Article Biochemistry in an Undergraduate WritingIntensive First-Year Program: Seminar s Courses in Drugs and Bioethicsw
Kenneth V. Mills*
From the Department of Chemistry, College of the Holy Cross, Worcester, Massachusetts 01610
Abstract The College of the Holy Cross offers a universal first-year program called Montserrat, in which first-year students participate in a living-learning experience anchored by a yearlong seminar course. The seminar courses are part of a thematic cluster of four to eight courses; students in the cluster live together in a common dormitory and participate in shared co-curricular events designed to engage the entire cluster in intellectual discourse related to the theme. A two-semester seminar within the “Natural World” cluster was offered using biochemical principles as the underlying content. In the first semester, students were introduced to
drug design, activity and abuse via student presentations and guided readings on ethnobotany, drug laws, drug use in religion, and prescription drug costs. In the second semester, students discussed primary readings in ethics followed by case study analyses of assisted reproduction technologies, informed consent, genetic privacy, performance enhancing drugs and genetically modified organisms. Student learning outcomes were evaluated via rubrics and C 2015 by the International a College-facilitated survey. V Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, 43(4):263– 272, 2015.
Keywords: curriculum; collaborative/cooperative learning; communication/writing; biotechnology; drugs/pharmaceuticals; ethics; non-major courses; student-centered learning
Introduction In 1992, Holy Cross began to offer a First-Year Program (FYP) centered around a core theme inspired by Tolstoy’s A Confession: “How then shall we live?” Each year, a group of seminars focused on a version of this question, for example: “In a world of conflicting views of well-being and the good life, how then shall we live?” The FYP was offered for a self-selected group of about 20-25% of the incoming class, who participated in seminars taught from the faculty member’s disciplinary perspective supplemented with common intellectual experiences, common texts, and a dedicated dormitory [1]. In 2008, Holy Cross launched a universal FYP called Montserrat, after the mountain where St.
w s Additional Supporting Information may be found in the online version of this article. Abbreviations: FYP, First-Year Program; GM, genetically modified *Address for correspondence to: Department of Chemistry, College of the Holy Cross, Worcester, MA 01610. E-mail: [email protected] Received 13 January 2015; Revised 15 April 2015; Accepted 12 May 2015 DOI 10.1002/bmb.20878 Published online 3 July 2015 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com)
Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education
Ignatius laid down his sword and dedicated his life to study, service and learning [2]. Montserrat consists of six thematic clusters: Core Human Questions, The Divine, Global Society, The Self, The Natural World, and Contemporary Challenges. (See Fig. 1) A dedicated librarian and professional staff from Student Affairs support each cluster, and two chaplains are assigned to the entire first-year class. Students are able to choose their top five courses (without ranking) from approximately 35 options, and are assigned to one of these choices based on interest, residence hall assignments and other demographic factors. Students do not enter Holy Cross with declared majors and are encouraged to select Montserrat courses outside the field they might wish to pursue as a major. First-year seminars, particularly with academic and co-curricular linkages that create a learning community, have been shown to influence retention, graduation rates, academic performance, and lifelong learning orientations [3–8]. The Holy Cross Montserrat program was developed in part from a curricular review that identified four goals for our students’ education: the acquisition, integration and application of knowledge; engagement with values; building intellectual maturity; and the development of rhetorical and communication skills. Montserrat was intentionally designed to introduce our first-year students to the life of
263
Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education
FIG 1
Diagram highlighting design of Montserrat program. All first-year students participate in Montserrat. They are assigned to one of six thematic clusters of courses. Students engage in co-curricular programming with other students in their cluster, and live in a common dormitory with the cluster. The clusters vary slightly in size based partly on dormitory availability; the Natural World cluster had eight seminar classes in 2013-2014 with about 130 students. Students take a yearlong seminar sequence with about 16 students with a faculty member from the cluster; this manuscript describes a yearlong seminar in the Natural World cluster.
the mind through small seminars with faculty mentoring, common intellectual experiences, and residential and cocurricular programming that integrates living and learning. In the 2012–2013 and 2013–2014 academic years, I offered a yearlong seminar to 16–17 students as part of the Natural World cluster. Cluster faculty members were drawn from diverse departments across the College, including Biology, Philosophy, Political Science, English, and Visual and Studio Art. Regular cluster meetings of the faculty, a librarian, and representatives from Student Affairs were held to design co- and extra-curricular cluster activities. The first-semester course had a central theme of drug action, design, and abuse; the second-semester course focused on biotechnology and ethics. The paired courses met three times per week with 50 minutes per session. About a third of the students in each offering intended to major in biology or chemistry, and every student received one course credit toward the College’s two-course Natural and Mathematical Science common area requirement, as well as credit for two courses toward the 32 required for graduation. Although the process of developing formal learning goals for Montserrat is ongoing, the program was developed to serve as a bridge between the living and learning experiences of first year students. Some program goals are skill based, such as the development of critical thinking and written and oral communication, whereas others introduce first-year students to the aims, goals and values of a liberal arts education and life-long learning. As such, although disciplinary content was important, the learning context for these courses was more heavily emphasized than in a typical non-major course offering in chemistry. In Table 1, each topic covered in the seminars is aligned with
264
four main student learning goals: developing student writing, increasing student willingness and ability to participate in in-class discussion, developing oral presentation skills, and learning disciplinary content. Student achievement toward these goals was graded via formative rubrics, which are included in the Supporting Information. Formal course evaluation is discussed below, and was limited to student perception via end-of-year survey.
Course Description—Drug Action, Design, and Abuse Overview of Course The first semester seminar has three main objectives: to introduce non-majors to the scientific basics of drug design and pharmacology, as well as drug policy, such that they can become informed citizens; to gain experience with written and oral expression; and to adapt to the academic rigor expected of college students both in and out of the classroom. Although non-major topics courses in chemistry departments focused on drugs or pharmacology are not unusual, they are not well represented in the biochemical education literature [9].
Topics Introduction The course begins with two intellectual ice-breaking exercises to have students initiate their participation in seminar. First, students learn to use the course management system by submitting a six-word autobiography in the style of the Hemingway challenge [10], and the first class is dedicated to syllabus review and meeting one another using these autobiographies. Students read Immanuel Kant’s
Courses in Drugs and Bioethics
TABLE 1
Linkage of topics to student learning goals
Writing
Discussion
Oral presentations
Disciplinary content
Drug policies
Persuasive essay
Debate
Group
Limited
Drug Descriptions
Descriptive essay
Limited
Individual
Yes
Drug laws
No
Debate
Group
Limited
Ethnobotany
Descriptive essay
Limited
Group
Yes
Prescription drug policy
No
Debate
Group
Yes
Drugs in religion
Collaborative Descriptive essay
Facilitated Discussion
Group
Yes
Final: prescription drugs
Descriptive essay
Question/Answer
Individual
Yes
Primary readings in ethics
Essay exam
Facilitated Discussion
No
Limited
Art and animal rights
Persuasive essay
Facilitated Discussion
No
Limited
Assisted reproduction
Persuasive essay
Facilitated Discussion
Group
Yes
Informed consent
Persuasive Essay
Facilitated Discussion
Group
Yes
Gattaca
No
Facilitated Discussion
No
Yes
Performance enhancing drugs
Collaborative Persuasive essay
Facilitated Discussion
Group
Yes
Genetically modified organisms
Collaborative Persuasive essay
Facilitated Discussion
Group
Yes
Final exam: consent
Persuasive essay
Group oral exam
No
Yes
First semester topics
Second semester topics
short essay “On Enlightenment,” and the second class is dedicated to a snowball style discussion of the essay [11], with conversation first in pairs, then groups of four, and finally as the entire seminar reflecting on the study questions and how the essay could be influential to beginning students. Some first-year students are reticent to participate in class discussions early in the semester, and the snowball style gives them a safe space to work through their ideas in a small group and gain confidence. Finally, the students use Strunk and White’s The Elements of Style [12] to complete in-class and take-home grammar exercises, and a class period is dedicated to a visit from a librarian associated with the cluster to discuss campus resources and information literacy.
Scientific Lectures The responsibility for learning is placed squarely on the students, rather than the instructor providing content in the “sage on the stage” format. However, three introductory lectures are provided over four class periods, covering the basics of what is a small molecule, what is a biomolecule (protein, DNA, carbohydrate and lipid), what is an
Mills
enzyme, what is a receptor, and what are the basics of molecular pharmacology. A text is left on reserve in the library for student reference that would be excellent for a more traditional non-majors course [13], but the text is not formally assigned so that students do not become reliant on a single source to provide content.
