Skip Navigation
Return to Layout View | Home | A-Z Directory | my UMaine | MaineStreet | Campus Map | Calendar | Apply | Give Now | Emergency
Follow UMaine on Twitter | Join UMaine on Facebook | Watch UMaine on YouTube | Admissions | Parents & Family |

Computing and Information Science Courses Online


Site Navigation:


INT 601 - Lectures and Assignments

INT 601 Responsible Conduct of Research

Legend: Red = Mon-Wed 8:00, Green = Tu-Th 12:30, Purple = Tu-Th 2:00

Course Requirements: To successfully complete this course for credit you must:

1. participate in all nine modules (i.e. modules A through I). This participation includes the following components:

Each module requires each student to respond to all of the questions posed and to upload the responses with the questions the INT 601 Blackboard site by the date and time indicated. (see the course Overview for detailed Blackboard instructions). That is, make your submission prior to the class period in which the material will be discussed. Be concise yet thoughtful. In some instances a several paragraph response to a question may be appropriate. However, a hundred-word response is often adequate. You will be able to see compiled responses from all students posted by the instructor on the morning of the days when we meet. Note: In Blackboard, all submissions of Module Assignments must be submitted the “Write Submission” box for each Module with no formatting (i.e. no attachments allowed). All submissions to the other items under Assignments must be in the form of a file in Word, RTF, or PDF.

(a) Each student is assigned to be class discussion moderator for one or more class periods. You may have a co-moderator. As moderator your role is NOT to give a lecture on what other people have stated in their written responses but to engage your classmates in a discussion of their responses and affiliated issues raised in the readings. Please engage all class members in the oral discussion when it is your turn to serve as moderator. Call on your classmates by name whenever possible.

(b) Each student is assigned to summarize the module s/he has moderated as the module editor.  You may or may not have a co-editor depending on the number of students in the class. Each editor or group of co-editors will publish a short summary (no more than one page per question) that describes the essence of our class findings and conclusions for each question. This Editor Report for summarizing the module discussion should address issues raised in the initial written responses as well as those discussed in the class sessions. I highly recommend that you submit this Editor Report within two days of completing the class session in which you are the editor. At the latest, all summaries are due on or before [Sun Feb 25 at 5:00 pm] [Wed Feb 21 at 8:00 pm] [Wed Feb 21 at 8:00 pm].

2. complete the University of Maine on-line Training Program in Financial Conflict of Interest which is accessible at http://umaine.edu/orsp/compliance/conflict-of-interest/. (Note: Read the instructions VERY carefully. If you select and complete the wrong elective module, you will be required to keep returning until you complete the correct elective module.  The correct elective is:  Conflicts of Commitment and Conscience)

3. complete the University of Maine on-line Training Program in Human Research Subjects Protections which is accessible at https://umaine.edu/research/faculty/research-compliance/institutional-review-board-for-the-protection-of-human-subjects-irb/human-subjects-required-training/. Follow the detailed instructions at the bottom of the web page very carefully. You must do the Human Subjects Basic Course training. Choose the subcategory of Human Subjects training for Social and Behavioral Research Investigators OR, if more germane to your interests, the subcategory for Biomedical Research Investigators . You must complete at least one of the “elective” topics. At least one student each semester completes the wrong online training. If you have any questions about whether you are completing the correct online training, please contact Gayle Jones, Office of Vice-President for Research, at gayle@maine.edu.
Note 1: As of Jan 2016 the REQUIRED MODULES for the online CITI Social and Behavioral Research exercise included: Belmont Report and CITI Course Introduction, History and Ethical Principles, Defining Research with Human Subjects, The Federal Regulations, Assessing Risk, Informed Consent and Privacy and Confidentiality. The ELECTIVE MODULES (of which 1 is REQUIRED) included: Research with Prisoners, Research with Children, Research in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools, International Research, Internet-Based Research, and Conflicts of Interest in Research Involving Human Subjects.
Note 2: I highly suggest that you do this assignment before the half-way point for the class. I will contact the IRB office one week after the last class period to confirm that you have successfully completed the training program. There is no need for you to send me any notification of completion. If you have already completed the training within the past three years, there is no need for you to pass the training again. However, check with Gayle to ensure you appear in the national database for the explicitly required exams. Each student will receive an email copy of how to access the CITI training and how to send the Completion Report to me by the conclusion of the class. Completion Reports are due the day before the final class session.

