|
CISAB REU - MAY / JUNE 2004
1. Did you find these sessions on research ethics to be valuable? Why or why not?
A. Yes. They forced you to think through the problem rather than making a rash decision.
B. Yes – I learned so much. And the things we discuss are going to be very useful to me.
C. Yes I did because I learned a lot about the basics of research ethics. I don’t think I’ll have a chance to take an ethics course in my undergrad career, so this was a great opportunity to experience what I might not otherwise have learned.
D. Yes, because it showed how much critical thinking researchers have to do in their work with animals.
E. Yes. I’ve never had to deal with these issues.
F. Yes. I have never taken an ethics session before and it taught me many new things that will be very beneficial.
G. I liked the discussions but I did not learn anything new.
H. I found the sessions to be valuable; I learned more about the guidelines for research, which I was not very familiar with.
2. What topic did you find most interesting & why? Should we have spent more time on it?
A. Animal welfare issues in behavioral research – we need to keep these issues in mind.
B. The topic about the framework you should follow in order to make ethical decisions.
C. I found the mini-cases most interesting because there was so much discussion and the answers weren’t always so clear. It was good to see that not everything will be clear-cut and the discussions made us exercise higher and more in-depth thinking.
D. The critical thinking situations.
E. Animal welfare.
F. Animal rights because I wanted to learn more on the topic.
G. I liked going through the short stories of ethical vs. not-ethical situations.
H. I found the topic of predation research interesting because it seems that there needs to be a different set of rules and guidelines for this type of research.
3. What topic did you find least interesting and why?
A. Six domains and utilitarianism etc. discussions – definitions don’t help; practice does.
B. The topic about the different approaches of ethics. But probably because I don’t clearly understand each of them.
C. Laws and guidelines, but I guess they’re not meant to be interesting.
D. Plagiarism.
E. 9 hours of the same subject.
F. Introduction to ethical theory was not very interesting because it was basic information and just something you stick in your head.
G. The predations things because it was just presented as notes.
H. I found the basic philosophy of ethics least interesting because it didn’t seems as applicable as everything else we discussed. However, I understand that we need to know that.
4. What topic did we not cover in these sessions that you think we should have discussed?
A. I think more real case studies would be a good idea.
B. The one about the approaches.
C. I would like to have seen more about the actual process of IACUC review – what they look for, what papers we might one day have to file and some examples of when the committees make exceptions to their rules.
D. Steps to make sure you do not mistreat animals.
E. What to do with the animals after a study has concluded.
F. I would not really know.
G. I think the pitfalls of using alternatives to animals in research should have been talked about more.
H. I think we should have discussed more human research in comparison to animal research.
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. Discussion helped most as it allowed for more opinions to be brought up.
B. I think everything worked well. I enjoyed the ‘mix of everything’.
C. Mixture worked well, but less lecture and note taking (this is summer vacation). Possibly some handouts with vocabulary on them and outlines of what will be covered, so there is less lecture and more discussion.
D. Lectures were a little long-winded and boring but the open debate stirred some good discussion.
E. More entertainment is needed – a movie on the subject would be nice.
F. The writing part worked very well because it got us to participate and discuss the topics with one another. Personally for me the lecture part did not work too well because I hear them all the time.
G. The discussion was good. The writing and then discussion was too redundant.
H. I liked the group discussion better than lecture because we were more likely to apply it to what we are doing.
6. In presenting research ethics, what are some areas where Todd could improve?
A. Increase number of case studies and discussion; decrease lectures and definitions.
B. He should give us more examples from real life.
C. A video or powerpoint would have been nice.
D. More structured guidelines in discussion.
E. Entertainment.
F. He was pretty good at everything.
G. Nothing really. Maybe let students have more discussion between themselves without him talking.
H. I can’t think of anything, except maybe more discussion.
7. In presenting research ethics, what are some areas where Todd did a good job?
A. Good with bringing in outside information.
B. All of them.
C. He was very knowledgeable and thoughtful. He presented a lot of material on a level everyone could understand and respond to intelligently.
D. Creating topics of great discussion.
E. Knowledge of the topic.
F. He did a good job in giving explanations for people’s views.
G. Everything else.
H. I though he made the topic very interesting and picked useful readings for us.
8. What are your thoughts on the number of sessions (too many, too few, too long, not long enough, etc.)?
A. Too long; too few.
B. They were OK. Probably two more could be better.
C. Three was an OK number, but I wouldn’t mind if the sessions were shorter.
D. Just right because it was only for 3 days and 3 hours.
E. Just right.
F. I felt it was a perfect number of sessions but just a little too long.
G. Too long.
H. I think more and shorter sessions may be more effective.,p>
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. Readings were OK, but a bit boring.
B. Just right. The first one was great.
C. A little too much outside reading, although all the readings were informative.
D. The readings were just right considering we have other work to do.
E. Too much expected writing (length of response).
F. It was just right – not too much and not too little.
G. The readings weren’t long but they did cover a lot of the same things.
H. I enjoyed the readings and could have done more if necessary.
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. Yes. They were good in helping prepare us for the future. Maybe we’ll be able to refer to them in the future.
B. Yes.
C. I was actually looking forward to the ethics sessions (although the length of the sessions wasn’t encouraging) and I wasn’t disappointed. I learned something and it was interesting.
D. Yes, because I am always looking to gain further knowledge.
E. No, I think the information just needs to be presented once – not 9 hours of it.
F. Yes I would because I need to know this information for the summer.
G. I probably would have chosen not to participate because I have worked in a lot of labs and already had a good grasp of things.
H. I would have; I think everyone who will do animal research should have this background knowledge.
|
