Special Section–Focus on Ethics Introducing Ethics to Chemistry Students in a “Research Experiences for Undergraduates” (REU) Program
Mark J. Hanson*
From the Department of Liberal Studies, University of Montana, Missoula Montana 59812
Abstract A three-day ethics seminar introduced ethics to undergraduate environmental chemistry students in the Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) program. The seminar helped students become sensitive to and understand the ethical and values dimensions of their work as researchers. It utilized a variety of resources to supplement
lectures and class discussion on a variety of issues. Students learned about the relevance of ethics to research, skills in moral reasoning, and the array of ethical issues C 2015 by The facing various aspects of scientific research. V International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, 43(2):76–80, 2015.
Keywords: ethics; teaching; undergraduate education
Introduction From 2005 to 2009, the University of Montana hosted undergraduate chemistry students under the auspices of the Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) program of the National Science Foundation. The program was structured locally to place students under the guidance of mentors within the chemistry department who were working in the area of environmental chemistry. In addition to time in the laboratory, the program provided for seminars in the area of research ethics.
Methods and Course Content Over the years the ethics component was taught, two different approaches were used. The first involved a series of weekly seminars with voluntary attendance. As students became more involved in their scientific research, attendance declined as the course progressed. A second approach taught the ethics component as a three-day unit prior to the beginning of the students’ formal research. Attendance was not only much improved, but students also saw that ethics is a priority and is foundational to their work as scientists.
*Address for correspondence to: Department of Liberal Studies, University of Montana, Missoula Montana 59812. E-mail: [email protected]. Received 13 January 2015; Accepted 16 January 2015 DOI 10.1002/bmb.20856 Published online 27 February 2015 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com)
76
The Relevance of Ethics to Research Many students, however, had not had previous instruction in ethics or philosophy and had difficulty understanding just what ethics was and how it was relevant to their scientific work. The course addressed this concern in three ways. First, instruction began with students describing their areas of research and what ethical issues they believed they might face in the course of their work. This helped illustrate their level of ethical awareness regarding their work and regarding research generally. Class discussion was useful in helping students begin to see how ethics is a part of their research efforts and issues they may not have even previously considered. As they identified potential ethical issues or concerns, class discussion turned to why their concerns are called ethical concerns, rather than something else. At this point we identified features of issues that make them distinctly ethical in nature, such as how they related to the wellbeing of humans, animals, or the environment; involved commonly accepted moral norms or principles; or were represented by distinctive professional ethics and codes of behavior. While there are no universally accepted definitions of ethics and morality, the discussion helped students see more clearly when it might be more appropriate to call something an ethical issue, as opposed to merely a matter of law, regulation, or etiquette. Our discussion also led to exploring the idea of professional ethics more specifically—as distinguished from more “common” morality [1]. While common morality refers to our informal, widely accepted ideas of what is morally right and wrong in a society (e.g., causing no unjustified harm),
Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education
professional ethics refers to the more distinct role-related responsibilities of the profession. These duties are often embodied in professional ethics codes, of which there are several for various branches of sciences [2]. The second way to develop the students’ sense of the relevance of ethics involved examining the widely held notion that science is a completely objective, value-free discipline. One major goal of the ethics instruction is to help students become more sensitive to the value dimensions of their work and to see how professions embody or “profess” certain values. To introduce this discussion, we read sections of On Being a Scientist: A Guide to Responsible Conduct in Research from the National Academy of Science to consider values within the research enterprise, such as truth, consistency, predictive value, and simplicity [3]. We also discussed what values motivate scientific research and how they may affect individual behavior. These may be moral values like altruism (i.e., doing work that will benefit human, animal, or environmental well-being) or selfregarding values, like career and reputation promotion. We also examined how other beliefs—worldviews, religious beliefs, or partisan political agendas—can affect one’s scientific objectivity and potentially one’s ethical behavior, including what one chooses to study, or how one may be biased in reporting results [3]. Finally, we considered some of the history of research and how especially research ethics involving human subjects grew out of responses to past misconduct. Early in the 20th century, lack of regulation seemed to rest on the assumption that scientific researchers would conduct themselves in a responsible way and that they were motivated by pursuit of knowledge and promoting well-being. Ethics was mostly a matter of individual judgment. But the revelations about Nazi experiments on prisoners set in motion an international effort to regulate human subjects research. The infamous Tuskegee syphilis study (1932 to 1972) involving lack of informed consent with African-American men prompted additional advancements in the awareness about and need for regulation of ethics in research. The study showed how even some well-motivated individuals can become involved in unethical research for the sake of scientific knowledge or pursuit of reputation. In the 1980s, other issues of misconduct in research, such as fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism came to the fore. The National Academy of Science explained, “Science has become so complex and so closely intertwined with society’s needs that a more formal introduction to research ethics and responsibilities that these commitments imply is also needed.” It then published the now widely used On Being a Scientist: A Guide to Responsible Conduct in Research in 1988 [3].
