In the Classroom
Integrating Ethics in Science into a Summer Undergraduate Research Program Amy M. Shachter Department of Chemistry, Santa Clara University, Santa Clara, CA, 95053;
[email protected] Over the past decade, various governmental (1) and professional organizations (2) have recommended education in the Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR). The National Institutes of Health (NIH) (1) require that recipients of research training grants include instruction in RCR. Most recently, the Office of Research Integrity’s Public Health Service (PHS) proposed a policy on the instruction in RCR that requires that “research staff at extramural institutions shall complete a basic program of instruction in the RCR” (3). Furthermore, “with this policy, PHS extends the existing NIH educational requirement for research trainees to all research staff …who have direct and substantive involvement in proposing, performing, reviewing, or reporting research or who receive research training, supported by PHS funds or who otherwise work on PHS-supported research projects even if the individual does not receive PHS support.” The proposed PHS policy gives institutions flexibility in determining who reasonably falls in the scope of the policy and also in the length, level, exact content, and method of the instruction. The policy does, however, describe nine core areas that should be included in RCR programs of instruction (see Appendix). The policy outlines the core areas but allows an institution the discretion to address only the core areas that relate to the research conducted at the institution. For example, if human subjects research is not conducted, core area 6 could be omitted from the program of instruction. The implementation of the PHS policy was scheduled for 2003 but has been suspended pending further review (3). Furthermore, the PHS has outlined long-term goals for RCR instruction.
Program Overview Undergraduate research students (approximately 20 per summer), chemistry faculty members, and faculty from our Markkula Center of Applied Ethics (MCAE) participate in nine Ethics in Science sessions per summer. Students gain an appreciation for accepted scientific practices and familiarity with professional guidelines (RCR Goal 1) through discussions of the American Chemical Society’s (ACS) The Chemist’s Code of Conduct (8) and ACS Ethical Guidelines to the Publication of Chemical Research (9). Table 1 lists the titles of video vignettes (from the Integrity in Scientific Research series developed by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) [10] ) that underpin instruction in the core areas described in the Appendix. An ethical decisionmaking framework developed for our program (Figure 1) provides a mechanism for developing the ability of students to make ethical choices (RCR Goal 2). The framework is designed to guide a discussion of issues surrounding the responsible conduct of research and facilitate the consideration of a range of ethical choices in the context of accepted scientific practices and broader personal and societal concerns (RCR Goal 3). Throughout the program, students and faculty are challenged to understand the context of the scenario, define the ethical problems, identify the correlated options, and assess those options in light of their own experience in each session (RCR Goals 1–3). Ethical Decision-Making Framework
•
RCR Goal 1 Increasing the knowledge of, and sensitivity to, issues surrounding the responsible conduct of research
Our experience has been that undergraduates have difficulty beginning discussions about ethical issues in science. Since they have very little experience in a research setting, undergraduates often have no context for the ethical issues
•
RCR Goal 2 Improving the ability of participants to make ethical and legal choices in the face of the conflicts involving scientific research
Table 1. Ethical Issues Presented in AAAS Integrity in Scientific Research Videos
•
RCR Goal 3 Developing appreciation for the range of accepted scientific practices for conducting research
In recent years, graduate (4) and undergraduate (5–7) courses focusing on ethics in science have been developed that may indeed meet some or all of the instructional requirements of the proposed PHS policy. The Ethics in Science program described here has been in place for six years as a component of a summer undergraduate research site, sponsored by the National Science Foundation–Research Experiences for Undergraduates (NSF–REU) program. The goals and course content of the Ethics in Science program overlap with those prescribed by the PHS. The Ethics in Science program described below can serve as a model for implementing RCR instructional programs.
