In the Classroom
Ethics in Science for Undergraduate Students Linda M. Sweeting* Department of Chemistry, Towson University, Baltimore, MD 21252
Rationale In the last 10 years, interest in ethics in science has skyrocketed, catalyzed by some dramatic cases of demonstrated or suspected scientific fraud and by congressional hearings. The National Institutes of Health has encouraged the development of workshops and courses for graduate students by requiring training in ethics for all students funded by NIH research training grants (1). The National Science Foundation’s Ethics and Values Studies program1 has provided funds to add a research ethics component to the Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) program. In addition, instructors of courses in science, technology, and society (STS) often include discussions of ethics in science (2). The majority of students obtaining undergraduate degrees in science, however, do not participate in these programs1 and have little opportunity to learn explicitly about ethical norms in science. Yet they comprise the majority of the scientific work force. We assume that they learn basic ethics from their families and professional ethics from their science instructors or research mentors; however, in our diverse society, we cannot depend on shared family ethics and values or absorbed academic ethics to ensure the integrity of science. We must take an active role in developing character and moral reasoning in our students (3). It is for that purpose that I developed the course Professional Ethics for Scientists, first taught in the fall of 1994. Approach and Audience Professional Ethics for Scientists concentrates on ethical issues common to all of science and technology; the latter part of the course is dedicated to special issues in fields such as chemistry, engineering, and medicine having immediate social impact. The focus of the class is on healthy science rather than pathology, with ethics presented as the basis of excellence in science. It is open to students who have had three courses in science, at least two with laboratory, plus college writing. The prerequisites ensure some common experience with experiments, reports, and teacher–student or student–student interactions in science, which can serve as models for professional behavior. Students who have taken the course include chemistry, biology, computer science, geology, mathematics, geography, and philosophy majors. Like students at other public colleges and universities, most of ours go directly into the work force in technical positions; approximately 20% of the science majors pursue Ph.D.’s, and another 20% seek professional degrees. The course is therefore designed for a broad audience of undergraduate science majors, including preprofessional, technical, or research orientations. The course is not required of any major but is one of many options the students may use to fulfill the university’s advanced writing course requirement.2 An incentive such as *Email:
[email protected].
this writing requirement is probably necessary to ensure that students take the course, given their busy schedule of upperdivision science courses. Other colleges teaching ethics in science to undergraduates have taken different approaches to ensuring participation: requiring an ethics course for the major (physics) (4); adding a January-semester experience (5); integrating ethics into a capstone experience (6 ) or a safety course (7); integrating ethics instruction into the chemistry curriculum (3 ) or the entire university curriculum (8). Content and Style Because most undergraduate students have little work experience in science, a course in professional ethics must also describe the professional context for the discussion. This course begins by discussing ethical principles and students’ experiences with ethics in education and with laboratory data, then demonstrates the importance of accurate, unbiased data in the “real world” while teaching how research, development, and quality-control work is done, disseminated, and used. The discussion of data and its analysis comprises about one-quarter of the course. Professional relationships with collaborators, mentors, reviewers, reviewees, employers, and the public are considered next, with a full week on recognizing and combating discrimination. The last part of the course consists of special topics, which vary somewhat with the student group; we have discussed animal rights, computer science and engineering, genetic engineering, medicine, pollution, and the human population problem, all from the point of view of the professional scientist’s role in research, development, and education in helping resolve the societal dilemmas intrinsic to these fields. A typical schedule for the course with assigned readings is provided in Table 1. The full syllabus, with assignment details and more than 500 references (most annotated), is available on its WWW site (9). Links are provided from the requirements to the resources needed to meet them, from topics to relevant references, and from the syllabus to other sites with still more information. A brief training session early in the semester introduces the students to the use of the on-line and paper resources available to them, to ensure that all students are able to use them. No current text or published collection of readings is appropriate for the range of scientific disciplines or issues discussed in this course, although there are several which would be excellent for a narrower course (10, 11). Thus, for texts, I have chosen On Being a Scientist (OBAS) (12) and Honor in Science (HIS) (13 ), both of which are inexpensive, and a writing and grammar handbook (14). A collection of additional readings is sold as a package, with copyright permissions obtained by the campus bookstore. The focus of the class is set by the instructor through assigned readings, leading questions, videos, or case studies, or by guest presenters. Class discussion may be initiated by students, instructor, or guest and may involve the whole class or break-out groups. Educational videos on academic integrity
JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu • Vol. 76 No. 3 March 1999 • Journal of Chemical Education
369
In the Classroom
(15), fraud in science (16 ), and the Challenger disaster (17 ) have proved very effective. The case studies in OBAS are useful for initiating discussions of integrity of data. Case studies collections appropriate to undergraduates are difficult to find; most assume a knowledge of the culture of graduate school in science, but many are adaptable (6, 18, 19). Most of the guest presenters have been from within the university: chemistry colleagues with industrial backgrounds or an interest in radical feminism, deans, computer science faculty members, and the university ombudsman. The students invariably comment on how much they learned from and enjoyed meeting the visitors. It is especially important in this course to encourage the students to discover issues and solutions for themselves, so that the learning is rapidly internalized. To do that, the instructor is most effective as “guide on the side”: asking pertinent questions, forcing cognitive dissonance, challenging the students to think, and providing information as needed about the social structure of science. Discussion is essential. It serves two purposes: to make the instructor aware of the values and ethics the students bring to the class and to give the students credit and responsibility for their own learning and decision-making. Abandoning the role of expert lecturer— “the sage on the stage”—may be uncomfortable for many science faculty members (20). The transition is eased by Bebeau et al., who have provided an excellent guide to using case studies effectively and with intellectual rigor (21). (Using case studies and readings effectively requires more thought and preparation than is initially apparent.)
Scheduling and class size can significantly affect the style and effectiveness of an ethics class. Professional Ethics for Scientists is offered one evening a week. This schedule permits a variety of formats, including discussion after watching a one-hour video, pursuing unplanned but important topics, or understanding both the job responsibilities and the ethical issues raised by a guest. Shorter class times make continuity more difficult, but may provide opportunities for students to discuss topics with their friends and search for answers to questions between class sessions. Even in small classes such as this, there are always students who seldom participate in the discussion; break-out groups, required presentations, etc. provide an opportunity for their ideas to be heard. Instructors with large classes may need to train group leaders and divide the students into small groups for discussion. Writing To Learn The writing component of the course enhances it significantly. Students are required to read and write something each week. Each student keeps a journal and submits 5 or 6 entries per semester for credit but no grade. Journal entries have included comments about cheating in other courses (instructor and student responsibility), unethical behavior by TV heroes or heroines, gene therapy, class topics, ethics in job situations, and poor classroom manners. Student journal entries, too, can be used anonymously as a starting point for class discussion, provided they are not too personal.
Table 1. Typical Class Schedule/Course Outline for Professional Ethics for Scientists Week Class Topics and Activities
Pre-Class Assignments
1
Course purpose, requirements, prerequisites. What is science? What is ethics? Academic dishonesty and its impact, video (15).
Buy books. Become familiar with Windows, word processing, and Netscape.
2
Library and Internet orientation. How scientific research is done. Establish peer editing groups. Individual conferences about paper 1 topics.
READ: OBAS 1–8 (12), Syllabus, ACS Academic Professional Guidelines (32). PONDER: cheating and other unethical behavior in education.
3
Scientists and their experiments: research data, analysis, and reporting. Individual conferences about paper 1 topics.
READ: OBAS 4–20, HIS 1–18 (13). PONDER: case studies OBAS 15, 17. WRITE: journal entry 1: how do student ethics correlate with professional ethics?
4
Scientists and their experiments, contd. Video: Do Scientists Cheat? (16).
READ: Zurer (33), The Chemists Code of Conduct (34 ). PONDER: case study OBAS 19. WRITE: preliminary paper 1.
5
Errors and wishful thinking—can they lead to fraud? Peer editing introduction, paper 1.
READ: Branscomb (35 ), Bergman (36 ). PONDER: case study OBAS 5. WRITE: draft 1, paper 1.
6
Roles of and problems with peers: collaborators, coauthors, peer review. Peer editing session, paper 1.
READ: group papers, HIS 19–28, OBAS 12–14, ACS Guidelines for Publication (37 ). PONDER: paper 2 (decide topic). WRITE: journal entry 2.
7
Discrimination: sex, race, culture, etc. Scientific justification of discrimination? Video, Discovering Women, Jewels in a Test Tube (38).
