Chemistry for Everyone
Introducing Summer High School Student–Researchers to Ethics in Scientific Research
W
A Case Study-Based Workshop Patricia Ann Mabrouk Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology, Northeastern University, Boston, MA 02115;
[email protected] A number of college and university science apprenticeship programs target high school students. The majority of these programs focus on providing these students with research apprenticeships in active research groups at colleges or universities, companies, or government research laboratories. Examples of notable science enrichment programs include the American Chemical Society’s Summer Experiences for Economically Disadvantaged Students (SEED)1 and the National Science Foundation’s Research Assistantship for Minority High School Students (NSF–RAMHSS) program. These programs seek not only to provide younger students with hands-on experience in the technical aspects of modern scientific research but also to help these students construct a valid cognitive picture of the nature and scope of the practice of modern science. A number of educational studies have demonstrated the efficacy of these programs in shaping students’ understanding of the culture and practice of science (1–3). An important element in the enculturation of these students is familiarizing them with the norms and values held by the greater scientific community that guide the practice of scientific research. Consequently, directors and faculty mentors of the high school students in these summer enrichment programs have an important opportunity—even obligation—to educate younger students concerning scientific ethics. The eagerness of younger students to please, coupled with (i) their limited understanding of the culture and practices of scientific research (1), including intellectual property, confidentiality, record keeping, data analysis, and publication practices, (ii) the increasingly technically sophisticated nature of student research projects, and (iii) the increased emphasis that scientific ethics is receiving from funding agencies, including the National Institutes of Health, provide powerful arguments for discussing scientific ethics with high school research students formally as part of their research experience. At present neither the ACS SEED nor the NSF–RAMHSS program places any formal programmatic requirements on its mentors in terms of ethics training. No programmatic data are available concerning the number of SEED mentors who discuss ethics in science with their protégés. To some, the initiation of a formal requirement for ethics training might be viewed negatively. After all, the place of research ethics education remains a controversial subject even in terms of graduate student training (4). Not everyone is comfortable discussing scientific ethics or ethics in general. We believe that the earlier student researchers think about and discuss ethical and societal implications of science with practicing scientists, the greater the benefits will be for all. For example, open discussion of ethics in science when young protégés are first “trying on” the mantle of scientist may be beneficial both in attracting and retaining talented youth to
952
Journal of Chemical Education
•
pursue careers in science and engineering. Timely instruction should also make it easier for science faculty to integrate research ethics with their technical curricula at both the undergraduate and graduate levels (as students will already be familiar with the ethical and social norms of their chosen profession) and to explore more deeply the societal implications of their work and that of the greater scientific community in which they will be an integral part. The case study method is an attractive vehicle for discussing science ethics. A number of papers in this Journal and others describe efforts to teach ethics to undergraduate or graduate students using a case-study approach (5–8). Several books on scientific ethics use a case study approach as their basis (9–11). In this method, discussion centers around “cases”, brief stories often summarizing real-life situations (appropriately disguised to ensure confidentiality) faced by apprentice (peers) or professional practitioners. The cases are usually “messy”—purposely written to be ambiguous in the specifics of the situation described—complicated in terms of the issues involved, lacking “cookie cutter” solutions, and encouraging critical thinking, explicit identification of tacitly held assumptions and beliefs, and effective communication. Discussion of cases is often guided by a series of written questions and accomplished by students working in teams. The group effort forces students to be active rather than passive participants in the learning process, to listen carefully to their peers, and to communicate respectfully and clearly. Working on the premise that it is more likely faculty will discuss scientific ethics with their students if we provide them with materials and an approach that they can comfortably use to introduce scientific ethics to their protégés, this paper reports on the development and assessment of materials that can be used to provide research ethics training to high school student–researchers participating in summer research apprenticeship programs. Results For the past three years, the author has run a workshop on scientific ethics for high school students participating in two summer research programs: the American Chemical Society’s Project SEED1 and Northeastern University’s Young Scholars program.2 ACS SEED is a nationally recognized minority mentoring program that provides summer chemical research experiences for talented high school students from economically disadvantaged families. The Young Scholars Program is a competitive local summer program, funded by the Noyce Foundation, for area high school sophomores or juniors who have a demonstrated aptitude for mathematics and science and have expressed an interest in pursuing a career in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics. Both pro-
Vol. 84 No. 6 June 2007
•
www.JCE.DivCHED.org
Chemistry for Everyone
grams are eight-week-long enrichment programs in which the high school students work on an original research project as a member of a graduate research group in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics on the Northeastern University campus in Boston, MA. Each time the one-hour workshop was conducted during the first week of the summer program. Seventeen high school students participated in the scientific ethics workshop in summer 2004, nineteen participated in summer 2005, and twenty participated in summer 2006. Participants from both the ACS SEED and Young Scholars program came from high schools in the greater Boston area. An outline for the scientific ethics workshop is provided in Textbox 1. The workshop began with succinct personal introductions by the presenter (5 minutes). The workshop facilitator briefly introduced herself and outlined her research group’s interests and her own educational history. The ethical challenges most frequently identified by undergraduate student researchers (12)—assignment of credit, confidentiality, plagiarism, and fabrication or falsification of data—were then introduced and defined (10 minutes). Student participants were then divided into groups (a classroom with round tables facilitates this process) and each team was assigned one of five case studies (four were used in 2004 and 2005) developed specifically for the workshop. The case studies were loosely adapted from articles published in The Chronicle of Higher Education (13–17) or the MIT Spectrum (18). After 15 minutes, the groups were brought back together and over the next 20 minutes each team presented their case study. At the end of each presentation, the workshop facilitator closed the discussion by presenting a brief summary of the real-life story on which each case study was based. During the last 10 minutes of the workshop, the students were asked as a group to identify any general strategies that they felt they could use in dealing with ethical dilemmas that might arise in the future. Each year, the groups identified a number of strategies, including discussion with others (peers, parents, and teachers); consideration of the possible outcomes of different paths; and evaluation of the consequences to themselves and any other individuals involved in the situation prior to taking any actions. This conversation provides a good opportunity to introduce students to ethical theory and its major classes, including egoism, deontology, and utilitarianism. To crystallize student thinking about ethical decision making, participants are provided with a checklist of six useful questions to ask in ethical decision making: specifically, identifying the action or inaction that is at issue; the affected individuals or groups; relevant laws or regulations; possible actions and consequences; and viable corrective actions. When the facilitator asked at the close if there were any questions, a lively discussion ensued each time focused largely on plagiarism as it relates to the college admissions application essays. The level of interest in this topic was not surprising; most of these students were likely participating in the summer enrichment programs with an eye toward improving their odds for admission to the college or university of their choice. What was surprising was that in all three workshops, the students appeared to be quite shocked that they couldn’t copy other people’s words verbatim without attribution. This is most significant as it brings home the point that research mentors should not assume that high school students are knowledgeable concerning the issue of plagiarism. www.JCE.DivCHED.org
•
Textbox 1. Overview of the Science Ethics Workshops 1. Introductions 2. Discussion of the ethical challenges most frequently faced by undergraduate researchers A. Assignment of credit B. Confidentiality C. Plagiarism D. Fabrication/falsification of laboratory data 3. List of some relevant resources on science ethics 4. Group discussion of five ethical scenarios A. Pinocchio’s nose B. The price of integrity C. “Borrowing” without permission D. It’s all about sharing … E. Copy and paste … 5. Questions and answers 6. Workshop evaluation
Assessment At the close of each workshop the participants were asked to complete a brief, anonymous, written questionnaire. The survey instrument had two major sections. The first section consisted of two narrative-format questions: “What was the most important thing you learned today?” and “Is there an ethical dilemma or issue that you wish we had discussed today? Describe it briefly.”. The second section consisted of eight opinion statements differentiated using a five-point Likert scale (in which 1 indicates strong agreement with the written statement and 5 indicates strong disagreement with the written statement). In the end, 55 high school students (98.2%) submitted usable survey instruments. Quantitative Data Analysis Table 1 summarizes the quantitative data from the 2004, 2005, and 2006 workshops. Overall the students felt that the science ethics workshop was useful and that they had learned how to face ethical challenges. The participants strongly agreed that “the speaker created a comfortable learning environment” and that “the speaker adapted the content and activities to our experience兾knowledge level”. These findings are extremely gratifying given that discussions of ethics and scientific ethics are not generally stress-free and may be demanding—even confrontational—depending on the topic under discussion and the emotional intelligence of the discussants. Overall the topic selection appeared to be appropriate and meaningful to participants. Based on both the discussion that occurred during the workshops and on the narrative survey responses, the concept of intellectual property, the significance of lab notebooks in this regard, confidentiality, plagiarism, and the requirements for authorship in science (assignment of credit) appeared to be topics that the workshop participants had not thus far encountered and issues
Vol. 84 No. 6 June 2007
•
Journal of Chemical Education
953
Chemistry for Everyone
Table 1. Distribution of High School Student Responses to Opinion Questions about the Science Ethics Workshop Statements for Student Response
2004 Mean Scorea (SD), (N ⫽ 17)
2005 Mean Scorea (SD), (N ⫽ 19)
2006 Mean Scorea (SD), (N ⫽ 19)
Today’s session was useful to me
1.70 (0.77)
1.26 (0.45)
2.05 (0.62)
I learned some useful things about how to deal with ethical dilemmas
1.65 (0.79)
1.42 (0.51)
1.89 (0.66)
The speaker was knowledgeable about the topic
1.06 (0.24)
1.00 (0.00)
1.05 (0.23)
The speaker adapted content and activities to our experience/knowledge level
1.59 (0.62)
1.33 (0.69)
1.63 (0.68)
The speaker created a comfortable learning environment
1.26 (0.56)
1.47 (0.62)
1.63 (0.60)
The workshop was well paced and made effective use of the available time
1.56 (0.73)
1.58 (0.77)
1.68 (0.48)
The speaker provided enough “hands-on” experience
2.06 (0.93)
1.84 (0.83)
2.26 (0.65)
The handouts provided are useful. I plan to review them later.