Video
Ethical Issue
PHS Core Areas
Only a Bridge
Intellectual Property; Credit Confidentiality; Peer Review
1, 4, 9
Noah's Dilemma
Data Selection; Truthful Reporting of Results
1, 2, 3
Of Mice and Mendoza
Confidentiality Agreements; Sharing of Research Data
5, 7, 9
Where Credit Is Due
Co-authorship and Credit
1, 2, 3, 5
The Whole Truth
Research Misconduct; Data Fabrication; Treatment of Lab Animals
1, 2, 7, 8
JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu • Vol. 80 No. 5 May 2003 • Journal of Chemical Education
507
In the Classroom
and, consequently, are quick to view the ethical issues as black-and-white situations. To initiate and guide a discussion of ethical issues in science, we have found a framework to be very helpful. For the first two years of the Ethics in Science program, an ethical decision-making framework (11) designed by our ethics center was used. The framework contained ethics jargon that made application of the outline difficult given the time constraints of the summer program. The
Ethical Decision-Making in Science Sensitivity, Judgment, and Commitment Ethics poses questions about how we ought to act, how we should conduct ourselves as scientists, and how we should live. Questions may include: According to what standards are these actions right or wrong? What character traits (honesty, compassion, and fairness) are necessary to live a truly human life and to conduct ourselves professionally as scientists? What concerns or groups do we usually minimize or ignore? Why?
Sensitivity 1. Recognize the ethical issue(s) related to the practice of science and identify the relevant facts and evidence. 2. Identify the stakeholders and describe their relationships (professional and personal).
Judgment 3. Identify your possible actions and try to predict the consequences. 4. Evaluate each option: • Is the action professional and responsible? (Is it the right thing to do?) • If the action is pursued, will the good outweigh the harm? (Is this the right thing to do considering all the consequences? Is it in your best interest [personally and professionally] to pursue this course of action?) • Is the action fair to the stakeholders?
Ethics Session Format Each research mentor was asked to choose a video to lead the discussion each week. After all the AAAS videos were used, a “real-world” scenario from the recent news was selected. The faculty member then met with ethics faculty before the ethics session to plan and organize the discussion. The research mentor would introduce the video or ethical issue in the news and present essential background information. A discussion of the practice of science as related to the
Application of an Ethical Decision-Making Framework Scenario from The Whole Truth (AAAS) for Class Discussion Kevin (Ph.D.-level researcher) presented a poster recently. Sandy (graduate student) noticed discrepancies between what Kevin reported and what actually occurred during the research. With some hesitation, Sandy voices her concerns to Cornwall, the lab director. Cornwall and Kevin have a discussion but the issue between Cornwall and Kevin is not resolved. Applying the Ethical Decision-Making Framework
Sensitivity
• Does the action protect the rights and dignity of the stakeholders?
1. Recognize issue and identify facts and evidence
1. Data fabrication: Examine laboratory notebooks
2. Identify stakeholders
• If this action is not carried out, will you be the type of scientist and person you aspire to be? (Will you be able to sleep at night?)
2. Sandy, Kevin, Cornwall, others
3. Identify actions
3. Talk to Kevin, Cornwall; Say nothing; Leave the group
4. Evaluate options
4. Evaluate: Do the right thing? Other questions?
5. Consider alternatives
5. Discuss options with other students and mentor
5. Discuss options with a mentor, colleague, or other person you respect. Consider alternatives that may result from discussions.
Commitment 6. Decide on a course of action to best resolve the issue, and act. 7. Prepare to resolve conflicts or issues resulting from your course of action. Figure 1. Ethical Decision-Making Framework in Science: Sensitivity, Judgment, and Commitment.
508
MCAE framework was modified to better meet the needs of the Ethics in Science program. The modified ethical decisionmaking framework focuses on the areas of ethical sensitivity, judgment, and commitment (Figure 1). Ethical sensitivity relates to a student’s ability to identify an ethical issue, relevant facts and evidence, and related stakeholders. Ethical judgment involves developing options and evaluating those options. Finally, ethical commitment relates to deciding on an ethical option and acting on that decision. Managing the consequences of the ethical decision is also a component of the ethical commitment aspect of the framework. An application of the framework is shown in Figure 2. Typically, the framework is applied in a stepwise fashion to guide discussions the first few weeks. After students are more experienced, the framework becomes transparent in the discussions.