Drug Laws and Regulations There are three student assignments related to an examination of drug laws. First, students self-assign into four groups to write individual 500-word essays on federal policies or procedures about clinical trials, drug patents, the schedule of controlled substances, or federal mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines. The essays must be driven by a clear thesis statement that argues whether the regulation is appropriate, too restrictive, or not restrictive enough. The group of four students presents a 20-minute mock debate, with two students on each side of the argument. The students provide a five-minute presentation of the facts and their position, and then facilitate a discussion with the entire seminar for 15 minutes. Students are assessed on their essay, the group presentation, and their
265
Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education participation in other debates using a structured rubric. Early in the semester students need help focusing on defending their opinions with evidence and on having thesis-directed essays that use scholarly sources. The second activity requires students to prepare a 300word descriptive essay on drugs that are illegal or may be misused, including marijuana, methamphetamine, cocaine, heroin, ketamine, Oxycontin, caffeine, nicotine, GHB, methadone, LSD, psilocybin, mescaline, MDMA, PCP, and amyl nitrate. Students create a PowerPoint presentation of about five minutes to present the structure, mechanism of action, physiological effects and legal status of their compound. Students are graded via a rubric on both their papers and presentations, with emphasis on the productive use of PowerPoint and strategies for effective public speaking. This is the first time students are presenting in front of the class individually, so I have kept this presentation short and factual. The third activity involves a critical reading of James Gray’s Why our Drug Laws Have Failed [14]. Again, students split into four groups and the text is split in quarters: chapters 1-3 (Increased Harm to Communities and Erosion of Protections of the Bill of Rights), chapters 4-5 (Increased Harm to Drug Users and Increased Harm for the Future), chapters 6-7 (Options: Increased Zero Tolerance and Options: Education) and chapters 8-9 (Options: Drug Treatment and Options: Deprofitization). Each group has one class period to present two debates, with each member being the lead for one debate. Students are assessed using a rubric on their opening statements, on questions they ask during their own debates, and on participation in other debates. After our in class debates, a local public defender visits the class to lead a “real-world” discussion of the experiences of his clients. The students participate in this discussion with enthusiasm, with many making connections to the text.
Ethnobotany Students read Mark Plotkin’s Medicine Quest [15] and follow with both descriptive papers and in-class presentations. The text is split into four sections and the class into four teams. Each group reads two chapters, and selects a topic that they would like to explore further. They compose a 500-word descriptive essay on their topic, which must include two scientific references beyond the text, cited in the format of a paper in Biochemistry. Each student creates a 5-minute PowerPoint presentation, and the group must work together to make a cohesive 20-minute presentation to the class. Students are assessed based on a rubric on their paper, presentation, and participation. Given that many courses in the “Natural World” cluster focus on environmental themes, this text gives the class the opportunity to connect with cluster events and to examine their motivations for environmental activism.
Prescription Drug Policy Students critically read John Abramson’s Overdosed America [16]. Four groups are formed to present one of four
266
topics from the book: Vioxx/Celebrex, Cholesterol Guidelines, Direct to Consumer Advertising, and Supply Side Medical Care/Affordable Care Act. Each group is responsible for one class period, and starts with a 10-minute factual presentation. Then, two students take the role of pharmaceutical executives or board members, and the other takes the role of patient advocates. Each team delivers a short opening statement drawing on cited evidence, and then engages the seminar in a debate. Students are encouraged not to see the two sides merely as in conflict, but to appreciate the nuances of the motivations of both sides of the debate and how each can bring value to society. Students are assessed on their group and individual presentations and participation in other events. In the first year of the course, Professor Abramson visited the class and gave a public lecture.
Drugs in Religion The students use Robert Fuller’s Stairways to Heaven: Drugs in American Religious History [17] as a source for a collaborative 1200-word essay and presentation, again in groups of four. Four chapters of the text are considered: Native American Religion, Psychedelics, Wine, and Unchurched Spirituality. The paper and presentation must summarize the chapter but also provide greater depth than the text, with external literature references cited. A 20minute PowerPoint presentation is followed by a 30-minute class discussion led by the group. As a Jesuit institution, Holy Cross students are directed by their sense of the College’s mission to engage in ecumenical discussions of topics of a spiritual nature. The group grade for the paper can strike students as initially unfair, but is used as an opportunity to discuss the assignment and responsibility of authorship of scientific papers.
Final—Prescription Drugs As a final assignment, students pick from a list of the most used pharmaceutical agents, including penicillin, Zithromax, Ritonavir, AZT, Tamiflu, 5-fluorouracil, Glaive, Albuterol, morphine, Zantac, Prilosec, Prozac, Lipitor, ibuprofen, Lisinopril, and Ritalin. An individual 1250-word essay is due on the date of the final exam, asking students to describe the structure, mode of action, pharmacological properties, benefits, side effects and related drugs as well as the sociological aspects of the drug, including its history, marketing, cost, availability and potential for abuse, where relevant. Students make an 8–10 minute presentation on their drug, with four minutes for questions. They also are required to summarize and critique four peer presentations in 200-words essays, including at least one from each class period, to ensure attendance and attention at other students’ talks. Throughout the course, student fluency in discussing the science behind the readings increased, as did their competency in public speaking and writing a thesisdriven essay.
Courses in Drugs and Bioethics
Co-Curricular Events
Scientific Lectures
In addition to a stand-alone seminar course, the cluster provides co-curricular activities to unite the group, hopefully encouraging intellectual discussion in the dorms. Many courses in the cluster had environmental themes both years, and Medicine Quest allowed for integration with this seminar. For example, the cluster started one semester with a group hike at a local geological formation. Both years, the cluster watched the documentary Sun Come Up on the relocation of the Carteret Islanders [18]. Attendance at these events is compulsory, and was evaluated primarily by participation in follow-up classroom discussions. Within the seminar, we used excerpts from the excellent text Know Your Chances to critically and quantitatively assess commercial drug claims [19], and started each class with an “outside the bubble” session in which students were asked to report on the news of the world. It was impressive how students were able to link current events to the topics of that day’s class. The students also are asked to read a book for fun during the term, and the class period before Thanksgiving is spent with each student pitching their selection as a good choice for a holiday gift.
Again, students are largely responsible for providing scientific content, but the professor provides just-in-time lectures about topics that the students will explore in more depth in bioethical case studies, including lectures on assisted reproduction, cancer, stem cells, viruses, and an introduction to genetics.
Course Description—Biotechnology and Ethics
Primary Readings in Ethics Students read excerpts from philosophical works provided by Gordon Marino’s compilation Ethics, The Essential Writings [29]. The readings are guided by study questions, and these questions form the basis for snowball discussions in seminar. Short application-based thought questions are added as the course progresses. Readings include excerpts from Plato’s Euthyphro, Aquinas’ Summa Theologica, Kant’s Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals, Mill’s Utilitarianism, Rawls’ A Theory of Justice, and Sartre’s Existentialism and Human Emotion. Students are graded based on a participation rubric. Students find the readings challenging but most students are able to participate well in class discussions. A midterm written takehome examination asks students to draw on the readings and discussions and apply the philosophical frameworks learned to questions about the partial birth abortion ban act of 2003, the Massachusetts ballot initiative on medical marijuana use, and confidentiality of medical testing results.
Overview of Course
Worcester Art Museum and Animal Rights
The second semester seminar has four main objectives: to learn from primary sources the fundamentals of ethical thought, to hone writing and oral rhetorical skills with an emphasis on supporting a thesis with a grounding in a philosophical framework supported by evidence, to learn about the science behind cutting edge biotechnology, and to continue to make progress toward adapting to college-level academic expectations. An excellent text on bioethics is left on reserve in the library [20], but not formally assigned to encourage students to learn from primary sources. Recent courses or modules in bioethics have been described as part of programs for science majors [21–25], as have recent strategies for incorporating bioethics coursework into different levels of the undergraduate curriculum, including for non-science majors [26, 27].
As part of the learning cluster, students visited the Worcester Art Museum, with upper-class students serving as docents. To integrate the visit with the seminar, students read an excerpt from Tom Regan’s The Case for Animal Rights from the Marino compilation. Four pieces of artwork are viewed during the visit that can be related to how humans and animals are in relation: Jan Fyt’s Crossbow and Dead Game, Piero di Cosimo’s The Discovery of Honey by Bacchus, Rona Pondick’s sculpture Mouse, and a large Roman mosaic hunting scene from the early sixth century A.D., the Worcester Hunt, that is one of the museum’s most notable pieces. Students are assessed on a 750-word essay linking one of the works of art with Regan’s essay, and a day of discussion both pre- and post-visit is assessed for participation. Students report this trip as one of their most memorable and enjoyable experiences of the semester, and the faculty members hope that it motivates engagement with Worcester’s cultural institutions throughout their time in college.
Topics Introduction The course begins with a two-day lecture by the professor on the fundamentals of ethics, on logic and arguments, and on a comparison of natural law, utilitarian, deontological, contractarian and Kantian perspectives. In the most recent offering, the cluster read Daniel Quinn’s Ishmael [28], which provides a good starting point for considering the relationship of human reason and our moral choices as a species.
Mills
Assisted Reproduction Technology Students read Liza Mundy’s Everything Conceivable [30] as a reference for discussions about ethical questions related to assisted reproduction. Four student groups are formed, and each group leads a class-long discussion on one of four topics: single parents/same-sex couples, the choice of
267
Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education having multiple children, the disposition of unused frozen embryos, and selective reduction. Although most students in the seminar are only 18 or 19 years old, they are able to connect to these topics in very personal ways, and it is clear that these topics challenge them to examine their visceral opinions with the ethical frameworks studied in the seminar. Each student writes a 1000-word persuasive essay using one of the philosophical frameworks learned in the beginning of the course.
and then leads the class in a discussion of studentprepared study questions that draw from the readings and the philosophical frameworks discussed. Students are assessed on their presentation, participation, and a joint 1200-word persuasive essay arguing for or against the legality/morality of the use of the compound.
Final Exam
To facilitate case studies of informed consent, students read Rebecca Skloot’s The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks [31] and an excerpt from Ricki Lewis’ The Forever Fix about the Gelsinger gene therapy case [32], as well as recent articles about compensation for tissue donations [33] and the ethics of innovative clinical trials [34]. Students also are asked to research the facts of the Tuskegee syphilis study. The class is split into five groups, and each addresses a question related to the cases. Students address the questions by a personal 750-word persuasive essay supported by one consistent philosophical framework and a group-led class period discussion. Students are assessed on their essays, participation in the other discussions, and the leading of their group’s discussion.
