Ethics
in Science
announcements.
Monday,
May 3, 2010:
*This
Tuesday (May 4, 2010) we'll be discussing the Diane
Archer case in class. Before class, read the case and write your initial
response on side 1 of the response
form. Be sure to bring your response form (with your initial response)
with you to class on Thursday, since you'll be using side 2 of the form to
write your refined response after the class discussion.
*Review
materials for the final exam (including the case
studies that will be on the exam) have been posted. You are invited (encouraged!)
to discuss the case studies on Blackboard
to prepare for the exam.
*The
second research report was originally
scheduled to come due this Thursday (May 6) at midnight (to be posted in the
Discussion area on Blackboard,
but let's push that deadline to the next Thursday (May 13) at midnight.
*The
longer paper comes due next Thursday, May 13,
in class. This is our las class meeting (during which I'll answer your questions
about the final exam), so you'll want to be there.
*This
Thursday (May 6) is a furlough day, so class won't meet.
Tuesday,
April 13, 2010:
*This
Thursday (April 15, 2010) we'll be discussing the Charlie
West case in class. Before class, read the case and write your initial
response on side 1 of the response
form. Be sure to bring your response form (with your initial response)
with you to class on Thursday, since you'll be using side 2 of the form to
write your refined response after the class discussion.
*The
third Reading Response Essay comes due on Tuesday, April 20. The questions
your essay needs to answer can be found here
(#3 in the list). General guidelines for reading response essays are here.
Note
that you are supposed to discuss a particular incident Traweek describes in
the "Border Crossings ..." essay, a situation in which foreign scientists
in the AMY group were looking for a good strategy for reporting exciting but
controversial data. Be sure to highlight specifics that played
a role in their strategizing -- including what they felt they might gain or
lose by reporting the data in one venue or another (or not at all). And, in
talking about what this episode shows about relations between physicists (in
the AMY group, in Japan, internationally), be sure to discuss what the Japanese
physicists in the AMY group stood to gain or lose from these strategies.
*The
slides from today's lecture (on patents and intellectual property) can be
viewed on the lecture slides page.
Thursday,
April 8, 2010:
*The slides from today's lecture (on authorship issues) can be viewed on the
lecture slides page.
*Links
of possible interest:
ICMJE
authorship standards.
JAMA
instructions for authors.
(Plus,
many relevant posts are linked on the page
of related posts from my blog.)
Tuesday,
April 6, 2010:
*The slides from the March 25 lecture (on global issues in research with human
subjects) and from today's lecture (on scientific papers and communications)
can both be viewed on the lecture slides
page.
*In
case you're interested, here are links to some articles I mention in today's
lecture:
About.com:
"Interpreting
Statements in Scientific Papers".
Nature:
"Physicists
afflutter about data photographed at conference".
Chemical
& Engineering News: "Giving
Proper Credit".
*I've
made some updates to the listing of related
content on my blog. Read the comments to see how working scientists think
about (and disagree about) some of these issues!
Thursday,
March 18, 2010:
The slides from today's lecture can be viewed here.
Tuesday,
March 16, 2010:
*The second Reading Response Essay comes due on Thursday, March 18. The questions
your essay needs to answer can be found here
(#2 in the list). General guidelines for reading response essays are here.
Note
that you are supposed to discuss "striking differences in emphasis"
between the Nuremberg Code (E&S pp. 300-301), the Declaration of Helsinki
(E&S pp. 302-306) and the Belmont
Report. This means you don't need to waste words cataloguing
the similarities, or even noting minor differences. Go for what you think
are the big differences.
Also,
note that you are supposed to say something about how these big differences
might be responses to the historical context at the time. There are two big
historical mileposts to consider here: the trial of the Nazi Doctors in 1946,
and the public revelation of the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment in 1972. Be
sure to mention these, and how you think they focused particular concerns
about research with human subjects, in your essay.
*Remember
that this coming Tuesday (March 23, 2010) is one of my furlough days, so class
won't meet.
Thursday,
March 11, 2010:
*The due date for the first research
report is coming up (Thursday, March 25, 2010). For this assignment, you
will be finding one source, either from the scholarly scientific literature
or from the popular literature, that raises an ethical issues in the conduct
of science. (The source may raise the ethical issue explicitly, or you can
point out the ethical issue if the source does not.) You'll write a brief
report on the article (as described here)
and post it, along with a link to the source, on Blackboard
in the Discussion Area. (There's one discussion topic for scholarly scientific
sources and one for popular sources.)
If
you don't have an electronic version of your source to upload or link to,
please bring me a hardcopy so I can scan it to a PDF and post it on Blackboard.
The
length of your research report will be in the ballpark of 300-600 words.
Tuesday,
March 9, 2010:
*There are some supplements to the lecture on research with animals posted
on Blackboard. These include the
lecture slides, links to further reading about animal welfare regulations,
and a video of a recent panel discussion at UCLA about scientific and ethical
issues surrounding research with animals.
*This
Thursday (March 11, 2010) we'll be discussing the Jenny
Ito case in class. Before class, read the case and write your initial
response on side 1 of the response
form. Be sure to bring your response form (with your initial response)
with you to class on Thursday, since you'll be using side 2 of the form to
write your refined response after the class discussion.
Thursday,
February 25, 2010:
*I've posted my response to the Bob Bailey Case on Blackboard,
so you can see what I'm looking for from your case study responses.
*Remember
that this coming Tuesday (March 2, 2010) is one of my furlough days, so class
won't meet.
*This
coming Thursday (March 4, 2010) we'll be discussing the Marty
Brown case in class. Before class, read the case and write your initial
response on side 1 of the response
form. Be sure to bring your response form (with your initial response)
with you to class on Thursday, since you'll be using side 2 of the form to
write your refined response after the class discussion.
Thursday,
February 11, 2010:
*Check out the handouts page for some
newly linked handouts and supplements to our in-class discussions.
*Stemwedel's
section: This is a great time to jump into the discussion of the Bob
Bailey Case on Blackboard.
(If you have trouble getting into Blackboard, the information here
may help.) Remember that in addition to discussing the case online, you need
to turn in your response to the case by Friday, February 19. (There's now
an electronic dropbox set up for this assignment in Blackboard.)
*Stemwedel's
section: Our scheduled class meeting for Tuesday, February 16 will be
taking place online. Check Blackboard
for the lecture-like materials I'll be posting. Discuss these lecture-like
materials, and the readings, with your classmates in the Blackboard discussion
area.
Tuesday,
February 2, 2010:
Prof. Bashaw's section 01 (TuTh 10:30 AM-11:45 AM) and Prof. Stemwedel's section
02 (12:00 noon-1:15 PM) have slightly different assignments for the Reading
Response Essays. In particular, the first Reading Response Essay for Prof.
Bashaw's section comes due Tuesday, February 9.