READ: Rowe (39). Ponder: OBAS case studies 11, 12. WRITE: paper 1 due.
8
Employers, employees, funds. Career choices. Individual conferences on paper 2.
READ: ACS Professional Employment Guidelines (40), Parnas (41), Boisjoly (unpublished). PONDER: what kind of boss do I want? WRITE: journal entry 3.
9
Industrial science and technology. GUEST: (former) industrial scientist and manager.
READ: Jackall (42). PONDER: good and bad work environments. WRITE: journal entry 4.
10
Scientists and the public. Whistleblowing, the Challenger explosion, video (17 ).
READ: HIS 29–40, Bell & Esch (43). PONDER: opportunities to inform the public. WRITE: draft 1, paper 2.
11
Effective dissent in the workplace. GUEST: university ombudsman. Peer editing of paper 2.
READ: group papers. PONDER: whistleblowing alternatives. WRITE: journal entry 5.
12
Professionals in engineering, computer science. GUEST: computer scientist. Peer editing of paper 2.
READ: group papers, OBAS 20–21. PONDER: request topics for weeks 13 and 14. WRITE: rewrite paper 2.
13
Professionals in biology and medicine: animal rights, genetic testing and engineering.
READ: Fackelmann (44, 45). PONDER: other ethical issues in medicine. WRITE: paper 2 due.
14
Pollution and population: is this an ethical issue, a technical one, or a political one? All of the above? Who is responsible, and why? GUEST: environmental scientist.
READ: Hardin (46). PONDER: the future of the earth. WRITE: journal entry 6.
15
Questioning science’s structure: a radical feminist perspective. GUEST: faculty member.
READ and PONDER: take-home exam. WRITE: take-home exam.
370
Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 76 No. 3 March 1999 • JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu
In the Classroom
Each student also writes two 5-page papers and at least one essay exam. The two papers are chosen from four types, for which there are ample examples and references in the Web syllabus (and students always find others): 1. Review of a science-oriented novel, biography, or autobiography, with a focus on the ethical issues. Examples: Jurassic Park (22), The Affair (23), The Periodic Table (24), Cantor’s Dilemma (25). 2. Review and summary of a book on some aspect of ethics in science. Examples: To Engineer is Human (26 ), The Scientific Attitude (27 ), The Mismeasure of Man (28). 3. Summary and comment on a recent case of fraud or other misconduct using multiple sources. Example: Science on Trial: The Whistle-Blower, the Accused and the Nobel Laureate (29). 4. An analysis of the ethical issues in one aspect of scientific endeavor beyond the scope of the course. Students have chosen conflict of interest, thalidomide, euthanasia and the Hippocratic oath, environmental research ethics, animal rights, gender discrimination in science.
The papers are developed by editing and rewriting over the course of several weeks. Students are divided into peer editing groups of about 4 students each. Paper drafts are delivered 3 weeks before the final deadline to the members of the peer group and the instructor. The following week, each paper is discussed in detail by the peer group, which provides suggestions for improvement. The students incorporate the suggestions and may meet again about their papers before turning them in for a final grade. The draft is also graded to ensure that editing and rewriting actually occur. The students also evaluate the level of help they received from their group-mates, and this evaluation also provides a grade. An important advantage of this approach to writing a paper is that it gives students a concrete audience to write for. But most important, it teaches them that rewriting and editing are parts of the writing process and gives them some experience in them, both with their own papers and with others’. Unlike many writing courses for science majors, this one focuses not on research reports, but on communication with knowledgeable lay persons, namely their classmates. Exams are usually take-home. The questions require analysis, additional research, and thoughtful comment on an article or an organizational ethics policy, rather than recall of the details of any events discussed in class. Challenges and Rewards Preparing for and teaching a course in professional ethics for undergraduates can be very challenging. The literature on professional ethics in science is becoming substantial and is quite interesting. Some basic ethical theory is an essential part of preparatory reading (30, 31); it is needed in the introductory part of the course and as preparation for a rational defense of one’s values and those of science in the face of the common notion that all value systems are equal. Courses like this may not be automatically accepted by science or philosophy colleagues and may find difficulty obtaining approval. Administrative problems can develop over teaching load and related issues. It is thus important to enlist the assistance of colleagues during the development phase so that their concerns can be allayed and their ideas can enrich the
content and style. Their participation will ensure their support and thus their assistance in attracting students to the course. A professional ethics course requires an approach different from that of a science course, and can be humbling. Unlike a chemistry or physics or biology course, an ethics course requires examination and discussion of the personal and professional values of the instructor, and thus vulnerability and exposure. Our commitment to questioning everything in science has made us particularly uncomfortable with teaching values and ethics, for which no experimental data are available (20). Often our students have values different from ours—and from those of each other. To understand and have an impact on their values and attitudes, it is essential to participate fully in discussions of values with them. Flexibility is also important. If the students want to discuss cloning before it is scheduled, as mine did when the ewe Dolly was born in spring 1997, it is best to do it while they are desperately interested. You may be surprised, even shocked, by your students’ attitudes. I was dumbfounded at the number of students who believe that cheating on laboratory experiments is not really unethical because they are just exercises after all (15). Such revelations have caused me to reassess other curricula, and to include a discussion of the ideals and realities of teaching and learning with laboratory experiments in this course. Many students do not understand the power of bad habits (like altering data) to recur under the stress of a job. In fact, most students fail to appreciate that being a student is not the most stressful of all environments. A few mature students with work experience really make a difference in an ethics class. Their stories about unfair treatment, routine boring work on which lives depend, competition, etc. convince the other students far more effectively than anything an instructor can say. Teaching ethics to science majors can also be deeply rewarding. You have an opportunity to become close to the students and to be taken into their confidence in unexpected ways. The students may tell you about ethical problems in their lives both as students and outside. You may need to learn a lot more about the chain of command and the judicial system in the college or university. Most students are deeply affected by the course. However, students do not necessarily develop perfect assessments of and responses to the temptations and challenges they meet, any more than they can solve every chemical equilibrium problem perfectly after their introductory chemistry course. You should not be discouraged by their, or your, imperfections as ethical scientists. The individual and group discussions will also inform the way you teach other courses. For example, you may stop grading on results alone, you may redesign experiments to be more like real scientific problems, you may explain the reasons for significant figures or detailed notebooks, or you may ask undergraduate research collaborators to take fuller credit and responsibility for their work. Teaching ethics will cause you to examine the way you do and report science and the methods you use for teaching and examining students. I have learned as much from the students as they have from me, and have much more to learn, both about ethics in science and about how to propagate ethical science. I look forward to the day when we integrate the teaching of professional ethics so thoroughly into the curriculum that this course is redundant.
JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu • Vol. 76 No. 3 March 1999 • Journal of Chemical Education
371
In the Classroom
Acknowledgments I thank the many people who helped develop my interest, expertise, and reference list, particularly Rosemary Chalk, Rachelle Hollander, Mark Frankel, Penny Gilmer, and Caroline Whitbeck, and the Faculty Writing Group at Towson University, which encouraged me both to write and to teach writing. A full syllabus and reference list for this course is available at my Towson University World Wide Web site (9). Notes 1. The National Science Foundation Ethics and Values Studies program funds 30 ethics components to Research Experiences for Undergraduates projects per year, affecting about 400 undergraduate science students; they report that most engineering programs have ethics courses, some of which are required. 2. Each student is required to complete one 3-hour, 3-credit advanced composition course. Most of these courses are in the disciplines, as part of a writing-across-the-curriculum initiative. Class size in writing courses is limited to 19.