4. complete Option 1, 2, 3 or 4 below as a final project. Due:[Sun Feb 25 at 5:00 pm] [Wed Feb 21 at 8:00 pm] [Wed Feb 21 at 8:00 pm] (i.e. the evening before the last day of class)

OPTION 1 (recommended) – prepare a 5-page annotated bibliography on the responsible conduct of research related to your specific discipline and research interests.
Requirements:
(1) Provide a cover page that includes the following:
<Your Name>, INT 601, Spring 2018
Annotated Bibliography on the Responsible Conduct of Research in the <Discipline of … or Field of …>
(2) For each article entry, provide a standardized bibliographic citation (including a url if available) followed by an abstract in your own words (100 to 200 words typically) summarizing the content of the article. Ten citations is the practical minimum.
(3) Deliver the bibliography in electronic form as a Word,  RTF, or PDF file to the Final Project area on Balckboard

OPTION 2 – select a book addressing one or more aspects of the responsible conduct of research in your field or a book germane to ethical responsibility in your field, have it approved by the instructor, read it, and prepare a 5-page review and reflection paper in reaction to the text. See some past approved books.

OPTION 3 – prepare a 5-page review and reflection paper in reaction to: Carroll MW (2015) Sharing Research Data and Intellectual Property Law: A Primer. PLoS Biol 13(8): e1002235. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002235 and the article at http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002456. At the end, provide an explicit explanation on how you might ensure that any future users of research data developed in conjunction with your projects are able to use and republish your data without fear of abridging any legal rights in that data.

OPTION 4 – prepare a 5-page review and reflection paper in reaction to, at a minimum, Chapters 3 and 7 of the Public Domain: Enclosing the Commons of the Mind and the video titled What if the Web Really Worked For Science? by James Boyle which are both available at http://www.thepublicdomain.org/download/ The book is available also in the Blackboard Course Readings area and the video is available also at several other sites (e.g. https://vimeo.com/15117415, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywJLHX0qebM, http://www.ir-facility.org/events/irf-symposium/irf-symposium-2010/videos).

In summary, items that must be appropriately titled and delivered as a Word, PDF or RTF file before the end of the course to the appropriate area under Assignments on Blackboard. The attached files should include:
• Editor Report for your moderated Module (e.g. Smith, Jones and Wang – Editor Report)
• Annotated Bibliography or Other Final Project (e.g. Smith – Annotated Bibliography)
• Module Response Compilation for the Nine Modules (i.e. your nine modules compiled into one master document file) (e.g. Smith – Module Response Compilation)
See the course Overview for detailed Blackboard instructions on how to submit these items.


Detailed Schedule of Class Sessions

The core texts for the course are freely accessible on the web. If you have trouble downloading them from the web, copies most are also posted in the Blackboard Course Readings area.

Reference (1)
Steneck, Nicholas H., Introduction to the Responsible Conduct of Research, Office of Research Integrity, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2007. (Copies archived in Blackboard in Course Readings.)
Free web version and pdf version at https://ori.dhhs.gov/publications/ori_intro_text.shtml

Reference (2)
Committee on Science, Engineering and Public Policy, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering and Institute of Medicine, On Being a Scientist: Responsible Conduct in Research, National Academy Press, Third Addition, 2009. (Copies archived in Blackboard in Course Readings.)
Read online at http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12192&page=1 or download pdf for free at  http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12192

Many of the discussion questions listed below in the Modules are drawn verbatim from the assigned materials from these two texts. If so, the reference number is indicated in the assignment. Additional documents are made available in the Blackboard Course Readings area.