For the final exam, students write an individual persuasive essay of 1000 words taking a position on either (i) the morality of the actions of a key player in the “Baby M” case, or (ii) the morality of Deaf parents genetically selecting for Deaf children. Both cases are described in the text on reserve [20], and students are expected to do further research. Students were able to select their topic ahead of time using an on-line poll. During the final exam period, the students come in groups of three for an oral examination, in which the professor asks questions about the facts of the cases and asks students to take positions based on the philosophical frameworks used in the course. Students may bring notes to the final exam, but the conversational nature of the examination makes it unlikely that they would make reference to them. This format of the final exam is very fitting, given that a major goal of the course was development in both written and oral expression rather than taking formal exams.
Gattaca Viewing
Co-Curricular Events
As a co-curricular event, the class watches Andrew Niccol’s Gattaca [35] as a group in the dorm over dinner. Students are assigned two related articles to stimulate discussion [36, 37]. Study questions form the basis for a discussion in a follow-up class, and students write a 500-page essay judging a specific action of a major character as moral or immoral based on one philosophical framework. The social aspect of the viewing creates a lively opportunity for informal discussion.
In addition to the Gattaca viewing, the cluster also has events to support student conversation. In 1 year, students viewed the film Maximum Tolerated Dose [43] and had a panel discussion with the director. This film on animal testing fit in well with our discussion of the Regan essay. The College’s McFarland Center for Religion, Ethics and Culture also hosted academic seminars that the cluster students could attend, one of which was made compulsory for my seminar students. Student attendance at cluster events was mandatory. Students were assessed either through the quality of their classroom participation in a follow-up discussion or by their contribution to an on-line discussion forum using the course management system.
Informed Consent
Performance Enhancing Drugs and Genetically Modified Foods Performance enhancing drugs and genetically modified (GM) foods are the concluding case studies; students suggested these topics during the first course offering, and most student groups find personal connections to their topic. To facilitate discussion, students read the chapter “Enhancement in Sports” from Maxwell Mehlman’s The Price of Perfection [38], the chapter “The Wild and the Sown” from Nina Fedoroff’s Mendel in the Kitchen [39], and three other articles on GM foods [40–42]. Each team chooses one of eight topics: human growth hormone and baseball, blood doping in cycling or track, anabolic steroid use in football, amphetamine or Adderall use by pilots or musicians, bST milk, BT corn or soybeans, Round-UP Ready crops and infertile seeds, and Golden rice. The team prepares a 10-minute PowerPoint presentation presenting the science behind the topic and arguments for and/or against the safety and efficacy of the use of the compound,
268
Evaluation of Student Learning Outcomes For each assignment, the rubrics used for assessment are included in the Supporting Information. The rubrics provide guidance to the student about the expectations for written and oral work and the need to engage with the scientific content. In future iterations of the course, I will use highlights from these rubrics to list formal learning outcomes on the syllabus. In addition my evaluation of each assignment, the College’s Office of Assessment and Research has established an exit survey to evaluate the student experience in the seminars (rather than to evaluate formal learning goals).
Courses in Drugs and Bioethics
When an ad hoc committee developed the Montserrat program, it created a mission statement, along with provisional goals and student learning outcomes. However, as the faculty discussed and eventually implemented the program, formal goals and outcomes were not widely endorsed. The exit surveys, along with a rigorous 5-year evaluation process, have animated discussion on campus to codify the learning goals that have most often been emphasized by faculty teaching in the program, which include the development of critical thinking and written and oral communication skills. For the 2013–2014 offering, students in the seminar granted permission to use the results of this survey for external audiences, and the Holy Cross Human Subjects Committee approved the permission form and survey for this purpose. Student responses are reported in Table 2, and suggest that students believe that the seminar classes, as compared to their other more traditional courses, give them more opportunities to contribute to class discussions, to work with classmates, and to support their opinions with a logical argument. Students report that they also are more likely to give an oral presentation and to connect the course material with broader issues. Self-reported gains in ability to make oral arguments, make class presentations, analyze topics from different perspectives and work collaboratively suggest that the seminar sequence had a positive impact on student learning. In future course offerings, I will explore ways to ensure that students feel free to disagree with their professor as much as they disagree with one another, and I will use more in-class workshops of essay drafts so that students become as accustomed to working together in class as they do out of class. To further focus the evaluation, I plan to utilize direct measures of student learning, such as pre- and post-tests and writing assessment using a College-designed writing rubric. I may implement low-stakes content-based final examinations to evaluate if students are meeting the disciplinary learning goal. As Montserrat continues to formalize student learning goals, College-wide assessment of student learning using direct measures will permit the assessment of individual seminars and clusters.
Discussion Seminar courses for first year students are a relatively common educational intervention, and are often aimed at increasing first-year student retention [44]. Porter and Swing describe five types of seminar programs: Transition theme, Special academic theme, Discipline theme, Remedial theme, and Mixed format [44]. Holy Cross’ Montserrat program mostly incorporates the special academic theme. One program aim is to address college transition issues for first year students, but with a primary focus on intellectual transformation rather than life-style transition. This is accomplished via a yearlong focus on an interdisciplinary
Mills
theme within the learning cluster that encourages students to become producers of knowledge and not just consumers of information. In a recent review, Barefoot described six “research-based objectives” that characterize first-year experiences: Increasing student-to-student interaction Increasing faculty-to-student interaction, especially out of class Increasing student involvement and time on campus Linking the curriculum and the co-curriculum Increasing academic expectations and levels of academic engagement Assisting students who have insufficient academic preparation for college [45]. The Montserrat program and the described seminar series address many of these objectives. Students are expected to drive the class discussion and interact with one another in class, and by living together have opportunities to bring classroom conversations to their residence halls. The program requires institutional commitment to small seminar classes for first year students as well as faculty members willing to teach in an interactive format. The cluster format with shared events encourages student interactions not only with the seminar leader but with other faculty members as well. Shared events require the involvement of student life collaborators and the willingness of faculty members to be involved in evening and occasional weekend events. As a residential campus, our students spend time on campus, but Montserrat helps to extend the learning environment throughout campus. Montserrat’s focus on writing skills, classroom participation, public speaking and interdisciplinary thinking prepares our students academically for the rigor of the intermediate and advanced elements of our curriculum. (Holy Cross has other programs, including residential summer bridge opportunities, to assist students with issues of academic preparation for college.) The two-semester course sequence was both challenging and rewarding to the students and the professor. Although students are encouraged to elect seminars outside of their planned majors, a substantial minority of students in the seminars intended to major in science or follow the pre-health track. This was a benefit for this seminar sequence, as a diversity of student perspectives made debates lively. The science students were able to speak with more authority about the content of some of the texts and lectures, while their colleagues interested in political science, philosophy, etc., were able to contribute from their developing disciplinary expertise. However, faculty colleagues who teach science-based Montserrat seminars that spend more time on traditional content anecdotally report challenges balancing the experiences of students with different levels of scientific background, particularly in the second semester when some students already have
269
TABLE 2
Assessment of student learning
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Summary percentage of top two Likert options and mean value
Writing ability
28.6%
35.7%
21.4%
7.1%
64%, M 5 2.92
Ability to make a coherent argument in writing using supporting evidence
14.3%
57.1%
21.4%
0%
71%, M 5 2.92
Ability to make a coherent argument orally using supportive evidence
50.0%
50.0%
0%
0%
100%, M 5 3.50
Ability to make an in-class presentation
71.4%
21.4%
0%
0%
100%, M 5 3.77
Ability to explain my ideas to others in writing
21.4%
71.4%
0%
0%
93%, M 5 3.23
Ability to explain my ideas to others orally
64.3%
35.7%
0%
0%
100%, M 5 3.64
Ability to conduct research on a topic
28.6%
64.3%
0%
7.1%
93%, M 5 3.14
Ability to consider multiple approaches to a single issue
42.9%
42.9%
14.3%
0%
86%, M 5 3.29
Ability to analyze a topic from different perspectives
71.4%
14.3%
14.3%
0%
86%, M 5 3.57
Willingness to raise questions
35.7%
50.0%
14.3%
0%
86%, M 5 3.21
Intellectual self-confidence
21.4%
57.1%
14.3%
0%
79%, M 5 3.08
Self-understanding
14.3%
50.0%
14.3%
14.3%
64%, M 5 2.69
Understanding of others
35.7%
50.0%
14.3%
0%
86%, M 5 3.21
Openness to taking intellectual risks
21.4%
71.4%
7.1%
0%
93%, M 5 3.14
Willingness to reflect critically on my own views
35.7%
50.0%
7.1%
7.1%
86%, M 5 3.14
Openness to having my views challenged
42.9%
42.9%
14.3%
0%
86%, M 5 3.29
Ability to work collaboratively
64.3%
35.7%
0%
0%
100%, M 5 3.64
SECTION A: Since entering Holy Cross, the Montserrat seminar has improved my: Survey items: (n 5 14)
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Summary percentage of top two Likert options and mean value
Ask questions in class
42.9%
57.1%
0%
0%
100%, M 5 3.43
Support my opinions with a logical argument orally
78.6%
21.4%
0%
0%
100%, M 5 3.79
Support my opinions with a logical argument in writing
35.7%
64.3%
0%
0%
100%, M 5 3.36
Connect class material to broader questions or issues
50.0%
50.0%
0%
0%
100%, M 5 3.50
Give an oral presentation
85.7%
14.3%
0%
0%
100%, M 5 3.86
Challenge the views of my classmates in class
50.0%
50.0%
0%
0%
100%, M 5 3.50
Challenge my professor’s views in classroom discussion
21.4%
35.7%
35.7%
0%
57%, M 5 2.85
Regularly contribute to class discussion
50.0%
50.0%
0%
0%
100%, M 5 3.50
Work with classmates during class
35.7%
42.9%
14.3%
7.1%
79%, M 5 3.07
Work with classmates outside class
78.6%
21.4%
0%
0%
100%, M 5 3.79
SECTION B: Compared to my other Holy Cross classes, my Montserrat seminar provided me with more opportunities to: Survey Items: (n 5 14)
Notes: 1. Complete response options include: 4—Strongly Agree, 3—Agree, 2—Disagree, 1—Strongly Disagree and 0—N/A. 2. Summary percentages include response options “Strongly Agree” and “Agree.” 3. The N/A response was not included in the mean calculation.