Skills in Moral Reasoning Although the regulation of ethics within research has come a long way in the last few decades, the class discussed how
Hanson
ethics is a matter of more than mere compliance with regulations and policies. It involves being able to exercise good judgment and sometimes going beyond the moral minimum requirements that regulations require. To give students a basis in ethical reasoning, the class next spent time reviewing important concepts and traditions in ethics. Moral reasoning involves bringing together the facts of a case together with the moral values implicated by the situation and offering reasons to justify a course of action. Moral reasoning may not always lead to conclusions that everyone will agree upon—though often it can. It can, however, lead people to recognize both their responsibility as moral agents to be able to justify their decisions, as well as the possibility that people can reach ethically better, rather than worse decisions when no obvious right answer is clear. Moral reasoning also helps students see that ethics is not merely a matter of opinion or completely relative to individuals or cultures [4]. Students learn that when facing difficult ethical issues, they should first be sure that they have all ethically relevant facts of the situation. They should then explore various “sources” for ethical guidance: these include individual moral conscience; applicable laws, policies, and regulations (especially for moral minimum requirements); professional ethics codes; perspectives from major ethical theories; and finally knowledge of previous cases. They should then consider what their possible courses of action are and evaluate them to determine which is the required or ethically best option in each case. The course surveyed a great deal of the specific ethical concepts and regulation when considering specific issues later in the seminar, but was worthwhile to give students a grounding in the vocabulary and perspectives of various ethical theories. While many courses in the sciences may not have time or resources to spend much time discussing ethical theories, a brief overview can help student see how they can provide ethical “lenses” through which to view cases from different angles. The most common theoretical approaches used in ethics classrooms and textbooks are virtue theory, deontology, and utilitarianism. While students may not identify with any particular theory, using them as lenses on particular situations can facilitate better, more complete moral reasoning. The virtue approach to ethics involves considering the traits of excellence that apply to people generally and to persons in their field specifically. Students were invited to reflect together on what personal characteristics make a researcher morally excellent. Which traits will lead to good ethical decisions and conduct? The class identified traits such as courage, prudence, objectivity, and honesty. We also considered that people learn to behave virtuously, traditionally, by imitating virtuous people. So students learned that one way to become morally good in their field involves acting in the way a good researcher might. This approach was particularly appropriate to the REU program in that students were paired with mentors for their research; they
77
Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education (and those mentors attending the seminar) could see that mentorship may at times involve modeling good ethical behavior as well as good scientific skill and knowledge. Deontological theory involves seeing that the morality of an act lies in something other than, or in addition to its outcomes. It may involve acting according to what one judges as one’s moral duty, or according to principles or rights that are binding on one’s behavior, such as telling the truth. Utilitarianism, on the other hand, holds that maximizing the best outcomes for the greatest number of people is what justifies a decision. Other theoretical approaches were also introduced here, such as feminist perspectives—involving evaluation in relation to the concerns of women—and communitarian perspectives—involving what makes for a good community. Using these theories as lenses involves approaching an ethically difficult situation and asking about the traits of character reflected by those involved, identifying their moral duties, assessing possible long- and short-term consequences for all those affected, or other perspectives. To gain some acquaintance with these approaches, the class analyzed a variety of research cases from various theoretical perspectives. This helped students learn the theories as well as to become more sensitive to their own approaches, including whether other factors such as religion or other aspects of their worldviews were influencing their decisions. Having learned about sources of moral guidance and having developed a vocabulary for and general approach to ethical reasoning, the course turned its attention to specific areas of research ethics.
