1887

Ethics Is Not Rocket Science: How to Have Ethical Discussions in Your Science Class

    Author: Kelly C. Smith1
    VIEW AFFILIATIONS HIDE AFFILIATIONS
    Affiliations: 1: Departments of Philosophy & Religion and Biological Sciences, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634
    AUTHOR AND ARTICLE INFORMATION AUTHOR AND ARTICLE INFORMATION
    • Published 15 December 2014
    • aA dichotomy between what instructors feel they are teaching and the message they send students is not unique to ethics. There was a very interesting study on critical thinking pedagogy ( 8 ), where researchers first asked instructors if they structured their classes to emphasize critical thinking. Most reported that they did, but when the actual assessment tools were examined, it was clear that the vast majority of them were objective “regurgitation” type of assignments. The instructors’ perceptions of the course simply did not match the reality.
    • Corresponding author. Mailing address: Departments of Philosophy & Religion and Biological Sciences, Clemson University, Hardin Hall, Clemson, SC 29634. Fax: 864-656-2858. E-mail: kcs@clemson.edu.
    • ©2014 Author(s). Published by the American Society for Microbiology.
    Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. December 2014 vol. 15 no. 2 202-207. doi:10.1128/jmbe.v15i2.784
MyBook is a cheap paperback edition of the original book and will be sold at uniform, low price.
  • XML
  • PDF
    179.57 Kb
  • HTML
    50.90 Kb

    Abstract:

    The Rutland Institute for Ethics at Clemson University seeks to encourage discussion on campus, in businesses, and in the community about how ethical decision-making can be the basis of both personal and professional success. In the last 15 years, our fellows have, among other things, served as Co-PI’s on a wide range of grants, produced Responsible Conduct of Research training for science and engineering graduate students and faculty, managed the ethics curriculum at a medical school, and produced video lectures on ethical thinking for undergraduate Biology majors. The crown jewel of our efforts to-date is our Ethics Across the Curriculum program, affectionately known as “ethics boot camp.”

    Each year, we bring faculty from all corners of the disciplinary spectrum together to show them how to have rich ethical discussions in their own classes with the students from their majors. The program has been extremely successful and over the past 15 years has touched the lives of hundreds of faculty and thousands of students. The purpose of this paper is to provide a very abbreviated version of the Rutland material to a wider audience of science educators. It is our hope that this will motivate more faculty to introduce ethics into their classes as well as provide them the basic tools they will need to make this experience fruitful for all concerned.

Key Concept Ranking

Canning
0.5347344
Lead
0.48108846
Elements
0.46991402
0.5347344

References & Citations

1. Antes A, et al 2009 A meta-analysis of ethics instruction effectiveness in the sciences. Ethics Behav. 19 5 379 402 10.1080/10508420903035380 19838311 2762211 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10508420903035380
2. Brown A 1978 Knowing when, where, and how to remember: a problem of metacognition 77 165 Glaser R Advances in instructional psychology 2 Erlbaum Hillsdale, NJ
3. Chung E, Jung-Ae R, Young-Hong B, Oh-Sun A 2009 The effect of team-based learning in medical ethics education. Med. Teacher 31 11 1013 1017 10.3109/01421590802590553 http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/01421590802590553
4. Deutch C 1996 A course in research ethics for graduate students Coll Teach 44 56 60 10.1080/87567555.1996.9933428 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/87567555.1996.9933428
5. Drazin R, Glynn M, Kazanjian R 1999 Multilevel theorizing about creativity in organizations: a sensemaking perspective Acad Manage Rev 24 286 329
6. Flavell J 1979 Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: a new area of cognitive developmental inquiry Am Psychol 34 906 911 10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906
7. Freeman S, et al 2014 Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics PNAS 11 8410 8415 10.1073/pnas.1319030111 http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111
8. Glaser R 1984 Education and knowledge: the role of knowledge. Am. Psychol. 39 2 93 104 10.1037/0003-066X.39.2.93 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.39.2.93
9. Goldie J, Schwartz L, Morrison J 2000 A process evaluation of medical ethics education in the first year of a new medical curriculum. Med. Educ. 34 6 468 473 10.1046/j.1365-2923.2000.00496.x 10792689 http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2923.2000.00496.x
10. Halpern D 1998 Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains: disposition, skills, structure training, and metacognitive monitoring. Am. Psychol. 53 4 449 455 10.1037/0003-066X.53.4.449 9572008 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.53.4.449
11. Hmelo-Silver C, Pfeffer M 2004 Comparing expert and novice understanding of a complex system from the perspective of structures, behaviors and functions Cogn Sci 28 127 138 10.1207/s15516709cog2801_7 http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2801_7
12. Hogarth R, Makridakis S 1981 Forecasting and planning: an evaluation Manage Sci 27 115 138 10.1287/mnsc.27.2.115 http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.27.2.115
13. Klein E, et al 2003 Teaching professionalism to residents. Acad. Med. 78 1 26 34 10.1097/00001888-200301000-00007 12525406 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200301000-00007
14. Kuhn D 1999 A developmental model of critical thinking. Educ. Research. 28 2 16 25 10.3102/0013189X028002016 http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X028002016
15. Mumford M, et al 2008 A sensemaking approach to ethics training for scientists: preliminary evidence of training effectiveness. Ethics Behav. 18 4 315 339 10.1080/10508420802487815 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10508420802487815
16. National Institute of Education. 1984 Involvement in learning: realizing the potential of American higher education: final report of the Study Group on the Conditions of Excellent in American Higher Education U.S. Department of Education Washington, DC
17. National Institute of Medicine 2002 Integrity in scientific research: creating an environment that promotes responsible conduct National Research Council Washington, DC
18. Plemmons D, Brody S, Kalichman M 2006 Student perceptions of the effectiveness of education in the responsible conduct of research. Sci. Eng. Ethics 12 3 571 582 10.1007/s11948-006-0055-2 16909159 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11948-006-0055-2
19. Rachels J, Rachels S 2011 The elements of moral philosophy 7th edition McGraw Hill New York
20. Rest JR 1986 Moral development: advances in research and theory Praeger New York, NY
21. Schaupp D, Lane M 1992 Teaching business ethics: bringing reality to the classroom. J. Bus. Ethics 11 3 225 229 10.1007/BF00871970 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00871970
22. Schraw G, Moshman D 1995 Metacognitive theories Educ Psychol Rev 7 351 371 10.1007/BF02212307 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02212307
23. Schraw G, Crippen K, Hartley K 2006 Promoting self-regulation in science education: metacognition as part of a broader perspective on learning Res Sci Educ 36 111 139 10.1007/s11165-005-3917-8 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11165-005-3917-8
25. Smith K, Satris S, Starkey C 2014 A Primer on Ethics Available upon request by contacting the Rutland Institute for Ethics at Clemson University (kcs@clemson.edu).
26. Sternberg R 1998 Metacognition, abilities, and developing expertise: what makes an expert student? Instruct Sci 26 127 140 10.1023/A:1003096215103 http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1003096215103
jmbe.v15i2.784.citations
jmbe/15/2
content/journal/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v15i2.784
Loading

Citations loading...

Supplemental Material

No supplementary material available for this content.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v15i2.784
2014-12-15
2017-09-23

Abstract:

The Rutland Institute for Ethics at Clemson University seeks to encourage discussion on campus, in businesses, and in the community about how ethical decision-making can be the basis of both personal and professional success. In the last 15 years, our fellows have, among other things, served as Co-PI’s on a wide range of grants, produced Responsible Conduct of Research training for science and engineering graduate students and faculty, managed the ethics curriculum at a medical school, and produced video lectures on ethical thinking for undergraduate Biology majors. The crown jewel of our efforts to-date is our Ethics Across the Curriculum program, affectionately known as “ethics boot camp.”

Each year, we bring faculty from all corners of the disciplinary spectrum together to show them how to have rich ethical discussions in their own classes with the students from their majors. The program has been extremely successful and over the past 15 years has touched the lives of hundreds of faculty and thousands of students. The purpose of this paper is to provide a very abbreviated version of the Rutland material to a wider audience of science educators. It is our hope that this will motivate more faculty to introduce ethics into their classes as well as provide them the basic tools they will need to make this experience fruitful for all concerned.

Highlighted Text: Show | Hide
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/jmbe/15/2/jmbe-15-202.xml.a.html?itemId=/content/journal/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v15i2.784&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Please check the format of the address you have entered.
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error