completed two college-level introductory science classes and others have not. Having one course per semester dedicated to Montserrat also is challenging to some perspective science majors as they design their academic schedule. After the first offering, I was concerned that students were not held sufficiently responsible for learning the scientific content of the readings, and I emphasized this more in class discussions by asking questions of presenters about the science, and asking follow-up questions from my lectures during class discussions. In the next iteration, I make clearer in my rubrics that scientific content is being evaluated in the written and oral work, and low-stakes quizzes may help to ensure that students are placing a significant emphasis on learning content. A weakness of the first offering was convincing students to identify and use scholarly sources beyond the internet, and with the assistance of the cluster librarian I made this a point of emphasis the second year. Montserrat is designed to be intentionally flexible, but that does create challenges in designing common cluster events. Student satisfaction with common cluster events is the highest when the intellectual connection between the event and the seminar is clear. The best events that achieve that important connection leave students talking animatedly as they leave the event and before seminar the next day. At the inception of the Montserrat program, some science faculty expressed trepidation about teaching writing in their courses. However, the College has provided workshops for interested faculty members, and there is sufficient flexibility in the program that faculty members can teach writing from their own disciplinary contexts. Our students generally are good technical writers, but require improvement on thesis development and on supporting their theses with evidence and scholarly sources in an organized manner. Faculty members from many disciplines, including the sciences, have experience with this style of persuasive writing and can help students improve. Teaching in the Montserrat program served as a pedagogical laboratory for me to reflect on and experiment with strategies to help me improve my teaching in more traditional science offerings. I have been less concerned about changing the balance of time in the classroom between traditional lecture and student-centered activities that require students to come to class prepared to be participants rather than passive receivers of information. Given that much of what we do as professional scientists involves reading, writing, and presentations, my Montserrat experiences have emboldened me to integrate these activities more fully into my other courses.
Acknowledgements This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under grants MCB-0950245 and MCB-1244089 and by a Henry Dreyfus TeacherScholar Award. I acknowledge the students who contrib-
Mills
uted to each offering of the class, as well as Denise Bell and Vera Mauck of the Holy Cross Office of Assessment and Research for the assessment data, and Denise Bell, Denise Schaeffer and Stephanie Yuhl for helpful conversations and critical readings of the manuscript.
References [1] Singleton, R. A., Garvey, R. H., and Phillips, G. A. (1998) Connecting the academic and social lives of students: The holy cross First-year program. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning. 30, 18–25. [2] Weiss, C. S. (2009) Sustaining institutional mission through "pilgrimage." Lib. Educ. 95, 56–60. [3] Padgett, R. D., Keup, J. R., and Pascarella, E. T. (2013) The impact of First-year seminars on college students’ Life-long learning orientation. J. Student Affair. Res. Pract. 50, 133–151. [4] Fidler, P. P., and Moore, P. S. (1996) A comparison of effects of campus residence and freshman seminar attendance on freshman dropout rates. J. First-Year Exp. Stud. Transit. 8, 7–16. [5] Starke, M. C., Harth, M., and Sirianni, F. (2001) Retention, bonding and academic achievement: Success of a first-year seminar. J. First-Year Exp. Stud. Transit. 13, 7–36. [6] Huang, Y. R., and Chang, S. M. (2004) Academic and cocurricular involvement: Their relationship and the best combinations for student growth. J. Coll. Stud. Dev. 45, 391–406. [7] Stassen, M. L. A. (2003) Student outcomes: The impact of varying learning-living community models. Res. High. Educ. 44, 581–612. [8] Zhao, C. M. and Kuh, G. D. (2004) Adding value: Learning communities adn student engagement. Res. High. Educ. 45, 115–138. [9] Evans, M. H. (1984) Understanding drugs: A new interdisciplinary course. J. Chem. Educ. 61, 671–674. [10] Wright, F. A. (2012) The short story just got shorter: Hemingway, narrative and the Six-word urban legend. J Popul. Cult. 47, 327–340. [11] Silberman, M. L. (2006) Training the Active Training Way: 8 Strategies to Spark Learning and Change, John Wiley & Sons. [12] Strunk, W. and White, E. B. (2009) The Elements of Style, 50th Anniversary ed., Pearson Longman, New York. [13] Patrick, G. L. and Spencer, J. (2009) An Introduction to Medicinal Chemistry, 4th ed., Oxford University Press, New York. [14] Gray, J. P. (2012) Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed And What We Can Do About It: A Judicial Indictment of the War on Drugs, 2nd ed., Temple University Press, Philadelphia. [15] Plotkin, M. J. (2000) Medicine Quest: In Search of Nature’s Healing Secrets, Viking, New York. [16] Abramson, J. (2004) Overdosed America: The Broken Promise of American Medicine, 1st ed., HarperCollins, New York. [17] Fuller, R. C. (2000) Stairways to Heaven: Drugs in American Religious History, Westview Press, Boulder, Colo. [18] Redfearn, J. (2011) Sun come up, Red Antelope Films, United States. [19] Woloshin, S., Schwartz, L. M., and Welch, H. G. (2008) Know Your Chances: Understanding Health Statistics, University of California Press, Berkeley. [20] Vaughn, L. (2013) Bioethics: Principles, Issues, and Cases, 2nd ed., Oxford University Press, New York. [21] Bryant, J. and Baggot la Velle L. (2003) A bioethics course for biology and science education students. J. Biol. Educ. 37, 91–95. [22] Kolarova, T. A. and Denev, I. D. (2012) Integrating a bioethics course into undergraduate biology education. Biotechnol. Biotechnol. Equip. 26, 2801–2810. [23] Downie, R. and Clarkeburn H. (2005) Approaches to the teaching of bioethics and professional ethics in undergraduate courses. Biosci. Educ. 5, [24] Turrens J. F. (2005) Teaching research integrity and bioethics to science undergraduates. Cell Biol. Educ. 4, 330–334. [25] Loike, J. D., Rush, B. S., Schweber, A., and Fischbach, R. L. (2013) Lessons learned from undergraduate students in designing a Sciencebased course in bioethics. CBE-Life Sci. Educ. 12, 701–710.
271
Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education [26] McGowan, A. H. (2013) Teaching science and ethics to undergraduates: A multidisciplinary approach. Sci. Eng. Ethics. 19, 535–543. [27] Zaikowski, L. A. and Garrett, J. M. (2004) A Three-tiered approach to enhance undergraduate education in bioethics. BioScience 54, 942–949. [28] Quinn, D. (1992) Ishmael: A novel, Bantam/Turner Book, New York. [29] Marino, G. D. (2010) Ethics: The essential writings, Modern Library, New York. [30] Mundy, L. (2007) Everything Conceivable: How Assisted Reproduction is Changing Men, Women, and the World, 1st ed., Alfred A. Knopf, New York. [31] Skloot, R. (2011) The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, 1st pbk. ed., Broadway Paperbacks, New York. [32] Lewis, R. (2012) The Forever Fix: Gene Therapy and the Boy Who Saved It, 1st ed., St. Martin’s Press, New York. [33] Truog, R. D., Kesselheim, A. S., and Joffe, S. (2012) Research ethics. Paying patients for their tissue: The legacy of henrietta lacks. Science. 337, 37–38. [34] London, A. J., Kimmelman, J., and Emborg, M.E. (2010) Research ethics. Beyond access vs. Protection in trials of innovative therapies. Science. 328, 829–830. [35] Niccol, A. (1997) Gattaca. Columbia Pictures, United States.
272
[36] Marsen, S. (2009) Playing by the Rules—Or not? Construction of identity in a posthuman future. in Transhumanism and Its Critics, pp. 84–93. [37] Jeffreys, M. (2001) Dr. Daedalus and his minotaur: Mythics warnings about genetic engineering from J.B.S. haldane, francois jacob, and andrew niccol’s gattaca. J. Med. Hum. 22, 137–153. [38] Mehlman, M. J. (2009) The Price of Perfection: Individualism and Society in the Era of Biomedical Enhancement, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. [39] Fedoroff, N. V. and Brown, N. M. (2004) Mendel in the Kitchen: A scientist’s View of Genetically Modified Foods, Joseph Henry Press, Washington, D.C. [40] Kean, S. (2010) Besting johnny appleseed. Science. 328, 301–303. [41] Fedoroff, N. V. (2010) The past, present and future of crop genetic modification. New Biotechnol. 27, 461–465. [42] Stone G. D. (2010) The anthropology of genetically modified crops. Ann. Rev. Anthropol. 39, 381–400. [43] Orzechowski K. (2012) Maximum tolerated dose. Decipher Films, Canada. [44] Porter, S. R. and Swing, R. L. (2006) Understanding how First-year seminars affect persistence. Res. High. Educ. 47, 89–109. [45] Barefoot, B. O. (2000) The first-year experience: Are we making it any better? About Campus 4, 12–18.
Courses in Drugs and Bioethics
Kenneth V. Mills*
From the Department of Chemistry, College of the Holy Cross, Worcester, Massachusetts 01610
Abstract The College of the Holy Cross offers a universal first-year program called Montserrat, in which first-year students participate in a living-learning experience anchored by a yearlong seminar course. The seminar courses are part of a thematic cluster of four to eight courses; students in the cluster live together in a common dormitory and participate in shared co-curricular events designed to engage the entire cluster in intellectual discourse related to the theme. A two-semester seminar within the “Natural World” cluster was offered using biochemical principles as the underlying content. In the first semester, students were introduced to
drug design, activity and abuse via student presentations and guided readings on ethnobotany, drug laws, drug use in religion, and prescription drug costs. In the second semester, students discussed primary readings in ethics followed by case study analyses of assisted reproduction technologies, informed consent, genetic privacy, performance enhancing drugs and genetically modified organisms. Student learning outcomes were evaluated via rubrics and C 2015 by the International a College-facilitated survey. V Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, 43(4):263– 272, 2015.
Keywords: curriculum; collaborative/cooperative learning; communication/writing; biotechnology; drugs/pharmaceuticals; ethics; non-major courses; student-centered learning
Introduction In 1992, Holy Cross began to offer a First-Year Program (FYP) centered around a core theme inspired by Tolstoy’s A Confession: “How then shall we live?” Each year, a group of seminars focused on a version of this question, for example: “In a world of conflicting views of well-being and the good life, how then shall we live?” The FYP was offered for a self-selected group of about 20-25% of the incoming class, who participated in seminars taught from the faculty member’s disciplinary perspective supplemented with common intellectual experiences, common texts, and a dedicated dormitory [1]. In 2008, Holy Cross launched a universal FYP called Montserrat, after the mountain where St.
w s Additional Supporting Information may be found in the online version of this article. Abbreviations: FYP, First-Year Program; GM, genetically modified *Address for correspondence to: Department of Chemistry, College of the Holy Cross, Worcester, MA 01610. E-mail: [email protected] Received 13 January 2015; Revised 15 April 2015; Accepted 12 May 2015 DOI 10.1002/bmb.20878 Published online 3 July 2015 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com)
Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education
Ignatius laid down his sword and dedicated his life to study, service and learning [2]. Montserrat consists of six thematic clusters: Core Human Questions, The Divine, Global Society, The Self, The Natural World, and Contemporary Challenges. (See Fig. 1) A dedicated librarian and professional staff from Student Affairs support each cluster, and two chaplains are assigned to the entire first-year class. Students are able to choose their top five courses (without ranking) from approximately 35 options, and are assigned to one of these choices based on interest, residence hall assignments and other demographic factors. Students do not enter Holy Cross with declared majors and are encouraged to select Montserrat courses outside the field they might wish to pursue as a major. First-year seminars, particularly with academic and co-curricular linkages that create a learning community, have been shown to influence retention, graduation rates, academic performance, and lifelong learning orientations [3–8]. The Holy Cross Montserrat program was developed in part from a curricular review that identified four goals for our students’ education: the acquisition, integration and application of knowledge; engagement with values; building intellectual maturity; and the development of rhetorical and communication skills. Montserrat was intentionally designed to introduce our first-year students to the life of
263
Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education
FIG 1
Diagram highlighting design of Montserrat program. All first-year students participate in Montserrat. They are assigned to one of six thematic clusters of courses. Students engage in co-curricular programming with other students in their cluster, and live in a common dormitory with the cluster. The clusters vary slightly in size based partly on dormitory availability; the Natural World cluster had eight seminar classes in 2013-2014 with about 130 students. Students take a yearlong seminar sequence with about 16 students with a faculty member from the cluster; this manuscript describes a yearlong seminar in the Natural World cluster.
the mind through small seminars with faculty mentoring, common intellectual experiences, and residential and cocurricular programming that integrates living and learning. In the 2012–2013 and 2013–2014 academic years, I offered a yearlong seminar to 16–17 students as part of the Natural World cluster. Cluster faculty members were drawn from diverse departments across the College, including Biology, Philosophy, Political Science, English, and Visual and Studio Art. Regular cluster meetings of the faculty, a librarian, and representatives from Student Affairs were held to design co- and extra-curricular cluster activities. The first-semester course had a central theme of drug action, design, and abuse; the second-semester course focused on biotechnology and ethics. The paired courses met three times per week with 50 minutes per session. About a third of the students in each offering intended to major in biology or chemistry, and every student received one course credit toward the College’s two-course Natural and Mathematical Science common area requirement, as well as credit for two courses toward the 32 required for graduation. Although the process of developing formal learning goals for Montserrat is ongoing, the program was developed to serve as a bridge between the living and learning experiences of first year students. Some program goals are skill based, such as the development of critical thinking and written and oral communication, whereas others introduce first-year students to the aims, goals and values of a liberal arts education and life-long learning. As such, although disciplinary content was important, the learning context for these courses was more heavily emphasized than in a typical non-major course offering in chemistry. In Table 1, each topic covered in the seminars is aligned with
264
four main student learning goals: developing student writing, increasing student willingness and ability to participate in in-class discussion, developing oral presentation skills, and learning disciplinary content. Student achievement toward these goals was graded via formative rubrics, which are included in the Supporting Information. Formal course evaluation is discussed below, and was limited to student perception via end-of-year survey.
Course Description—Drug Action, Design, and Abuse Overview of Course The first semester seminar has three main objectives: to introduce non-majors to the scientific basics of drug design and pharmacology, as well as drug policy, such that they can become informed citizens; to gain experience with written and oral expression; and to adapt to the academic rigor expected of college students both in and out of the classroom. Although non-major topics courses in chemistry departments focused on drugs or pharmacology are not unusual, they are not well represented in the biochemical education literature [9].
Topics Introduction The course begins with two intellectual ice-breaking exercises to have students initiate their participation in seminar. First, students learn to use the course management system by submitting a six-word autobiography in the style of the Hemingway challenge [10], and the first class is dedicated to syllabus review and meeting one another using these autobiographies. Students read Immanuel Kant’s
Courses in Drugs and Bioethics
TABLE 1
Linkage of topics to student learning goals
Writing
Discussion
Oral presentations
Disciplinary content
Drug policies
Persuasive essay
Debate
Group
Limited
Drug Descriptions
Descriptive essay
Limited
Individual
Yes
Drug laws
No
Debate
Group
Limited
Ethnobotany
Descriptive essay
Limited
Group
Yes
Prescription drug policy
No
Debate
Group
Yes
Drugs in religion
Collaborative Descriptive essay
Facilitated Discussion
Group
Yes
Final: prescription drugs
Descriptive essay
Question/Answer
Individual
Yes
Primary readings in ethics
Essay exam
Facilitated Discussion
No
Limited
Art and animal rights
Persuasive essay
Facilitated Discussion
No
Limited
Assisted reproduction
Persuasive essay
Facilitated Discussion
Group
Yes
Informed consent
Persuasive Essay
Facilitated Discussion
Group
Yes
Gattaca
No
Facilitated Discussion
No
Yes
Performance enhancing drugs
Collaborative Persuasive essay
Facilitated Discussion
Group
Yes
Genetically modified organisms
Collaborative Persuasive essay
Facilitated Discussion
Group
Yes
Final exam: consent
Persuasive essay
Group oral exam
No
Yes
First semester topics
Second semester topics
short essay “On Enlightenment,” and the second class is dedicated to a snowball style discussion of the essay [11], with conversation first in pairs, then groups of four, and finally as the entire seminar reflecting on the study questions and how the essay could be influential to beginning students. Some first-year students are reticent to participate in class discussions early in the semester, and the snowball style gives them a safe space to work through their ideas in a small group and gain confidence. Finally, the students use Strunk and White’s The Elements of Style [12] to complete in-class and take-home grammar exercises, and a class period is dedicated to a visit from a librarian associated with the cluster to discuss campus resources and information literacy.
Scientific Lectures The responsibility for learning is placed squarely on the students, rather than the instructor providing content in the “sage on the stage” format. However, three introductory lectures are provided over four class periods, covering the basics of what is a small molecule, what is a biomolecule (protein, DNA, carbohydrate and lipid), what is an
Mills
enzyme, what is a receptor, and what are the basics of molecular pharmacology. A text is left on reserve in the library for student reference that would be excellent for a more traditional non-majors course [13], but the text is not formally assigned so that students do not become reliant on a single source to provide content.
Drug Laws and Regulations There are three student assignments related to an examination of drug laws. First, students self-assign into four groups to write individual 500-word essays on federal policies or procedures about clinical trials, drug patents, the schedule of controlled substances, or federal mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines. The essays must be driven by a clear thesis statement that argues whether the regulation is appropriate, too restrictive, or not restrictive enough. The group of four students presents a 20-minute mock debate, with two students on each side of the argument. The students provide a five-minute presentation of the facts and their position, and then facilitate a discussion with the entire seminar for 15 minutes. Students are assessed on their essay, the group presentation, and their
265
Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education participation in other debates using a structured rubric. Early in the semester students need help focusing on defending their opinions with evidence and on having thesis-directed essays that use scholarly sources. The second activity requires students to prepare a 300word descriptive essay on drugs that are illegal or may be misused, including marijuana, methamphetamine, cocaine, heroin, ketamine, Oxycontin, caffeine, nicotine, GHB, methadone, LSD, psilocybin, mescaline, MDMA, PCP, and amyl nitrate. Students create a PowerPoint presentation of about five minutes to present the structure, mechanism of action, physiological effects and legal status of their compound. Students are graded via a rubric on both their papers and presentations, with emphasis on the productive use of PowerPoint and strategies for effective public speaking. This is the first time students are presenting in front of the class individually, so I have kept this presentation short and factual. The third activity involves a critical reading of James Gray’s Why our Drug Laws Have Failed [14]. Again, students split into four groups and the text is split in quarters: chapters 1-3 (Increased Harm to Communities and Erosion of Protections of the Bill of Rights), chapters 4-5 (Increased Harm to Drug Users and Increased Harm for the Future), chapters 6-7 (Options: Increased Zero Tolerance and Options: Education) and chapters 8-9 (Options: Drug Treatment and Options: Deprofitization). Each group has one class period to present two debates, with each member being the lead for one debate. Students are assessed using a rubric on their opening statements, on questions they ask during their own debates, and on participation in other debates. After our in class debates, a local public defender visits the class to lead a “real-world” discussion of the experiences of his clients. The students participate in this discussion with enthusiasm, with many making connections to the text.