Judgment
Commitment 6. Decide and act
6. Decide (talk to Cornwall)
7. Resolve conflicts
7. Plan to resolve conflicts (Kevin and others)
Figure 2. Example of a brief application of the ethical decisionmaking framework.
Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 80 No. 5 May 2003 • JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu
In the Classroom
video/news material was essential before entering into a detailed ethical analysis. Undergraduates are typically not familiar with basic standards for scientific conduct and mechanisms for research funding and publication. Entering into a discussion of ethics without an appropriate introduction to the context of the ethical issue leaves undergraduates confused and makes a discussion of options for a given scenario very limited.
Applying the Framework: A Class Example The practice of science discussion related to the scenario outlined in Figure 2 focused on topics related to PHS Core areas 1, 2, 7, and 8. We examined the issues of maintaining notebooks and proper record keeping; mentor/trainee relationships, mentor/trainee responsibilities and conflicts; treatment of animals (typically mentioned but not discussed in detail since animal research is not conducted in the program); and data falsification. To encourage participation, students were asked to view themselves as characters in the scenario. For example, students were asked to view themselves as Sandy in the description synopsized in Figure 2. After watching the video or reading a scenario, students and faculty would work separately in small groups using the ethical decision-making framework to decide on a course of action. (Faculty and students were in separate groups to prevent students from defaulting to an authority figure for a decision—a strategy learned early in the program.) After meeting in small groups, students would present their ideas and the ethics faculty member would lead a discussion of the results. Ethics faculty were particularly adept at guiding the assessment of options, while chemistry faculty contributed options based on standards of appropriate scientific practice. Faculty Collaboration and the Practice of Science Initially, ethics sessions were designed and executed by MCAE faculty with minimal input from the chemistry faculty. The need for the chemistry faculty to work closely with the ethicists quickly became apparent. Chemistry faculty had to learn about the practice of ethics and contribute their ideas on ethical issues in science. The ethics faculty had to become acquainted with the practice of science and the application
of ethical decision-making to more specific scientific issues. In the end, a close collaboration evolved that has generated the program described here. Participation of the chemistry faculty (typically 5–7) in each session was extremely valuable. First, the presence of the faculty demonstrated the importance of the discussions. Students realized that these sessions were a serious, integral part of their summer research experience. Many faculty followed up the formal sessions with informal discussions in their research labs to address topics in more depth. Secondly, each faculty member seemed to adopt a topic of particular interest. Consequently, many prepared their ethics session with great enthusiasm—again an excellent example for students. Finally, each faculty member brought his or her own experience to the discussion. Interestingly, every faculty member had had personal experience with one or more ethical issues in his or her career. Such experience adds vigor to the discussions. Students gain the understanding that real-life ethical scenarios occur more often than first thought and that having tools available to identify issues and analyze options is very valuable. Assessment The learning outcomes for Ethics in Science discussions were for students to develop the ability to identify when a research issue is an ethical one and the knowledge and skills needed to perform an ethical analysis. To assess the program, student surveys were conducted to provide qualitative feedback and writing samples were obtained and evaluated to quantify program effectiveness. Survey results are listed in Table 2 and indicate a very positive student response. To assess the program’s effectiveness, students were asked to write a short response for each of these three scenarios.
Scenario 1 You are the editor of a journal and you receive a letter from reviewer A indicating that reviewer B has been disregarding the confidentiality guidelines of the journal. You know from private conversion that reviewer B is under a great deal of stress—with a new home, a second child recently born, and competing for promotion/tenure—and this would explain the infraction. What do you write in response to the letter you received?