Note: The module discussion approach used in the schedule that follows emulates an approach used by Elizabeth Allan, College of Education, University of Maine, in a course on teaching at the college level. The course structure and materials were developed by Harlan Onsrud, School of Computing and Information Sciences, University of Maine.

Session 1

Research Values (Mon Jan 22, 2018 – Class Discussion Video) (Tues Jan 23, 2018 – Class Discussion Video) (Tues Jan 23, 2018 – Class Discussion Video).

Introductory Lecture on Ethics, Values and Law
1. Ref (1) Intro to RCR, Chap 1 Rules of the Road
2. Ref (2) On Being … , Introduction to the Responsible Conduct of Research (pp.1-3)
3. Become familiar with the following University of Maine and UMS Policy Documents before the end of the third class session. We will look at these in greater depth as specific conduct issues are raised. All of these documents are additionally posted in the Blackboard Course Readings area.

a. University of Maine Student Handbook http://www.umaine.edu/handbook/
b. UMS Student Conduct Code http://www.maine.edu/pdf/conductcode.pdf
c. UMaine Policy & Procedures on Alleged Misconduct in Research and other Scholarly Activities http://www.umaine.edu/research/vice-president-for-research/policy-and-procedures-on-alleged-misconduct-in-research-and-other-scholarly-activities/
d. UMaine Policies & Procedures for Financial Disclosures and Conflicts of Interest in Extramurally Sponsored Activities (PDF)
http://umaine.edu/computingcoursesonline/files/2012/10/ConflictofInterestPolicy.pdf
e. Research Compliance: Protection of Human Subjects of Research
http://umaine.edu/research/research-compliance/institutional-review-board-for-the-protection-of-human-subjects-irb/
f. UMS Full Statement of Policy Governing Patents and Copyrights http://www.maine.edu/pdf/intprop.pdf

4. Optional Additional Materials: http://ori.dhhs.gov/education/products/rcr_general.shtml
5. Optional Additional Materials: Past reported cases of academic research misconduct are contained in the newsletters found at http://ori.dhhs.gov/publications/newsletters.shtml
6. Optional Additional Materials: Project on Scholarly Integrity by the Council of Graduate Schools http://www.cgsnet.org/project-scholarly-integrity

Session 2

Research Misconduct (Wed Jan 24, 2018 – Class Discussion Video) (Thur Jan 25, 2018 – Class Discussion Video) (Thur Jan 25, 2018 – Class Discussion Video)
1. Ref (1) Intro to RCR, Chap 2 Research Misconduct
2. Ref (2) On Being … , Research Misconduct (pp.15-18)
3. UMaine Policy & Procedures on Alleged Misconduct in Research and other Scholarly Activities, https://umaine.edu/research/faculty/research-compliance/policy-and-procedures-on-alleged-misconduct-in-research-and-other-scholarly-activities/
4. Optional Additional Materials: http://ori.dhhs.gov/education/products/rcr_misconduct.shtml

Module A
Moderators/Editors: (Ahmed Jasim) (Ahmad Ahmad, Selena Callahan) (Caleb Berry, Melissa Flye)
The critical questions for Module A are
A-1 How is integrity in research monitored? Is self-regulation of integrity in research effective?
A-2 Are the insights of individual researchers or the “sifting and winnowing” insights of groups of researchers more critical in advancing physical, biological and social science?
A-3 Should other practices besides fabrication, falsification and plagiarism be considered misconduct in research?
A-4 Outline the major steps that an allegation of scientific misconduct should go through when reported on the University of Maine campus.
A-5 Which question or issue related to the readings would you most like to raise and discuss with the rest of the class?
All M-W students respond to these questions before 5:00 PM on the evening before class, all others 8 PM the evening before class.