Ethnobotany Students read Mark Plotkin’s Medicine Quest [15] and follow with both descriptive papers and in-class presentations. The text is split into four sections and the class into four teams. Each group reads two chapters, and selects a topic that they would like to explore further. They compose a 500-word descriptive essay on their topic, which must include two scientific references beyond the text, cited in the format of a paper in Biochemistry. Each student creates a 5-minute PowerPoint presentation, and the group must work together to make a cohesive 20-minute presentation to the class. Students are assessed based on a rubric on their paper, presentation, and participation. Given that many courses in the “Natural World” cluster focus on environmental themes, this text gives the class the opportunity to connect with cluster events and to examine their motivations for environmental activism.
Prescription Drug Policy Students critically read John Abramson’s Overdosed America [16]. Four groups are formed to present one of four
266
topics from the book: Vioxx/Celebrex, Cholesterol Guidelines, Direct to Consumer Advertising, and Supply Side Medical Care/Affordable Care Act. Each group is responsible for one class period, and starts with a 10-minute factual presentation. Then, two students take the role of pharmaceutical executives or board members, and the other takes the role of patient advocates. Each team delivers a short opening statement drawing on cited evidence, and then engages the seminar in a debate. Students are encouraged not to see the two sides merely as in conflict, but to appreciate the nuances of the motivations of both sides of the debate and how each can bring value to society. Students are assessed on their group and individual presentations and participation in other events. In the first year of the course, Professor Abramson visited the class and gave a public lecture.
Drugs in Religion The students use Robert Fuller’s Stairways to Heaven: Drugs in American Religious History [17] as a source for a collaborative 1200-word essay and presentation, again in groups of four. Four chapters of the text are considered: Native American Religion, Psychedelics, Wine, and Unchurched Spirituality. The paper and presentation must summarize the chapter but also provide greater depth than the text, with external literature references cited. A 20minute PowerPoint presentation is followed by a 30-minute class discussion led by the group. As a Jesuit institution, Holy Cross students are directed by their sense of the College’s mission to engage in ecumenical discussions of topics of a spiritual nature. The group grade for the paper can strike students as initially unfair, but is used as an opportunity to discuss the assignment and responsibility of authorship of scientific papers.
Final—Prescription Drugs As a final assignment, students pick from a list of the most used pharmaceutical agents, including penicillin, Zithromax, Ritonavir, AZT, Tamiflu, 5-fluorouracil, Glaive, Albuterol, morphine, Zantac, Prilosec, Prozac, Lipitor, ibuprofen, Lisinopril, and Ritalin. An individual 1250-word essay is due on the date of the final exam, asking students to describe the structure, mode of action, pharmacological properties, benefits, side effects and related drugs as well as the sociological aspects of the drug, including its history, marketing, cost, availability and potential for abuse, where relevant. Students make an 8–10 minute presentation on their drug, with four minutes for questions. They also are required to summarize and critique four peer presentations in 200-words essays, including at least one from each class period, to ensure attendance and attention at other students’ talks. Throughout the course, student fluency in discussing the science behind the readings increased, as did their competency in public speaking and writing a thesisdriven essay.
Courses in Drugs and Bioethics
Co-Curricular Events
Scientific Lectures
In addition to a stand-alone seminar course, the cluster provides co-curricular activities to unite the group, hopefully encouraging intellectual discussion in the dorms. Many courses in the cluster had environmental themes both years, and Medicine Quest allowed for integration with this seminar. For example, the cluster started one semester with a group hike at a local geological formation. Both years, the cluster watched the documentary Sun Come Up on the relocation of the Carteret Islanders [18]. Attendance at these events is compulsory, and was evaluated primarily by participation in follow-up classroom discussions. Within the seminar, we used excerpts from the excellent text Know Your Chances to critically and quantitatively assess commercial drug claims [19], and started each class with an “outside the bubble” session in which students were asked to report on the news of the world. It was impressive how students were able to link current events to the topics of that day’s class. The students also are asked to read a book for fun during the term, and the class period before Thanksgiving is spent with each student pitching their selection as a good choice for a holiday gift.
Again, students are largely responsible for providing scientific content, but the professor provides just-in-time lectures about topics that the students will explore in more depth in bioethical case studies, including lectures on assisted reproduction, cancer, stem cells, viruses, and an introduction to genetics.
Course Description—Biotechnology and Ethics
Primary Readings in Ethics Students read excerpts from philosophical works provided by Gordon Marino’s compilation Ethics, The Essential Writings [29]. The readings are guided by study questions, and these questions form the basis for snowball discussions in seminar. Short application-based thought questions are added as the course progresses. Readings include excerpts from Plato’s Euthyphro, Aquinas’ Summa Theologica, Kant’s Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals, Mill’s Utilitarianism, Rawls’ A Theory of Justice, and Sartre’s Existentialism and Human Emotion. Students are graded based on a participation rubric. Students find the readings challenging but most students are able to participate well in class discussions. A midterm written takehome examination asks students to draw on the readings and discussions and apply the philosophical frameworks learned to questions about the partial birth abortion ban act of 2003, the Massachusetts ballot initiative on medical marijuana use, and confidentiality of medical testing results.
Overview of Course
Worcester Art Museum and Animal Rights
The second semester seminar has four main objectives: to learn from primary sources the fundamentals of ethical thought, to hone writing and oral rhetorical skills with an emphasis on supporting a thesis with a grounding in a philosophical framework supported by evidence, to learn about the science behind cutting edge biotechnology, and to continue to make progress toward adapting to college-level academic expectations. An excellent text on bioethics is left on reserve in the library [20], but not formally assigned to encourage students to learn from primary sources. Recent courses or modules in bioethics have been described as part of programs for science majors [21–25], as have recent strategies for incorporating bioethics coursework into different levels of the undergraduate curriculum, including for non-science majors [26, 27].
As part of the learning cluster, students visited the Worcester Art Museum, with upper-class students serving as docents. To integrate the visit with the seminar, students read an excerpt from Tom Regan’s The Case for Animal Rights from the Marino compilation. Four pieces of artwork are viewed during the visit that can be related to how humans and animals are in relation: Jan Fyt’s Crossbow and Dead Game, Piero di Cosimo’s The Discovery of Honey by Bacchus, Rona Pondick’s sculpture Mouse, and a large Roman mosaic hunting scene from the early sixth century A.D., the Worcester Hunt, that is one of the museum’s most notable pieces. Students are assessed on a 750-word essay linking one of the works of art with Regan’s essay, and a day of discussion both pre- and post-visit is assessed for participation. Students report this trip as one of their most memorable and enjoyable experiences of the semester, and the faculty members hope that it motivates engagement with Worcester’s cultural institutions throughout their time in college.
Topics Introduction The course begins with a two-day lecture by the professor on the fundamentals of ethics, on logic and arguments, and on a comparison of natural law, utilitarian, deontological, contractarian and Kantian perspectives. In the most recent offering, the cluster read Daniel Quinn’s Ishmael [28], which provides a good starting point for considering the relationship of human reason and our moral choices as a species.
Mills
Assisted Reproduction Technology Students read Liza Mundy’s Everything Conceivable [30] as a reference for discussions about ethical questions related to assisted reproduction. Four student groups are formed, and each group leads a class-long discussion on one of four topics: single parents/same-sex couples, the choice of
267
Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education having multiple children, the disposition of unused frozen embryos, and selective reduction. Although most students in the seminar are only 18 or 19 years old, they are able to connect to these topics in very personal ways, and it is clear that these topics challenge them to examine their visceral opinions with the ethical frameworks studied in the seminar. Each student writes a 1000-word persuasive essay using one of the philosophical frameworks learned in the beginning of the course.
and then leads the class in a discussion of studentprepared study questions that draw from the readings and the philosophical frameworks discussed. Students are assessed on their presentation, participation, and a joint 1200-word persuasive essay arguing for or against the legality/morality of the use of the compound.
Final Exam
To facilitate case studies of informed consent, students read Rebecca Skloot’s The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks [31] and an excerpt from Ricki Lewis’ The Forever Fix about the Gelsinger gene therapy case [32], as well as recent articles about compensation for tissue donations [33] and the ethics of innovative clinical trials [34]. Students also are asked to research the facts of the Tuskegee syphilis study. The class is split into five groups, and each addresses a question related to the cases. Students address the questions by a personal 750-word persuasive essay supported by one consistent philosophical framework and a group-led class period discussion. Students are assessed on their essays, participation in the other discussions, and the leading of their group’s discussion.
For the final exam, students write an individual persuasive essay of 1000 words taking a position on either (i) the morality of the actions of a key player in the “Baby M” case, or (ii) the morality of Deaf parents genetically selecting for Deaf children. Both cases are described in the text on reserve [20], and students are expected to do further research. Students were able to select their topic ahead of time using an on-line poll. During the final exam period, the students come in groups of three for an oral examination, in which the professor asks questions about the facts of the cases and asks students to take positions based on the philosophical frameworks used in the course. Students may bring notes to the final exam, but the conversational nature of the examination makes it unlikely that they would make reference to them. This format of the final exam is very fitting, given that a major goal of the course was development in both written and oral expression rather than taking formal exams.
Gattaca Viewing
Co-Curricular Events
As a co-curricular event, the class watches Andrew Niccol’s Gattaca [35] as a group in the dorm over dinner. Students are assigned two related articles to stimulate discussion [36, 37]. Study questions form the basis for a discussion in a follow-up class, and students write a 500-page essay judging a specific action of a major character as moral or immoral based on one philosophical framework. The social aspect of the viewing creates a lively opportunity for informal discussion.
In addition to the Gattaca viewing, the cluster also has events to support student conversation. In 1 year, students viewed the film Maximum Tolerated Dose [43] and had a panel discussion with the director. This film on animal testing fit in well with our discussion of the Regan essay. The College’s McFarland Center for Religion, Ethics and Culture also hosted academic seminars that the cluster students could attend, one of which was made compulsory for my seminar students. Student attendance at cluster events was mandatory. Students were assessed either through the quality of their classroom participation in a follow-up discussion or by their contribution to an on-line discussion forum using the course management system.
Informed Consent
Performance Enhancing Drugs and Genetically Modified Foods Performance enhancing drugs and genetically modified (GM) foods are the concluding case studies; students suggested these topics during the first course offering, and most student groups find personal connections to their topic. To facilitate discussion, students read the chapter “Enhancement in Sports” from Maxwell Mehlman’s The Price of Perfection [38], the chapter “The Wild and the Sown” from Nina Fedoroff’s Mendel in the Kitchen [39], and three other articles on GM foods [40–42]. Each team chooses one of eight topics: human growth hormone and baseball, blood doping in cycling or track, anabolic steroid use in football, amphetamine or Adderall use by pilots or musicians, bST milk, BT corn or soybeans, Round-UP Ready crops and infertile seeds, and Golden rice. The team prepares a 10-minute PowerPoint presentation presenting the science behind the topic and arguments for and/or against the safety and efficacy of the use of the compound,
268
Evaluation of Student Learning Outcomes For each assignment, the rubrics used for assessment are included in the Supporting Information. The rubrics provide guidance to the student about the expectations for written and oral work and the need to engage with the scientific content. In future iterations of the course, I will use highlights from these rubrics to list formal learning outcomes on the syllabus. In addition my evaluation of each assignment, the College’s Office of Assessment and Research has established an exit survey to evaluate the student experience in the seminars (rather than to evaluate formal learning goals).
Courses in Drugs and Bioethics
When an ad hoc committee developed the Montserrat program, it created a mission statement, along with provisional goals and student learning outcomes. However, as the faculty discussed and eventually implemented the program, formal goals and outcomes were not widely endorsed. The exit surveys, along with a rigorous 5-year evaluation process, have animated discussion on campus to codify the learning goals that have most often been emphasized by faculty teaching in the program, which include the development of critical thinking and written and oral communication skills. For the 2013–2014 offering, students in the seminar granted permission to use the results of this survey for external audiences, and the Holy Cross Human Subjects Committee approved the permission form and survey for this purpose. Student responses are reported in Table 2, and suggest that students believe that the seminar classes, as compared to their other more traditional courses, give them more opportunities to contribute to class discussions, to work with classmates, and to support their opinions with a logical argument. Students report that they also are more likely to give an oral presentation and to connect the course material with broader issues. Self-reported gains in ability to make oral arguments, make class presentations, analyze topics from different perspectives and work collaboratively suggest that the seminar sequence had a positive impact on student learning. In future course offerings, I will explore ways to ensure that students feel free to disagree with their professor as much as they disagree with one another, and I will use more in-class workshops of essay drafts so that students become as accustomed to working together in class as they do out of class. To further focus the evaluation, I plan to utilize direct measures of student learning, such as pre- and post-tests and writing assessment using a College-designed writing rubric. I may implement low-stakes content-based final examinations to evaluate if students are meeting the disciplinary learning goal. As Montserrat continues to formalize student learning goals, College-wide assessment of student learning using direct measures will permit the assessment of individual seminars and clusters.
Discussion Seminar courses for first year students are a relatively common educational intervention, and are often aimed at increasing first-year student retention [44]. Porter and Swing describe five types of seminar programs: Transition theme, Special academic theme, Discipline theme, Remedial theme, and Mixed format [44]. Holy Cross’ Montserrat program mostly incorporates the special academic theme. One program aim is to address college transition issues for first year students, but with a primary focus on intellectual transformation rather than life-style transition. This is accomplished via a yearlong focus on an interdisciplinary
Mills
theme within the learning cluster that encourages students to become producers of knowledge and not just consumers of information. In a recent review, Barefoot described six “research-based objectives” that characterize first-year experiences: Increasing student-to-student interaction Increasing faculty-to-student interaction, especially out of class Increasing student involvement and time on campus Linking the curriculum and the co-curriculum Increasing academic expectations and levels of academic engagement Assisting students who have insufficient academic preparation for college [45]. The Montserrat program and the described seminar series address many of these objectives. Students are expected to drive the class discussion and interact with one another in class, and by living together have opportunities to bring classroom conversations to their residence halls. The program requires institutional commitment to small seminar classes for first year students as well as faculty members willing to teach in an interactive format. The cluster format with shared events encourages student interactions not only with the seminar leader but with other faculty members as well. Shared events require the involvement of student life collaborators and the willingness of faculty members to be involved in evening and occasional weekend events. As a residential campus, our students spend time on campus, but Montserrat helps to extend the learning environment throughout campus. Montserrat’s focus on writing skills, classroom participation, public speaking and interdisciplinary thinking prepares our students academically for the rigor of the intermediate and advanced elements of our curriculum. (Holy Cross has other programs, including residential summer bridge opportunities, to assist students with issues of academic preparation for college.) The two-semester course sequence was both challenging and rewarding to the students and the professor. Although students are encouraged to elect seminars outside of their planned majors, a substantial minority of students in the seminars intended to major in science or follow the pre-health track. This was a benefit for this seminar sequence, as a diversity of student perspectives made debates lively. The science students were able to speak with more authority about the content of some of the texts and lectures, while their colleagues interested in political science, philosophy, etc., were able to contribute from their developing disciplinary expertise. However, faculty colleagues who teach science-based Montserrat seminars that spend more time on traditional content anecdotally report challenges balancing the experiences of students with different levels of scientific background, particularly in the second semester when some students already have
269
TABLE 2
Assessment of student learning
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Summary percentage of top two Likert options and mean value
Writing ability
28.6%
35.7%
21.4%
7.1%
64%, M 5 2.92
Ability to make a coherent argument in writing using supporting evidence
14.3%
57.1%
21.4%
0%
71%, M 5 2.92
Ability to make a coherent argument orally using supportive evidence
50.0%
50.0%
0%
0%
100%, M 5 3.50
Ability to make an in-class presentation
71.4%
21.4%
0%
0%
100%, M 5 3.77
Ability to explain my ideas to others in writing
21.4%
71.4%
0%
0%
93%, M 5 3.23
Ability to explain my ideas to others orally
64.3%
35.7%
0%
0%
100%, M 5 3.64
Ability to conduct research on a topic
28.6%
64.3%
0%
7.1%
93%, M 5 3.14
Ability to consider multiple approaches to a single issue
42.9%
42.9%
14.3%
0%
86%, M 5 3.29
Ability to analyze a topic from different perspectives
71.4%
14.3%
14.3%
0%
86%, M 5 3.57
Willingness to raise questions
35.7%
50.0%
14.3%
0%
86%, M 5 3.21
Intellectual self-confidence
21.4%
57.1%
14.3%
0%
79%, M 5 3.08
Self-understanding
14.3%
50.0%
14.3%
14.3%
64%, M 5 2.69
Understanding of others
35.7%
50.0%
14.3%
0%
86%, M 5 3.21
Openness to taking intellectual risks
21.4%
71.4%
7.1%
0%
93%, M 5 3.14
Willingness to reflect critically on my own views
35.7%
50.0%
7.1%
7.1%
86%, M 5 3.14
Openness to having my views challenged
42.9%
42.9%
14.3%
0%
86%, M 5 3.29
Ability to work collaboratively
64.3%
35.7%
0%
0%
100%, M 5 3.64
SECTION A: Since entering Holy Cross, the Montserrat seminar has improved my: Survey items: (n 5 14)
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Summary percentage of top two Likert options and mean value
Ask questions in class
42.9%
57.1%
0%
0%
100%, M 5 3.43
Support my opinions with a logical argument orally
78.6%
21.4%
0%
0%
100%, M 5 3.79
Support my opinions with a logical argument in writing
35.7%
64.3%
0%
0%
100%, M 5 3.36
Connect class material to broader questions or issues
50.0%
50.0%
0%
0%
100%, M 5 3.50
Give an oral presentation
85.7%
14.3%
0%
0%
100%, M 5 3.86
Challenge the views of my classmates in class
50.0%
50.0%
0%
0%
100%, M 5 3.50
Challenge my professor’s views in classroom discussion
21.4%
35.7%
35.7%
0%
57%, M 5 2.85
Regularly contribute to class discussion
50.0%
50.0%
0%
0%
100%, M 5 3.50
Work with classmates during class
35.7%
42.9%
14.3%
7.1%
79%, M 5 3.07
Work with classmates outside class
78.6%
21.4%
0%
0%
100%, M 5 3.79
SECTION B: Compared to my other Holy Cross classes, my Montserrat seminar provided me with more opportunities to: Survey Items: (n 5 14)
Notes: 1. Complete response options include: 4—Strongly Agree, 3—Agree, 2—Disagree, 1—Strongly Disagree and 0—N/A. 2. Summary percentages include response options “Strongly Agree” and “Agree.” 3. The N/A response was not included in the mean calculation.
completed two college-level introductory science classes and others have not. Having one course per semester dedicated to Montserrat also is challenging to some perspective science majors as they design their academic schedule. After the first offering, I was concerned that students were not held sufficiently responsible for learning the scientific content of the readings, and I emphasized this more in class discussions by asking questions of presenters about the science, and asking follow-up questions from my lectures during class discussions. In the next iteration, I make clearer in my rubrics that scientific content is being evaluated in the written and oral work, and low-stakes quizzes may help to ensure that students are placing a significant emphasis on learning content. A weakness of the first offering was convincing students to identify and use scholarly sources beyond the internet, and with the assistance of the cluster librarian I made this a point of emphasis the second year. Montserrat is designed to be intentionally flexible, but that does create challenges in designing common cluster events. Student satisfaction with common cluster events is the highest when the intellectual connection between the event and the seminar is clear. The best events that achieve that important connection leave students talking animatedly as they leave the event and before seminar the next day. At the inception of the Montserrat program, some science faculty expressed trepidation about teaching writing in their courses. However, the College has provided workshops for interested faculty members, and there is sufficient flexibility in the program that faculty members can teach writing from their own disciplinary contexts. Our students generally are good technical writers, but require improvement on thesis development and on supporting their theses with evidence and scholarly sources in an organized manner. Faculty members from many disciplines, including the sciences, have experience with this style of persuasive writing and can help students improve. Teaching in the Montserrat program served as a pedagogical laboratory for me to reflect on and experiment with strategies to help me improve my teaching in more traditional science offerings. I have been less concerned about changing the balance of time in the classroom between traditional lecture and student-centered activities that require students to come to class prepared to be participants rather than passive receivers of information. Given that much of what we do as professional scientists involves reading, writing, and presentations, my Montserrat experiences have emboldened me to integrate these activities more fully into my other courses.
Acknowledgements This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under grants MCB-0950245 and MCB-1244089 and by a Henry Dreyfus TeacherScholar Award. I acknowledge the students who contrib-
Mills
uted to each offering of the class, as well as Denise Bell and Vera Mauck of the Holy Cross Office of Assessment and Research for the assessment data, and Denise Bell, Denise Schaeffer and Stephanie Yuhl for helpful conversations and critical readings of the manuscript.
References [1] Singleton, R. A., Garvey, R. H., and Phillips, G. A. (1998) Connecting the academic and social lives of students: The holy cross First-year program. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning. 30, 18–25. [2] Weiss, C. S. (2009) Sustaining institutional mission through "pilgrimage." Lib. Educ. 95, 56–60. [3] Padgett, R. D., Keup, J. R., and Pascarella, E. T. (2013) The impact of First-year seminars on college students’ Life-long learning orientation. J. Student Affair. Res. Pract. 50, 133–151. [4] Fidler, P. P., and Moore, P. S. (1996) A comparison of effects of campus residence and freshman seminar attendance on freshman dropout rates. J. First-Year Exp. Stud. Transit. 8, 7–16. [5] Starke, M. C., Harth, M., and Sirianni, F. (2001) Retention, bonding and academic achievement: Success of a first-year seminar. J. First-Year Exp. Stud. Transit. 13, 7–36. [6] Huang, Y. R., and Chang, S. M. (2004) Academic and cocurricular involvement: Their relationship and the best combinations for student growth. J. Coll. Stud. Dev. 45, 391–406. [7] Stassen, M. L. A. (2003) Student outcomes: The impact of varying learning-living community models. Res. High. Educ. 44, 581–612. [8] Zhao, C. M. and Kuh, G. D. (2004) Adding value: Learning communities adn student engagement. Res. High. Educ. 45, 115–138. [9] Evans, M. H. (1984) Understanding drugs: A new interdisciplinary course. J. Chem. Educ. 61, 671–674. [10] Wright, F. A. (2012) The short story just got shorter: Hemingway, narrative and the Six-word urban legend. J Popul. Cult. 47, 327–340. [11] Silberman, M. L. (2006) Training the Active Training Way: 8 Strategies to Spark Learning and Change, John Wiley & Sons. [12] Strunk, W. and White, E. B. (2009) The Elements of Style, 50th Anniversary ed., Pearson Longman, New York. [13] Patrick, G. L. and Spencer, J. (2009) An Introduction to Medicinal Chemistry, 4th ed., Oxford University Press, New York. [14] Gray, J. P. (2012) Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed And What We Can Do About It: A Judicial Indictment of the War on Drugs, 2nd ed., Temple University Press, Philadelphia. [15] Plotkin, M. J. (2000) Medicine Quest: In Search of Nature’s Healing Secrets, Viking, New York. [16] Abramson, J. (2004) Overdosed America: The Broken Promise of American Medicine, 1st ed., HarperCollins, New York. [17] Fuller, R. C. (2000) Stairways to Heaven: Drugs in American Religious History, Westview Press, Boulder, Colo. [18] Redfearn, J. (2011) Sun come up, Red Antelope Films, United States. [19] Woloshin, S., Schwartz, L. M., and Welch, H. G. (2008) Know Your Chances: Understanding Health Statistics, University of California Press, Berkeley. [20] Vaughn, L. (2013) Bioethics: Principles, Issues, and Cases, 2nd ed., Oxford University Press, New York. [21] Bryant, J. and Baggot la Velle L. (2003) A bioethics course for biology and science education students. J. Biol. Educ. 37, 91–95. [22] Kolarova, T. A. and Denev, I. D. (2012) Integrating a bioethics course into undergraduate biology education. Biotechnol. Biotechnol. Equip. 26, 2801–2810. [23] Downie, R. and Clarkeburn H. (2005) Approaches to the teaching of bioethics and professional ethics in undergraduate courses. Biosci. Educ. 5, [24] Turrens J. F. (2005) Teaching research integrity and bioethics to science undergraduates. Cell Biol. Educ. 4, 330–334. [25] Loike, J. D., Rush, B. S., Schweber, A., and Fischbach, R. L. (2013) Lessons learned from undergraduate students in designing a Sciencebased course in bioethics. CBE-Life Sci. Educ. 12, 701–710.
271
Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education [26] McGowan, A. H. (2013) Teaching science and ethics to undergraduates: A multidisciplinary approach. Sci. Eng. Ethics. 19, 535–543. [27] Zaikowski, L. A. and Garrett, J. M. (2004) A Three-tiered approach to enhance undergraduate education in bioethics. BioScience 54, 942–949. [28] Quinn, D. (1992) Ishmael: A novel, Bantam/Turner Book, New York. [29] Marino, G. D. (2010) Ethics: The essential writings, Modern Library, New York. [30] Mundy, L. (2007) Everything Conceivable: How Assisted Reproduction is Changing Men, Women, and the World, 1st ed., Alfred A. Knopf, New York. [31] Skloot, R. (2011) The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, 1st pbk. ed., Broadway Paperbacks, New York. [32] Lewis, R. (2012) The Forever Fix: Gene Therapy and the Boy Who Saved It, 1st ed., St. Martin’s Press, New York. [33] Truog, R. D., Kesselheim, A. S., and Joffe, S. (2012) Research ethics. Paying patients for their tissue: The legacy of henrietta lacks. Science. 337, 37–38. [34] London, A. J., Kimmelman, J., and Emborg, M.E. (2010) Research ethics. Beyond access vs. Protection in trials of innovative therapies. Science. 328, 829–830. [35] Niccol, A. (1997) Gattaca. Columbia Pictures, United States.
272
[36] Marsen, S. (2009) Playing by the Rules—Or not? Construction of identity in a posthuman future. in Transhumanism and Its Critics, pp. 84–93. [37] Jeffreys, M. (2001) Dr. Daedalus and his minotaur: Mythics warnings about genetic engineering from J.B.S. haldane, francois jacob, and andrew niccol’s gattaca. J. Med. Hum. 22, 137–153. [38] Mehlman, M. J. (2009) The Price of Perfection: Individualism and Society in the Era of Biomedical Enhancement, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. [39] Fedoroff, N. V. and Brown, N. M. (2004) Mendel in the Kitchen: A scientist’s View of Genetically Modified Foods, Joseph Henry Press, Washington, D.C. [40] Kean, S. (2010) Besting johnny appleseed. Science. 328, 301–303. [41] Fedoroff, N. V. (2010) The past, present and future of crop genetic modification. New Biotechnol. 27, 461–465. [42] Stone G. D. (2010) The anthropology of genetically modified crops. Ann. Rev. Anthropol. 39, 381–400. [43] Orzechowski K. (2012) Maximum tolerated dose. Decipher Films, Canada. [44] Porter, S. R. and Swing, R. L. (2006) Understanding how First-year seminars affect persistence. Res. High. Educ. 47, 89–109. [45] Barefoot, B. O. (2000) The first-year experience: Are we making it any better? About Campus 4, 12–18.
Courses in Drugs and Bioethics