Table 2. Student Survey Results Assessing the Ethics in Science Program Statements (Number of respondents = 64)
Strongly Agree Agree (percent) (percent)
Disagree (percent)
1. The Ethics in Science program has raised my sensitivity to ethical issues in science.
18
78
04
2. The ethical decision-making framework has been a useful tool.
13
76
11
3. The program has made me aware of general practices in science such as publication process and co-authorship.
53
47
4. Chemistry faculty have really helped clarify the ethical issues.
28
68
04
5. The Ethics Center faculty have assisted in discussing the ethical issues.
11
68
17
6. The level of student involvement in discussions was appropriate.
23
66
11
7. The ethics program helped promote student– student communication.
15
75
07
8. The ethics program helped promote faculty– student interaction.
18
68
14
Strongly Disagree (percent)
4
JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu • Vol. 80 No. 5 May 2003 • Journal of Chemical Education
509
In the Classroom
Scenario 2 The president of your company has recently asked you to write a letter for one of your colleagues who is being considered for promotion to a research position. In reviewing the colleague’s résumé you discover that he has no significant research experience except for participation in an NSF– REU research program during the same summer you participated in the program that was listed. You know he did not participate in the program. What do you write in your letter of recommendation? Scenario 3 You have just received two memos. One is from the president of your company congratulating you and your research group on publication of significant research results and informing you that you and your colleagues will receive a substantial bonus for your work. The other memo is from a member of your research group informing you that she knows that someone had falsified the data that were the basis for the publication. Respond to both memos. Assessment Using Writing about Ethics These scenarios, along with several others, were used during the 1997–98 academic year in a larger project (Writing about Ethics) involving junior chemistry majors and a selection of over 200 students in various courses across the campus. Summer research students (NSF–REU) were asked to respond to the surveys at the end of the summer. The NSF– REU, chemistry major, and campus-wide writing samples were evaluated in the areas of ethical sensitivity, judgment, and commitment using criteria developed by the Writing about Ethics program. Sensitivity was evaluated by considering whether the responses to the scenarios: •
Went beyond just the facts to express values
•
Were attuned to the benefits and burdens of others (stakeholders)
•
Selected facts indicating positive values
•
Approached problems as an ethical issue rather than focusing on the legal or management aspects
•
Revealed “gut feelings” and gave weight to them in deliberation
Judgment was evaluated by considering whether the responses: •
Articulated moral principles that pertain to the scenarios
•
Demonstrated a knowledge of various courses of action
•
Recognized conflicts among various stakeholders or conflicting responsibilities
•
Gave reasoned justifications for his or her actions that indicate shared values
•
Claimed implicitly or explicitly that the judgment made is more than merely one person’s opinion
Commitment was assessed by considering whether the responses: •
Indicated a willingness to take action
•
Gave priority to moral values over other competing values
•
Noted a link between judgment and action
510
•
Linked professional integrity with moral integrity
•
Recognized that further action may be required and indicated a willingness to take such action
The responses were scored as having “much” sensitivity, judgment, or commitment if four or five of the stated criteria are present, “some” if three of the five are present, and “little” if only one or two criteria are present. A response to scenario 1 by a summer 1999 NSF–REU participant evaluated as having “much” sensitivity, judgment, and commitment appears below. “The value of integrity is the ethical issue to be dealt with in this scenario. It is obvious that reviewer B has broken an ethical rule of the journal; to keep confidentiality. The key players in this situation are the two reviewers; A, the one who brought my attention to the action, and B, the one that broke confidentiality. To each reviewer, I would mention the following in a letter:” Reviewer A: I would like to thank you for bringing this issue before me, rather than letting it slide. As a reviewer, this person is responsible for keeping confidentiality within the journal, even if the confidentiality rule is not directly their dilemma. The person (reviewer A) made the right decision; to protect the personal findings/discoveries of the scientists who have submitted data for publication. I would continue to reassure reviewer A that the right choice was made because often times people who let the appropriate authorities know what is happening are looked at as “squealers” or “snitches”. I want to make the reviewer confident that the next time another infringement occurs that they feel comfortable coming to me to relay the truth. I find nothing wrong with the actions of reviewer A. The journal has the responsibility of keeping confidentiality, and that confidentiality must be kept. Reviewer A was thinking on behalf of the entire journal; no personal gain was to be attained by this action. Reviewer B: The letter to reviewer B is a little trickier, mainly because of their current situation and consequent mode of action. To begin, I’d let the reviewer know that I know confidentiality was breached. I would not beat around the bush, or sugar coat this knowledge, I would bluntly state to the reviewer, “I am aware that you have disregarded confidentiality guidelines”. I would not give any indication of my source of knowledge, whether it was attained second hand or I figured it out myself. I do tell the reviewer of my knowledge; I would try not to be destructive about it. Rather, I would be sympathetic because of the reviewer’s situation in and out of work. However, his situation does not excuse him from his action. I would request the reviewer in to see me because a letter is not as powerful as an eye-to-eye conversation. Also, I would ask the reviewer for what purpose was the information given, simply to know. Finally, I’d assure the reviewer that his job is secure at the current moment but if ever this situation arises again, he will be removed as a reviewer for the journal. This is done in hopes that the reviewer will learn their lesson and keep confidentiality when reviewing future articles.
Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 80 No. 5 May 2003 • JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu
In the Classroom
The NSF-REU writing samples were evaluated using the assessment criteria described above and the results compared to chemistry majors (Chemistry) and the campus-wide (All) sample (Figures 3–5). In summary, 75% or more of the REU students who completed the ethics sessions displayed “much” or “some” ethical sensitivity, judgment, and commitment. In the chemistry and campus-wide groups, 48% or less were assessed as having “much” or “some” ethical sensitivity and judgment. In the area of commitment, 59% of the chemistry sample and 37% of the campus-wide group were evaluated in the “much” or “some” range. Clearly, the results indicate the Ethics in Science sessions are successful in meeting the primary learning goals of developing the ability to identify when a research issue is an ethical one (ethical sensitivity) and the knowledge and skills needed to perform an ethical analysis (judgment and commitment). NSF–REU students appear to have a greater level of ethical sensitivity, judgment, and commitment than students who have not participated in a focused ethics program. Overall, the scenario assessment indicates the Ethics in Science program has been successful in meeting the intended learning outcomes.
70%
REU
Chemistry
All
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0% Much
Some
Little
None
Figure 3. Sensitivity Assessment (n REU = 64, n chem = 88, n all = 441).
60%
Summary Summer research students and faculty mentors participated in weekly Ethics in Science discussions. The sessions were coordinated by chemistry faculty in collaboration with ethicists from the Markkula Center of Applied Ethics. Video vignettes from the Integrity in Scientific Research series developed by the American Association for the Advancement of Science were viewed and provided the basis of discussions. The students and faculty were challenged to define the ethical problems, identify options for addressing the issue, and assess those options in light of their own experience. An ethical decisionmaking framework developed in collaboration with MCAE staff was used. Undergraduates developed the ability to identify when a research issue is an ethical one and the knowledge and skills needed to perform an ethical analysis. Student and faculty response to the Ethics in Science component has been positive. Written student responses to ethical scenarios were used to assess the program effectiveness and indicated a high level of success in attaining our learning outcomes. The Ethics in Science program provides a model for RCR instructional programs. Acknowledgments
REU
Chemistry
All
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0% Much
Some
Little
None
Figure 4. Judgment Assessment (n REU = 64, n chem = 86, n all = 403).
70%
REU
Margaret McLean assisted in the refinement of the framework. Brian McNelis was co-director of the first three years of the NSF–REU program and contributed to the first drafts of this paper. Thomas Shanks, Margaret McLean, Neil Quinn, and Barry Stenger coordinated the ethics program for the MCAE. Linda Brunauer, Michael Sweeney, Patrick Hoggard, W. Atom Yee, Julie Mueller, John Thoburn, and Lawrence Nathan were NSF–REU faculty participants. The Ethics in Writing program and methods of analysis were developed by Barry Stenger and Douglas Sweet. Funding was provided by NSF grants CHE-9820382 and CHE-953172. The summer 2001 program was expanded to include biology faculty and students and was partially funded by an award to Santa Clara University from the Undergraduate Biological Sciences Education Program of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.
Chemistry
All
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0% Much
Some
Little
None
Figure 5. Commitment Assessment (n REU = 64, n chem = 76, n all = 392).
JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu • Vol. 80 No. 5 May 2003 • Journal of Chemical Education
511
In the Classroom
Literature Cited
4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.