2.23 (1.09)
1.47 (0.61)
2.31 (0.95)
a
Likert-type scale: 1 is Strongly Agree; 2 is Agree; 3 is Neutral; 4 is Disagree; 5 is Strongly Disagree.
that the students were eager to discuss. This is interesting in that the topics were identified (based on a recent survey study of undergraduate student–researchers) as the most significant ethical challenges undergraduate student–researchers reported experiencing (12). The students also appeared to be satisfied with the quality of the handouts they were provided with as reference materials. In terms of workshop format, the students appeared satisfied with the length (one hour) and pace of the workshop, the amount of discussion allotted, and the quality of the handouts provided (see Table 1). These findings suggest that an hour discussion between the mentor and his or her students using case studies appears to be a useful and effective means of initiating a dialogue on scientific ethics with high school student–researchers. Qualitative Data Analysis Student responses to the narrative question “What was the most important thing you learned today?” could be sorted into three major categories as either reflecting: (i) an interest in a specific topic, such as plagiarism or the theft of research materials that was discussed; (ii) focusing on the avoidance of future mishaps; or (iii) a concern with the severity of the consequences of flawed decision making. The majority were concerned with either a specific issue—plagiarism, in particular—or with averting problems in the future. Less than half of the students provided an affirmative answer to the question “Is there an ethical dilemma or issue that you wish we had discussed today? Describe it briefly.”. Those who suggested topics identified a wide range of interests in issues, such as human subjects testing (“when the army gave soldiers syphilis”) and “how do you decide whether or not to turn in a friend?”. In summary, a case-based workshop on science ethics for high school students participating in summer research apprenticeships has been developed and tested for use over a threeyear period with students from two different enrichment programs, ACS Project SEED and the Northeastern University Young Scholars Program. Survey results suggest that high school students are eager to discuss ethics in science and related issues and that an hour-long workshop using case studies to promote discussion is an effective medium through which to initiate conversation. Thus, college and university science and engineering faculty offering high school students summer 954
Journal of Chemical Education
•
research opportunities may find the case-based approach and materials described here useful in facilitating faculty–student discussions of research ethics with their protégés. Supplemental Material Resources, case studies with questions, and a workshop evaluation form are available in this issue of JCE Online. W
Acknowledgments PAM wishes to thank Claire Duggan, Director of the Northeastern University Young Scholars Program. Notes 1. American Chemical Society Project SEED Home Page. http:// www.chemistry.org/portal/a/c/s/1/acsdisplay.html?DOC=education%5C student%5Cprojectseed.html (accessed Apr 2007). 2. Northeastern University’s Young Scholars Program. http:// www.youngscholars.neu.edu/ (accessed Apr 2007).
Literature Cited 1. Richmond, G.; Kurth, L. A. J. Res. Sci. Teaching 1999, 36, 677–697. 2. Bell, R. L.; Blair, L. M.; Crawford, B. A.; Lederman, N. G. J. Res. Sci. Teaching 2003, 40, 487–509. 3. Etkina, E.; Matilsky, T.; Lawrence, M. J. Res. Sci. Teaching 2003, 40, 958–985. 4. Eisen, A.; Berry, R. M. Am. J. Bioethics 2002, 2, 38–49. 5. Treichel, P. M. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 1327–1329. 6. Shachter, A. M. J. Chem. Educ. 2003, 80, 507–512. 7. Sweeting, L. M. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 369–372. 8. Mabrouk, P. A. J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78, 1628–1631. 9. Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. On Being a Scientist; National Academy Press: Washington, DC, 1995. 10. Macrina, F. L. Scientific Integrity: Text and Cases in Responsible Conduct of Research, 3rd ed.; ASM Press: Washington, DC, 2005; p 428. 11. Kovac, J. The Ethical Chemist; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2003. 12. Mabrouk, P. A.; Peters, K. CUR Quarterly 2000, 25–33. 13. Borrego, A. M. Chron High Educ. [Online] 2002, Jun 20. 14. Hardi, J. Chron High Educ. [Online] 2000, Apr 14. 15. Hardi, J. Chron High Educ. [Online] 2000, Apr 25. 16. Lanegran, K. Chron High Educ. 2004, Jul 2, C1. 17. Basinger, J. Chron High Educ. 2000, 46, A50. 18. Karagianis, E. MIT Spectrum 1999, Winter, 3.
Vol. 84 No. 6 June 2007
•
www.JCE.DivCHED.org