References 1. NIH Guide 1994, 23(23), P.T.44; K.W.1014004, 1014006. 2. Gilmer, P.; Rashotte, M. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 1989–90, 19, 150– 156. 3. Coppola, B. P.; Smith, D. H. J. Chem. Educ. 1996, 73, 33–34. 4. Thomsen, M. Am. J. Phys. 1995, 63, 110–111. 5. Joseph, M. R. Ethics in the Science Professions: A Short Course; Presented at the 14th Biennial Conference on Chemical Education, Clemson University, Clemson, SC, 1996; Paper No. R-AMSY-K-3. 6. Kovac, J. J. Chem. Educ. 1996, 73, 926–928. 7. Moody, A. E.; Carter, K. N. Jr.; Dew, V. C.; Delaware, D. L. Chemical Safety and Scientific Ethics in a Sophomore Chemistry Seminar; Presented at the 14th Biennial Conference on Chemical Education, Clemson University, Clemson, SC, 1996; Paper No. R-AM-SY-K-5. 8. Bisbee, L. A. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 1994–95, 24, 132–134. 9. Sweeting, L. M. http://www.towson.edu/~sweeting. 10. Macrina, F. L. Research Integrity: An Introductory Text with Cases; American Society for Microbiology; ASM Press: Washington, DC, 1995. 11. Shrader-Frechette, K. Ethics of Scientific Research; Rowman and Littlefield: Lanham, MD, 1994. 12. On Being a Scientist: Responsible Conduct in Research; National Academy Press: Washington, DC, 1995. 13. Honor in Science; Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society: Research Triangle Park, NC, 1991. 14. Hodges, J. C.; Horner, W. B.; Webb, S. S.; Miller, R. K. Harbrace College Handbook, 12th ed.; Harcourt Brace: Orlando, FL, 1994.
372
15. Vesilind, P. A. Academic Integrity: The Bridge to Professional Ethics; Center for Applied Ethics, Duke University: Durham, NC, 1994. 16. Buckner, N.; Whittlesey, R. Do Scientists Cheat? WGBH (NOVA): Boston, 1985. 17. Maier, M. “A Major Malfunction.” The Story behind the Space Shuttle Challenger; Research Foundation of the State of New York: Binghamton, NY, 1992. 18. Kovac, J. The Ethical Chemist: Case Studies in Scientific Ethics; University of Tennessee: Knoxville, 1993. 19. Scientific Freedom, Responsibility & the Law Program. Integrity in Scientific Research: five video vignettes; AAAS: Washington, DC, 1996. 20. Herron, D. J. In The Chemistry Classroom: Formulas for Successful Teaching; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1996; Chapter 17. 21. Bebeau, M. J.; Pimple, K. D.; Muskavitch, K. M. T.; Borden, S. L.; Smith, D. H. Moral Reasoning in Scientific Research: Cases for Teaching and Assessment; Poynter Center, Indiana University: Bloomington, IN, 1995. 22. Crichton, M. Jurassic Park; Ballentine: New York, 1990. 23. Snow, C. P. The Affair; Charles Scribner’s Sons: New York, 1960. 24. Levi, P. The Periodic Table; Schocken: New York, 1984. 25. Djerassi, C. Cantor’s Dilemma; Viking Penguin: New York, 1989. 26. Petroski, H. To Engineer Is Human; St. Martin’s: New York, 1985. 27. Grinnell, F. The Scientific Attitude, 2nd ed.; Guilford: London/ New York, 1992. 28. Gould, S. J. The Mismeasure of Man; Norton: New York, 1981. 29. Sarasohn, J. Science on Trial: The Whistle Blower, the Accused and the Nobel Laureate; St. Martin’s: New York, 1993. 30. Holmes, R. L. Basic Moral Philosophy; Wadsworth: Belmont, CA, 1993. 31. Harris, C. E. Jr. Applying Moral Theories; Wadsworth: Belmont, CA, 1992. 32. Academic Professional Guidelines; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1994. 33. Zurer, P. Chem. Eng. News 1987, 65(Apr 13), 10–17. 34. The Chemist’s Code of Conduct; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1994. 35. Branscomb, L. M. Am. Sci. 1985, 73, 421–423. 36. Bergman, R. G. Perspect. Prof. 1989, 8, 2–3. 37. Acc. Chem. Res. 1994, 27, 179–181. 38. Winship, M. Jewels in a Test Tube; in the series Discovering Women; WGBH Educational Television: Boston, 1995. 39. Rowe, M. P. Empl. Resp. Rights J. 1990, 3, 153–163. 40. Professional Employment Guidelines; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1993. 41. Parnas, D. Common Cause 1986, 31, 34–35. 42. Jackall, R. Harvard Bus. Rev. 1983, 61, 118–130. 43. Bell, T. E.; Esch, K. IEEE Spectrum 1987, 24, 36–39 ff. 44. Fackelmann, K. A. Sci. News 1994, 146, 298–299. 45. Fackelmann, K. A. Sci. News 1994, 146, 408–410. 46. Hardin, G. Science 1968, 162, 1243–1248.
Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 76 No. 3 March 1999 • JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu
