(Caution! This module is being published in an incomplete, preliminary version. Later edited and fuller versions will follow.) "Graduate Education in Research Ethics for Scientists and Engineers" is a project funded
by the National Science Foundation (SES 0629377) to design a pilot program in research ethics for graduate students in science and engineering. This project is built around three workshops: (1) a Graduate Awareness Workshop introduces students to fundamental ethical issues in research, (2) a Moral Deliberation Workshop acquaints students with the skills of moral deliberation, (3) a Case Analysis Workshop uses realistic scenarios to allow students to practice decision-making an problem-solving in research ethics, and (4) students present their decision-making and problem-solving skills in a capstone activity, an Ethics Banquet, that consists of poster presentations on cases in research ethics. This module is a derived copy of the first workshop, the Graduate Awareness Workshop, written for business administration students or students in the professional and occupational areas who will be doing research in a market-driven environment. It links to the Open Seminar project, also funded by the NSF, which provides exercises, modules, activities, and resources pertinent to the study and teaching of research ethics. It also works closely with the Belmont Report, a wonderfully concise document that offers principles and practical applications designed to undercut the paralyzing theoretical and ideological debates that often accompany an area like research ethics. This module has been developed through Connexions as a part of the EAC Toolkit project, NSF SES 0551779.
Module introduction
Graduate awareness module
This module presents the ethical issues and concepts associated with research in graduate school. Its content and exercises focus on business research, that is, research carried out in business organizations and research carried out in graduate programs in business schools. You begin with three cases: Tuskegee, Enron, and Baltimore. The first establishes the need for research ethics. The second introduces complexities that market-driven activities bring to research. The Baltimore case poses the question, not of whether market forces distort and deflect scientific research, but of whether government and legal forces conspire to distort and deflect the exercise of scientific research skills. After looking at these cases, you will examine the Belmont Report and the basic moral principles and responsibilities in research ethics that it clearly outlines. These principles stand up remarkably well when carried to the realm of business; but there is still a sense in which they need reformulation and clarification to become operative in the context of the different moral ecologies provided by business. Third, you will apply the principles of the Belmont Report to famous (and notorious) research carried out in social psychology on obedience to authority. In a role-playing activity, you will imagine that you are a member of an IRB (Institutional Review Board) charged with evaluating Milgram’s research proposal that justifies the experiments he is about to carry out to generate information on how far normal individuals will go, against conscience, on the basis of authority. Someone role-playing as Milgram will present the experiment’s protocol, estimate the damage it will bring to the participating human subjects, and outline the expected results. You will use the principles of respect, beneficence, and justice as outlined in the Belmont Report to evaluate Milgram’s proposal and decide if the experiment, as outlined, should take place. Finally, you will have a chance to reflect on a series of issues that arise in research carried out in the area where markets, technology, and government intersect. How does competition drive, direct, and even detect research? Does the profit motive distort or corrupt research results? Do markets motivate, filter, or deflect research and progress in scientific and technological research? Can undue or excessive interference by the government undo research efforts?