Specific Issues in Research Ethics The class began investigation of specific topics in research ethics by viewing the film “Do Scientists Cheat?” a NOVA documentary from PBS. Though in some respects out-ofdate (1988), the film raises a number of issues in historical cases and helps students see how qualities important to science—skepticism, open-mindednesss, and determination— helped reveal research misconduct [5]. Our ongoing discussion was then structured around the nine core areas of research developed by the Public Health Service. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
Data acquisition, management, sharing, and ownership Mentor/trainee responsibilities Publication practices and responsible authorship Peer review Collaborative science Human subjects Research involving animals Research misconduct Conflict of interest and commitment
They do provide a good structure for surveying the field of research ethics, and many good resources exist to facili-
78
tate instruction. It is not, therefore, necessary to rehearse the multiple issues raised under each topic here. Discussion was structured around several cases and videos drawn from the text On Being a Scientist: A Guide to Responsible Conduct in Research, as well as from resources available through the Office of Research Integrity website, especially the videos from Columbia University’s web module (found under ORI’s “RCR Resources” tab) [3, 6, 7]. In addition to discussion of the cases and a review of major issues and regulations falling under each topic area, the following discussion points served as foci for each of the nine areas.
Data Acquisition, Management, and Ownership Many practical rules and guidelines exist surrounding management and ownership of data. Class discussion focused on the ethical rationale behind these regulations, as well as possible ethical issues and conflicts relating to ownership and patenting.
Mentor/Trainee Responsibilities Mentorship was central to the education of students in the REU program and is central to the education of many research scientists. Students were asked to identify what they saw as the major responsibilities and virtues of a mentor and a trainee, as well as what made for an ethically good relationship between them.
Publication Practices/Responsible Authorship The class discussed how the central publication in scientific journals and other publically available sites is to advancement in science. In addition to responsibility to publish and the ethical pitfalls that come with pressures to publish, students were made aware of the range of additional possible issues through of relevant federal regulations within the Federal Register (45 CFR Part 689), guidelines from The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, and discussion of these guidelines on the Columbia University RCR website [8] [7].
Peer Review Peer review is central to judging the quality of research, both in publication as well as in funding proposals. Class discussion centered on central issues raised—primarily conflicts of interests, as well as the effects of reviewer bias.
Collaborative Science Collaboration, across disciplines and institutions, has become essential in academic research settings. Class discussion centered on issues of respect, fairness,
Ethics Education for Chemistry Students
communication and trust, confidentiality, data sharing, as well as potential areas of conflict, ranging from differences in style to varying personal, commercial, and institutional interests.
Human Subjects Human subjects research is, as one might expect, highly regulated at this point in history, although it was not always so. The class reviewed some of the main developments in the history of this regulation. Discussion centered primarily on a viewing of the film “Susceptible to Kindness: Miss Evers’ Boys and the Tuskegee Syphilis Study,” a treatment of the infamous study, during which AfricanAmerican males were denied treatment and informed consent for decades [9]. The discussion not only highlighted the importance of informed consent as the ethical cornerstone of human subjects research, but it also explored how scientists, who began a study with the best of intentions to help an underserved population, continued a study that was ethically horrific. The factors included racism, classism, the quest for scientific reputation, and even the belief that a control group was necessary to establish the efficacy of penicillin as a treatment. The legacy of Tuskegee included new regulation in research, and the Belmont Report’s use of the ethical principles of autonomy, beneficence, and justice to guide research [10].
Research Involving Animals The area of research involving animals helped students gain ethical perspective through a study of the history of ethical perspectives on animals. Students could see how the inclusion of animals within the sphere of ethical consideration really involved an expansion of ethical consciousness, from a time in which they were not thought to have moral value at all—as recently as the 17th century—to now being possessors of rights and characteristics (e.g., the capacity to suffer) that make them worthy of moral respect. These developments have led to the regulations regarding research animals in place today, as well as to ongoing controversies about their role in research at all.
Research Misconduct Students were made aware of how research misconduct can have devastating effects on individual and institutional reputations. Central topics falling under this topic area include fabrication of data or results, falsification, and plagiarism. The class reviewed existing definitions and policy guidelines for identifying and dealing with misconduct, along with case studies that call for good judgment. We also considered the importance of exposing ethical wrongdoing, as well as the difficulties faced by whistleblowers. Class discussion focused on the need for institutional
Hanson
protections and fair procedures, individual responsibilities, and implications for not reporting misconduct.
Conflict of Interest and Commitment Conflict of interest has become an issue of growing importance with the increasing presence of commercial interests in academic research settings. Multiple parties may become collaborators or stakeholders in research. The class reviewed regulation and discussed how fundamental values of trust, truth, and objectivity are affected by the potential to profit from research.
The Environment Though not a core area of research ethics for the PHS, the class considered for its final topic area ethical duties to the environment more broadly. Just as ethical considerations expanded historically to included nonhuman animals, ethics now encompasses duties to ecosystems and to the natural world more generally. We considered the major types of arguments at the heart of environmental ethics debates, such as whether nature has intrinsic value, or whether its value only derives from human interests and values. We also considered the alternative perspectives of environmental pragmatists, who recognize that specific cases involving environmental concerns often implicate multiple values. Therefore the goal is to make decisions and develop policies that integrate these values as best as possible and avoid debates about intrinsic versus instrumental values.
Conclusion Progress at REU ethics seminars has not been quantified, but informal evaluations showed significant progress in the students’ capacity to use ethical concepts and theories in reasoning about cases. Informal feedback from students indicated that the course gave them a heightened sensitivity to the range of ethical issues they may face as a researcher. They also gained greater awareness of resources to address ethical issues, regulations that may apply, and improved skills for addressing ethical issues.
Acknowledgments The seminar described was part of the project “Linking Environmental Chemistry and Science Policy Formulation,” at the University of Montana, funded by the National Science Foundation (DUE 0354150). Any opinions, findings, and conclusion or recommendations expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation or the University of Montana. I would like to thank principle investigators Garon Smith and Chris Palmer, as well as Earle Adams for their support of the ethics component of this project. I would also like to thank Deni Elliott, former
79
Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education director of the university’s Practical Ethics Center, who was the initial instructor for this project and whose expertise and mentorship for me in research ethics helped lay the groundwork for my teaching in this area.
[4] Rachels, J. (1980) Can Ethics Provide Answers? Hastings Center Report 10, pp. 33–39. [5] PBS (1988) Do Scientists Cheat?: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/list season/15.html. Accessed on February, 2015. [6] Office of Research Integrity: hhh.ori.gov. Accessed on December, 2014.
References [1] Beauchamp, T.L. and Childress, J.F. (2009) Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 6th ed., Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 2–5. [2] Resnick, D.B. What is Ethics in Research and Why is It Important? http:// www.niehs.nih.gov/research/resources/bioethics/whatis/(revised 2013). Accessed on February, 2015. [3] National Academy of Sciences (1995) On Being a Scientist: A Guide to Responsible Conduct in Research, 2nd ed., National Academy Press, Washington, D. C.
80
[7] Columbia University Responsible Conduct of Research Courses Portal: http://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/projects/rcr/index.html. Accessed on December, 2014. [8] International Committee of Medical Journal Editors: http://www.icmje. org/. Accessed on February, 2015. [9] Booth, D., Feldshuh, D., Glass, P. (2007) Susceptible to Kindness: Miss Evers’ Boys and the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, DVD, Cornell University. [10] The Belmont Report: http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/ belmont.html. Accessed on February, 2015.
Ethics Education for Chemistry Students
Mark J. Hanson*
From the Department of Liberal Studies, University of Montana, Missoula Montana 59812
Abstract A three-day ethics seminar introduced ethics to undergraduate environmental chemistry students in the Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) program. The seminar helped students become sensitive to and understand the ethical and values dimensions of their work as researchers. It utilized a variety of resources to supplement
lectures and class discussion on a variety of issues. Students learned about the relevance of ethics to research, skills in moral reasoning, and the array of ethical issues C 2015 by The facing various aspects of scientific research. V International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, 43(2):76–80, 2015.
Keywords: ethics; teaching; undergraduate education
Introduction From 2005 to 2009, the University of Montana hosted undergraduate chemistry students under the auspices of the Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) program of the National Science Foundation. The program was structured locally to place students under the guidance of mentors within the chemistry department who were working in the area of environmental chemistry. In addition to time in the laboratory, the program provided for seminars in the area of research ethics.
Methods and Course Content Over the years the ethics component was taught, two different approaches were used. The first involved a series of weekly seminars with voluntary attendance. As students became more involved in their scientific research, attendance declined as the course progressed. A second approach taught the ethics component as a three-day unit prior to the beginning of the students’ formal research. Attendance was not only much improved, but students also saw that ethics is a priority and is foundational to their work as scientists.
*Address for correspondence to: Department of Liberal Studies, University of Montana, Missoula Montana 59812. E-mail: [email protected]. Received 13 January 2015; Accepted 16 January 2015 DOI 10.1002/bmb.20856 Published online 27 February 2015 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com)
76
The Relevance of Ethics to Research Many students, however, had not had previous instruction in ethics or philosophy and had difficulty understanding just what ethics was and how it was relevant to their scientific work. The course addressed this concern in three ways. First, instruction began with students describing their areas of research and what ethical issues they believed they might face in the course of their work. This helped illustrate their level of ethical awareness regarding their work and regarding research generally. Class discussion was useful in helping students begin to see how ethics is a part of their research efforts and issues they may not have even previously considered. As they identified potential ethical issues or concerns, class discussion turned to why their concerns are called ethical concerns, rather than something else. At this point we identified features of issues that make them distinctly ethical in nature, such as how they related to the wellbeing of humans, animals, or the environment; involved commonly accepted moral norms or principles; or were represented by distinctive professional ethics and codes of behavior. While there are no universally accepted definitions of ethics and morality, the discussion helped students see more clearly when it might be more appropriate to call something an ethical issue, as opposed to merely a matter of law, regulation, or etiquette. Our discussion also led to exploring the idea of professional ethics more specifically—as distinguished from more “common” morality [1]. While common morality refers to our informal, widely accepted ideas of what is morally right and wrong in a society (e.g., causing no unjustified harm),
Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education
professional ethics refers to the more distinct role-related responsibilities of the profession. These duties are often embodied in professional ethics codes, of which there are several for various branches of sciences [2]. The second way to develop the students’ sense of the relevance of ethics involved examining the widely held notion that science is a completely objective, value-free discipline. One major goal of the ethics instruction is to help students become more sensitive to the value dimensions of their work and to see how professions embody or “profess” certain values. To introduce this discussion, we read sections of On Being a Scientist: A Guide to Responsible Conduct in Research from the National Academy of Science to consider values within the research enterprise, such as truth, consistency, predictive value, and simplicity [3]. We also discussed what values motivate scientific research and how they may affect individual behavior. These may be moral values like altruism (i.e., doing work that will benefit human, animal, or environmental well-being) or selfregarding values, like career and reputation promotion. We also examined how other beliefs—worldviews, religious beliefs, or partisan political agendas—can affect one’s scientific objectivity and potentially one’s ethical behavior, including what one chooses to study, or how one may be biased in reporting results [3]. Finally, we considered some of the history of research and how especially research ethics involving human subjects grew out of responses to past misconduct. Early in the 20th century, lack of regulation seemed to rest on the assumption that scientific researchers would conduct themselves in a responsible way and that they were motivated by pursuit of knowledge and promoting well-being. Ethics was mostly a matter of individual judgment. But the revelations about Nazi experiments on prisoners set in motion an international effort to regulate human subjects research. The infamous Tuskegee syphilis study (1932 to 1972) involving lack of informed consent with African-American men prompted additional advancements in the awareness about and need for regulation of ethics in research. The study showed how even some well-motivated individuals can become involved in unethical research for the sake of scientific knowledge or pursuit of reputation. In the 1980s, other issues of misconduct in research, such as fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism came to the fore. The National Academy of Science explained, “Science has become so complex and so closely intertwined with society’s needs that a more formal introduction to research ethics and responsibilities that these commitments imply is also needed.” It then published the now widely used On Being a Scientist: A Guide to Responsible Conduct in Research in 1988 [3].
Skills in Moral Reasoning Although the regulation of ethics within research has come a long way in the last few decades, the class discussed how
Hanson
ethics is a matter of more than mere compliance with regulations and policies. It involves being able to exercise good judgment and sometimes going beyond the moral minimum requirements that regulations require. To give students a basis in ethical reasoning, the class next spent time reviewing important concepts and traditions in ethics. Moral reasoning involves bringing together the facts of a case together with the moral values implicated by the situation and offering reasons to justify a course of action. Moral reasoning may not always lead to conclusions that everyone will agree upon—though often it can. It can, however, lead people to recognize both their responsibility as moral agents to be able to justify their decisions, as well as the possibility that people can reach ethically better, rather than worse decisions when no obvious right answer is clear. Moral reasoning also helps students see that ethics is not merely a matter of opinion or completely relative to individuals or cultures [4]. Students learn that when facing difficult ethical issues, they should first be sure that they have all ethically relevant facts of the situation. They should then explore various “sources” for ethical guidance: these include individual moral conscience; applicable laws, policies, and regulations (especially for moral minimum requirements); professional ethics codes; perspectives from major ethical theories; and finally knowledge of previous cases. They should then consider what their possible courses of action are and evaluate them to determine which is the required or ethically best option in each case. The course surveyed a great deal of the specific ethical concepts and regulation when considering specific issues later in the seminar, but was worthwhile to give students a grounding in the vocabulary and perspectives of various ethical theories. While many courses in the sciences may not have time or resources to spend much time discussing ethical theories, a brief overview can help student see how they can provide ethical “lenses” through which to view cases from different angles. The most common theoretical approaches used in ethics classrooms and textbooks are virtue theory, deontology, and utilitarianism. While students may not identify with any particular theory, using them as lenses on particular situations can facilitate better, more complete moral reasoning. The virtue approach to ethics involves considering the traits of excellence that apply to people generally and to persons in their field specifically. Students were invited to reflect together on what personal characteristics make a researcher morally excellent. Which traits will lead to good ethical decisions and conduct? The class identified traits such as courage, prudence, objectivity, and honesty. We also considered that people learn to behave virtuously, traditionally, by imitating virtuous people. So students learned that one way to become morally good in their field involves acting in the way a good researcher might. This approach was particularly appropriate to the REU program in that students were paired with mentors for their research; they
77
Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education (and those mentors attending the seminar) could see that mentorship may at times involve modeling good ethical behavior as well as good scientific skill and knowledge. Deontological theory involves seeing that the morality of an act lies in something other than, or in addition to its outcomes. It may involve acting according to what one judges as one’s moral duty, or according to principles or rights that are binding on one’s behavior, such as telling the truth. Utilitarianism, on the other hand, holds that maximizing the best outcomes for the greatest number of people is what justifies a decision. Other theoretical approaches were also introduced here, such as feminist perspectives—involving evaluation in relation to the concerns of women—and communitarian perspectives—involving what makes for a good community. Using these theories as lenses involves approaching an ethically difficult situation and asking about the traits of character reflected by those involved, identifying their moral duties, assessing possible long- and short-term consequences for all those affected, or other perspectives. To gain some acquaintance with these approaches, the class analyzed a variety of research cases from various theoretical perspectives. This helped students learn the theories as well as to become more sensitive to their own approaches, including whether other factors such as religion or other aspects of their worldviews were influencing their decisions. Having learned about sources of moral guidance and having developed a vocabulary for and general approach to ethical reasoning, the course turned its attention to specific areas of research ethics.
Specific Issues in Research Ethics The class began investigation of specific topics in research ethics by viewing the film “Do Scientists Cheat?” a NOVA documentary from PBS. Though in some respects out-ofdate (1988), the film raises a number of issues in historical cases and helps students see how qualities important to science—skepticism, open-mindednesss, and determination— helped reveal research misconduct [5]. Our ongoing discussion was then structured around the nine core areas of research developed by the Public Health Service. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
Data acquisition, management, sharing, and ownership Mentor/trainee responsibilities Publication practices and responsible authorship Peer review Collaborative science Human subjects Research involving animals Research misconduct Conflict of interest and commitment
They do provide a good structure for surveying the field of research ethics, and many good resources exist to facili-
78
tate instruction. It is not, therefore, necessary to rehearse the multiple issues raised under each topic here. Discussion was structured around several cases and videos drawn from the text On Being a Scientist: A Guide to Responsible Conduct in Research, as well as from resources available through the Office of Research Integrity website, especially the videos from Columbia University’s web module (found under ORI’s “RCR Resources” tab) [3, 6, 7]. In addition to discussion of the cases and a review of major issues and regulations falling under each topic area, the following discussion points served as foci for each of the nine areas.
Data Acquisition, Management, and Ownership Many practical rules and guidelines exist surrounding management and ownership of data. Class discussion focused on the ethical rationale behind these regulations, as well as possible ethical issues and conflicts relating to ownership and patenting.
Mentor/Trainee Responsibilities Mentorship was central to the education of students in the REU program and is central to the education of many research scientists. Students were asked to identify what they saw as the major responsibilities and virtues of a mentor and a trainee, as well as what made for an ethically good relationship between them.
Publication Practices/Responsible Authorship The class discussed how the central publication in scientific journals and other publically available sites is to advancement in science. In addition to responsibility to publish and the ethical pitfalls that come with pressures to publish, students were made aware of the range of additional possible issues through of relevant federal regulations within the Federal Register (45 CFR Part 689), guidelines from The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, and discussion of these guidelines on the Columbia University RCR website [8] [7].
Peer Review Peer review is central to judging the quality of research, both in publication as well as in funding proposals. Class discussion centered on central issues raised—primarily conflicts of interests, as well as the effects of reviewer bias.
Collaborative Science Collaboration, across disciplines and institutions, has become essential in academic research settings. Class discussion centered on issues of respect, fairness,
Ethics Education for Chemistry Students
communication and trust, confidentiality, data sharing, as well as potential areas of conflict, ranging from differences in style to varying personal, commercial, and institutional interests.
Human Subjects Human subjects research is, as one might expect, highly regulated at this point in history, although it was not always so. The class reviewed some of the main developments in the history of this regulation. Discussion centered primarily on a viewing of the film “Susceptible to Kindness: Miss Evers’ Boys and the Tuskegee Syphilis Study,” a treatment of the infamous study, during which AfricanAmerican males were denied treatment and informed consent for decades [9]. The discussion not only highlighted the importance of informed consent as the ethical cornerstone of human subjects research, but it also explored how scientists, who began a study with the best of intentions to help an underserved population, continued a study that was ethically horrific. The factors included racism, classism, the quest for scientific reputation, and even the belief that a control group was necessary to establish the efficacy of penicillin as a treatment. The legacy of Tuskegee included new regulation in research, and the Belmont Report’s use of the ethical principles of autonomy, beneficence, and justice to guide research [10].
Research Involving Animals The area of research involving animals helped students gain ethical perspective through a study of the history of ethical perspectives on animals. Students could see how the inclusion of animals within the sphere of ethical consideration really involved an expansion of ethical consciousness, from a time in which they were not thought to have moral value at all—as recently as the 17th century—to now being possessors of rights and characteristics (e.g., the capacity to suffer) that make them worthy of moral respect. These developments have led to the regulations regarding research animals in place today, as well as to ongoing controversies about their role in research at all.
Research Misconduct Students were made aware of how research misconduct can have devastating effects on individual and institutional reputations. Central topics falling under this topic area include fabrication of data or results, falsification, and plagiarism. The class reviewed existing definitions and policy guidelines for identifying and dealing with misconduct, along with case studies that call for good judgment. We also considered the importance of exposing ethical wrongdoing, as well as the difficulties faced by whistleblowers. Class discussion focused on the need for institutional
Hanson
protections and fair procedures, individual responsibilities, and implications for not reporting misconduct.
Conflict of Interest and Commitment Conflict of interest has become an issue of growing importance with the increasing presence of commercial interests in academic research settings. Multiple parties may become collaborators or stakeholders in research. The class reviewed regulation and discussed how fundamental values of trust, truth, and objectivity are affected by the potential to profit from research.
The Environment Though not a core area of research ethics for the PHS, the class considered for its final topic area ethical duties to the environment more broadly. Just as ethical considerations expanded historically to included nonhuman animals, ethics now encompasses duties to ecosystems and to the natural world more generally. We considered the major types of arguments at the heart of environmental ethics debates, such as whether nature has intrinsic value, or whether its value only derives from human interests and values. We also considered the alternative perspectives of environmental pragmatists, who recognize that specific cases involving environmental concerns often implicate multiple values. Therefore the goal is to make decisions and develop policies that integrate these values as best as possible and avoid debates about intrinsic versus instrumental values.
Conclusion Progress at REU ethics seminars has not been quantified, but informal evaluations showed significant progress in the students’ capacity to use ethical concepts and theories in reasoning about cases. Informal feedback from students indicated that the course gave them a heightened sensitivity to the range of ethical issues they may face as a researcher. They also gained greater awareness of resources to address ethical issues, regulations that may apply, and improved skills for addressing ethical issues.
Acknowledgments The seminar described was part of the project “Linking Environmental Chemistry and Science Policy Formulation,” at the University of Montana, funded by the National Science Foundation (DUE 0354150). Any opinions, findings, and conclusion or recommendations expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation or the University of Montana. I would like to thank principle investigators Garon Smith and Chris Palmer, as well as Earle Adams for their support of the ethics component of this project. I would also like to thank Deni Elliott, former
79
Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education director of the university’s Practical Ethics Center, who was the initial instructor for this project and whose expertise and mentorship for me in research ethics helped lay the groundwork for my teaching in this area.
[4] Rachels, J. (1980) Can Ethics Provide Answers? Hastings Center Report 10, pp. 33–39. [5] PBS (1988) Do Scientists Cheat?: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/list season/15.html. Accessed on February, 2015. [6] Office of Research Integrity: hhh.ori.gov. Accessed on December, 2014.
References [1] Beauchamp, T.L. and Childress, J.F. (2009) Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 6th ed., Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 2–5. [2] Resnick, D.B. What is Ethics in Research and Why is It Important? http:// www.niehs.nih.gov/research/resources/bioethics/whatis/(revised 2013). Accessed on February, 2015. [3] National Academy of Sciences (1995) On Being a Scientist: A Guide to Responsible Conduct in Research, 2nd ed., National Academy Press, Washington, D. C.
80
[7] Columbia University Responsible Conduct of Research Courses Portal: http://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/projects/rcr/index.html. Accessed on December, 2014. [8] International Committee of Medical Journal Editors: http://www.icmje. org/. Accessed on February, 2015. [9] Booth, D., Feldshuh, D., Glass, P. (2007) Susceptible to Kindness: Miss Evers’ Boys and the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, DVD, Cornell University. [10] The Belmont Report: http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/ belmont.html. Accessed on February, 2015.
Ethics Education for Chemistry Students
