the ‘real’ consequences of the many
actions people facing dilemmas had.
B. Todd gives a good overview of research ethics, but could do well to
provide additional readings from different perspectives and then allowing
the group to challenge them.
E. I think that the general ethical principles could have been summed up
faster. Also, discussion facilitation could have been better.
F. Less gloss, more in depth. Present more cases in which animals have
been used inappropriately, especially where it was ‘hard’ to get the
scientific community to become aware of the problems in question. Should
push students more to challenge their beliefs, and also to participate.
H. Presenting more of the major and nationally known cases in misconduct
in science.
J. None, he did well with the time constraints put on him.
K. He couldn’t have done any better.
7. In presenting research ethics, what are some areas where Todd did a good job?
B. Todd was concise with his lectures and emphasized active
participation. He did a good job keeping discussion focused.
D. Explaining – making you think about topics in a different way.
F. Good facilitation of discussion and at getting at the main points of
every perspective presented.
G. I thought Todd did a good job answering our questions and giving us
feedback on our input.
I. He did a great job in his lecturing and overall presentation. He
seemed to be enjoying the topics which made it enjoyable for the
students.
J. Facilitating discussion. Clarification of confusing points.
Presentation.
8. What are your thoughts on the number of sessions (too many, too few, too long, not long
enough, etc.)?
A. I think it was a good number – maybe they could make it for one or two
more sessions so that we could talk about ‘Animal Rights’ or talk more
about the topics of animal welfare.
B. Too spread out – perhaps the sessions could be covered in two days,
four hours each.
C. I think that it was a good amount and they were not too long.
E. Too many. Although they were useful, the number of days devoted to
ethics was more than I think was necessary.
G. The number of sessions was perfect.
H. I think the information I obtained in the four sessions was an
adequate amount, but there could be more.
I. I think the two-hour sessions were a good length. I could have gone a
few more days, but four seemed to cover a lot.
9. What are your thoughts on the amount of reading and other work you had to do (too
much, not enough, which reading were good, which were not, etc.)?
A. A bit too much but it wasn’t that bad because the readings were very
informative and precise on what the basic principles of ethical research
should be.
B. I would have liked additional reading, which could be used more as
reference than homework assignments.
C. There was a lot of reading, but I feel that some were not important.
The most important and interesting were the cases.
D. Just right.
G. I thought there was enough reading, which was sometimes pretty dry.
J. It was just fine – not too demanding but enough to get the wheels
turning, even though some readings were somewhat dry.
K. Any more reading would be bad. The readings themselves weren’t bad,
but a few were expendable.
10. Knowing what you know now of these sessions on research ethics, if you had been given a
choice in the matter, would you have elected to participate in them? Why or why not?
A. Of course I would have participated in them because it’s good to see
what are the different opinions of the group for different topics. Also,
one can learn a lot when discussing these topics with more people as well
as understand why some choices are made, why others aren’t, and the
consequences of these actions.
D. Yes, research ethics is very important in my field of study
(environmental biology). I plan on working with endangered species and
there are going to be major issues to work with these animals and I need
to know as much as possible to do well in the field.
E. They took a lot of time away from our research projects. Perhaps if
they were broken up a little more or not followed by faculty lectures.
Something to allow us to get in the lab more at the beginning – then I
would participate.
F. I’m always up for participating in these kinds of sessions, especially
because I want to ‘de-stereotype’ and/or ‘deconstruct’ the mainstream
beliefs of ‘science is good’ and ‘animal rights people don’t know what
they’re talking about’.
G. Yes, I thought that it was important to hear the input of other
students and Todd. It gives an idea of what you’ll deal with in
professional research.
H. Yes I would participate. Any future scientist should attend ethics
sessions. They are important to our success and well-being.
K. Probably, though maybe just for the case study parts.
|