1. http://www.nih.gov/news/irnews/guidelines.htm (accessed Jan 2003); http://www1.od.nih.gov/oir/sourcebook/ethic-conduct/ mentor-guide.htm (accessed Jan 2003); http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/ ses/sdest/reulst98.htm (accessed Jan 2003). 2. http://www.aaas.org (accessed Jan 2003); http://www.acs.org (accessed Jan 2003). 3. http://www.ori.dhhs.gov/html/programs/finalpolicy.asp (accessed Jan 2003); http://ori.dhhs.gov/html/programs/ rcr_requirements.asp (accessed Jan 2003).
Vincent, J. B. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 1501. Moody, A.; Freeman, R. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 1224. Sweeting, L. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 369. Coppola, B. P. J. Chem. Educ. 2000, 77, 1506. http://www.acs.org/membership/conduct.html (accessed Jan 2003). http://pubs.acs.org/instruct/ethic.html (accessed Jan 2003). http://www.aaas.org/spp/video/ (accessed Jan 2003). Velasqez, M.; Andre, C.; Shanks, T.; Meyer, M. Thinking Ethically: A Framework for Moral Decision Making. Issues in Ethics—Markkula Center of Applied Ethics 1996, 7, 2. (Our science framework was modified from this source.)
Appendix: Core Areas of RCR Instruction (3) Instructional Area 1: Data Acquisition Discusses data acquisition, management, sharing, and ownership, as well as accepted practices for acquiring and maintaining research data. Includes defining what constitutes data, keeping data notebooks or electronic files; data privacy and confidentiality, data selection, retention, sharing, ownership, and analysis; data as legal documents and intellectual property, and copyright laws. Instructional Area 2: Mentor–Trainee Roles Delineates mentor–trainee responsibilities, including both mentor and trainee responsibilities in predoctoral and post-doctoral research programs. Discusses the role of a mentor, responsibilities of a mentor, conflicts between a mentor and trainee, collaboration and competition, selection of a mentor, and abuse of the mentor–trainee relationship. Instructional Area 3: Responsible Publication Practices Describes publication practices and responsible authorship, including the purpose and importance of scientific publication, and the responsibilities of the authors. Discusses topics such as collaborative work and assigning appropriate credit, acknowledgments, appropriate citations, repetitive publications, fragmentary publication, sufficient description of methods, corrections and retractions, conventions for deciding upon the authors, author responsibilities, and the pressure to publish. Instructional Area 4: Peer Review Discusses peer review and its purpose in determining merit for research funding and publications. Includes topics such as the definition of peer review, impartiality, how peer review works, editorial boards and ad hoc reviewers, responsibilities of the reviewers, and privileged information and confidentiality.
512
Instructional Area 5: Practicing Collaborative Science Describes collaborative science, including topics such as setting the ground rules early in the collaboration, avoiding authorship disputes, and sharing of the materials and information with internal and external collaborating scientists. Instructional Area 6: Human Subjects Research Defines human subjects research, including topics such as ethical principles for conducting human subjects research, informed consent, confidentiality and privacy of data and patient records, risks and benefits, preparation of a research protocol, institutional review boards, adherence to study protocol, proper conduct of the study, and special protections for targeted populations (e.g., children, minorities, and the elderly). Instructional Area 7: Animals in Research Defines research involving animals and discusses topics such as ethical principles for conducting research on animals, federal regulations governing animal research, institutional animal care and use committees, and treatment of animals. Instructional Area 8: Research Misconduct Discusses research misconduct, including topics such as fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism; error versus intentional misconduct; institutional misconduct policies; identifying misconduct; procedures for reporting misconduct; protection of whistleblowers; and outcomes of investigations, including institutional and federal actions. Instructional Area 9: Conflicts of Interest Defines different kinds of conflicts of interest; discusses how to handle conflicts of interest as well as conflicts associated with collaborators and publications; describes financial conflicts, obligations to other constituents, and other types of conflicts.
Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 80 No. 5 May 2003 • JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu
