|
| C E N T E R F O R T H E I N T E G R A T I V E S T U D Y O F A N I M A L B E H A V I O R |
| A C A D E M I C S |
| RESEARCH EXPERIENCES FOR UNDERGRADUATES PROGRAM |
|
|
|
SOME EXAMPLES OF REU INTERN EVALUATIONS OF SESSIONS In these five sessions, we covered the following topics:
1. Broad overview (The Six Domains) of research ethics Please comment on the following questions: 1. Did you find these sessions on research ethics to be valuable to you? Why or why not? These session were helpful in making more issues in research ethics clear. Each individual is going to have different feelings about different ethical issues. However, these sessions have given a better understanding about how to make a more thoroughly thought-out ethical decision. Yes, they presented a variety of sides, opinions, and points. The sessions also supported my career direction. Yes because they gave us a chance to talk to one another about current issues in research that we may not cover in our institutions. Yes, they were very valuable for me because it gave me a different perspective on how research can be done and be beneficial to us as researchers and the scientific community as a whole. Yes, definitely they were very intriguing and informative. Also, since I've never taken an ethics course, these sessions expanded my knowledge on how science really works and what to expect while in graduate school or in my future career. I thought the sessions were very well done. The case studies were a really good idea. I feel very well informed about research ethics now. I took a class on Ethics in Medicine and Technology, but as far as research ethics, I got way more from these sessions and have some suggestions now that I want to take to those teachers. 2. What topic(s) did you find most interesting and why? Should have spent more time on it? I thought animal rights was very interesting because it was so emotionally charged and controversial, but I think we spent the right amount of time on it. The general guidelines about animal research were informative and thought-provoking but not when we got too specific. I found the case study on "whistle-blowing" (Julia Coltrane case) very interesting because it is something with a very practical use. It involved internal conflicts to a high degree and should be included more in future sessions. I found the discussion of use of animals in behavioral research interesting. I think for a lot of us, we are uncertain if we want to work with animals or humans, and this information helps the decisions we make. Yes, more time. I thought the case studies were interesting because we got to see all sides of different situations and reason things out without telling anybody they were wrong. No, we spent just enough time on it. I think that the Bateson Decision Model is a very useful model for ethics and use of animals because it gives us a broader spectrum of things that we have to take into consideration when doing research. All of the case studies due to the fact that they really made me think. I would like to have spent more time on the "Six Domains of Research Ethics" Oddly enough, the IACUC forms. I had never seen such materials and was very curious about the subject matter that they did and did not cover. 3. What topic(s) did you find least interesting and why? Different policies from different countries. Although I found many of them interesting and learned from them through what they did and did not say, the reading was much too dry and I fell that perhaps it could just have been summarized. The IACUC forms were the least interesting for me because whatever institution is housing your research will have its own form regardless of what opinions you have about it. Background in research ethics (I've had it before). The chapters we had to read were very dry. I didn't like the session on scientific method and integrity. I know that it is important, but I found it to be very dry (lecture-based). I felt that the first and second case studies we analyzed were not too good. I felt we needed cases where we would have to choose either for or against. More juicier situations is a good way of explaining. The IACUC forms because they really were not interesting to me. 4. What topic(s) did we NOT cover in these sessions that you think we should have discussed? Speciesism - dog vs. rat / human vs. dog / etc. More specifics on the question of animal rights (I know that it's more of a philosophical discussion, but I still think that it's important) I think that we should have discussed more issues of what levels of suffering are acceptable in research. We should have focused a little bit more on research involving humans. Especially since I know a few people in the group are more interested in research opportunities in that area. Some more nitty-gritty details of ethics that you'd get in a graduate class. A little less overview and more detail. Maybe set up a mock ethics review board or mock IACUC board. Ways in which we can become better researchers in techniques and ways of thinking. I felt that the sessions were not specific in telling us "this is wrong" or "this is right". It was left as a matter of opinion to feel so because the moral topics were not good enough. The part on playing the "Devil's advocate" was good. We should have translated a short technical journal article into "normal English" in order to fortify the idea of bridging the "science-civilian" gap. 5. In conveying information on research ethics to you, what approaches (lecture, open discussion, writing-and-discussing, etc.) do you think worked well and what approaches did not work, and why? The best way to approach us as undergraduate students is through open discussions and writing and discussing the different themes. Open discussion and writing-and-discussing because lots of opinions and thoughts are brought forward. To be honest, I don't recall much lecturing - which is a good thing! - but lectures are less interesting and involving for me. I liked the discussions and the writing/discussions the best - especially in such a small class. I didn't like the lecture part - but I noticed that part was kept to a minimum. I think the combination that of approaches used was best for this topic - it keeps the time clicking without losing too much interest. I think that open discussions allowed for a more diverse amount of learning and opinions than the writing or lecturing. The lectures were informative and necessary to understand the issues involved but should remain as they are (don't increase them). The case studies helped us learn how to defend our opinions and come up with balanced viewpoints. We should avoid going around the room with everyone giving a comment. The case studies were superior on all bases, as well as the chapters on animal behavior research. I really enjoyed listening to the open-discussions and lectures. 6. In conveying information on research ethics, what are some areas where Todd could improve? In my opinion he had his bases covered. The need of specifying, "This is not right" - I say this because we are still undergraduates and still may need more guidance. I would have been interested to hear about some real-life scenarios and the consequences that arose from them. Make points fast and just keep going without taking too much time on any one area. Stay away from general overview - that could be summed up in a couple of sessions. More in-depth(ness) would keep group more interested I think, and would also be more fun to teach. I liked everything Todd did to convey the information on research ethics, except the slide show. There needed to be more visuals / pictures added. Todd could probably improve on responding better to some of the answers or opinions brought up during discussions 7. In conveying information on research ethics, what are some areas where Todd did a good job? He did a good organizational job of presenting the ideas - he was also straightforward and easy to follow. Good job explaining things, answering questions, and being very personable. He cared about us understanding and included personal stories that applied to the topics we covered. Explaining the points when going over a case study (obligations, points of conflict, etc.) Todd did a good job of balancing a casual atmosphere with an air of professionalism. He also brought out a lot of good points concerning regulations and organizations that I was unfamiliar with. He kept it informal and humorous and used a lot of sources and other resources we could go to for more information. I think that Todd did a really good job having an open and friendly discussion atmosphere, speaking to us as adults, pushing the right boundaries to stimulate thought and discussion. 8. What are your thoughts on the number of sessions (too many, too few, too long, not long enough, etc.)? Good # I think that maybe we should have 7 sessions rather than 5 Good amount / maybe just adjust the time = more case studies and less background I thought the number / length of sessions was good considering the amount of time and the program we are in. I could see perhaps continuing with more sessions or possibly extending them to once or twice a week over a longer period of time. We should have one session once a week for the entire program because it gives us a chance to talk together about something interesting. But otherwise, the sessions the past 2 weeks were just about right. I think it was just right. Definitely not more; less would probably be too little. The time went by very quickly, mostly as a result of student involvement (discussion vs. lecture format). So it was all pretty painless. I actually think that I would have enjoyed a few more classes. There were some things we didn't get a chance to talk about. Too few. The REU program should last 11 weeks with the first week devoted to research ethics. Thus, allowing REU interns to read the ethics material without giving up reading articles for their research. 9. What are your thoughts on the amount of reading and other work you had to do (too much, not enough, which readings were good, which were not, etc.)? I think that all the readings were important, because through them we learned how to approach different cases in different manners. Too much! What I went away from the chapters could be read in half the amount. "On Being a Scientist" was long, not interestingly written, and the most important aspects were a repetition of something already read and/or discussed. After the Hart & Dewsbury chapters, the chapters were alright. Case studies were good - IAUC protocols a good idea. The amount of work was definitely reasonable. However, it was difficult to finish due to the fact that I had many other readings to do for my lab work. I felt really overwhelmed - but it would have been fine if the ethics was all I had to do. I liked the readings, except for the Arluke and Groves chapter - it was really long and repetitive. I liked the cases. Too much reading. They should be shorter and more interesting. Case studies were good but chapters were too long and bland. The readings weren't bad. I think the cases were "extremes" but interesting. Some of the chapters were too lengthy and repetitive. I did not enjoy the Arluke and Groves chapter at all. There were too many reading assignments from the chapters and most of them were dry. I really liked the case studies though, so we may need to do more of those and less readings. The readings were enough; just organizing time in the summer is sort of difficult. 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? Yes, of course. Any type of knowledge; especially ethics, which I did not quite understand until now. Todd was down to Earth and made the information easier to understand. Yes, I would have elected to participate in them because through these ethics sessions I have learned about scientific integrity and things that might help me when doing graduate studies. Yes, because of my "obligation" to scientific integrity. Knowing I'll be involved in research, I want to analyze the ethical issues behind it. It also makes me more committed and feel better about what I'm doing. This was a good overview - it got the information across and didn't beat the issues (too much) to death. Yes I would - I have learned some things in the last week that I probably would have not learned until grad school (or possibly longer). I thought the sessions were overall valuable, especially as an undergraduate student. Sure. Although I knew some information, I didn't know it all, and it always helps to be refreshed. Yes, I believe research ethics is essential to all people involved in the sciences. It's also something I've never been directly exposed to in this depth. I used to just ask questions or go on common sense. But I value what I learn at the sessions and appreciate the workshops. I think that anyone going into this sort of research (that is especially with live subjects) should take some form of ethics course. Even if they may think there is nothing to be accomplished, some information is bound to seep in.
|