Session 3

Protection of Human Subjects (Mon Jan 29, 2018 – Class Discussion Video) (Tues Jan 30, 2018 – Class Discussion Video) (Tues Jan 30, 2018- Class Discussion Video)
1. Ref (1) Intro to RCR, Chap 3 The Protection of Human Subjects
2. Ref (2) On Being … , Human Participants, pp. 24-25
3. “Human Participants in Research” (NC State) (18 pages – download the germane pdf), http://www.ncsu.edu/grad/preparing-future-leaders/rcr/modules/module_6.doc
4. “The Belmont Report”, https://videocast.nih.gov/pdf/ohrp_belmont_report.pdf
5. “The Nuremberg Code”, http://history.nih.gov/research/downloads/nuremberg.pdf
6.When Class Projects require IRB Human Subjects Approval, http://umaine.edu/research/faculty/research-compliance/institutional-review-board-for-the-protection-of-human-subjects-irb/guidelines-for-class-projects/
7. Optional Additional Materials: http://ori.dhhs.gov/education/products/rcr_humans.shtml

Module B
Moderators/Editors:(Kris Bears, Evan Christie) (Olivia Choi, Naya Clifford) (Steve Gallo, Travis Haysley)
The critical questions for Module B are
B-1 What should subjects know about proposed research and their protection before they enroll as subjects? (Ref 1)
B-2 Should subjects be allowed to enroll in experiments that either promise no direct benefit to them or cannot provide them with the opportunity to withdraw completely? (Ref 1)
B-3 To what extent do the Belmont Report and Nuremburg Code provide useful guidance?
B-4 View footage from the Milgram Study at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yr5cjyokVUs Was the knowledge gained from this study of substantial value to the social science community? Would this study likely be approved under today’s institutional review board process at the University of Maine? Why or why not? For a follow-on prisoner/guard experiment see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZwfNs1pqG0
B-5 Which question or issue related to the readings would you most like to raise and discuss with the rest of the class?
All M-W students respond to these questions before 5:00 PM on the evening before class, all others 8 PM the evening before class.

Further Assignment: Complete the University of Maine on-line Training Program in Human Research Subjects Protections. See Section 2 under Course Requirements at the top of this web page.

Session 4

The Welfare of Animals Used in Research (Wed Jan 31, 2018 – Class Discussion Video) (Thur Feb 1, 2018- Class Discussion Video) (Thur Feb 1, 2018 – Class Discussion Video)
1. Ref (1) Intro to RCR, Chap 4 The Welfare of Laboratory Animals
2. Ref (2) On Being … , Animal Subjects, pp. 25-28
3. Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals: Eighth Edition, 2011, Download free pdf at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12910, Read Introduction (a.k.a. Executive Summary) and skim other portions as appropriate
Optional Additional Materials:
a. Humorous Thought Piece: Location of Humans in the Phylogenetic Scale of Aliens – Worthy as More than Meat or Test Animals by Higher Order Species? http://www.terrybisson.com/page6/page6.html
b. http://ori.dhhs.gov/education/products/rcr_animals.shtml

Module C
Moderators/Editors: (Wenshu He, Thomas Leighton) (Elyse DeFranco, Atik Faysal, Mingu Lee) (Hannah Mittelstaedt, Nguyen Vuong)
The critical questions for Module C are
C-1 Are there some animals that should not be used in research? (Ref 1)
C-2 What circumstances justify pain and suffering of experimental animals? (Ref 1)
C-3 How should research animals be procured? How should they be housed and treated during experiments? (Ref 1)
C-4 Which question or issue related to the readings would you most like to raise and discuss with the rest of the class?
All M-W students respond to these questions before 5:00 PM on the evening before class, all others 8 PM the evening before class.


Session 5

Conflicts of Interest and Data Management Practices (Mon Feb 5, 2018 – Class Discussion Video) (Tues Feb 6, 2018 – Class Discussion Video) (Tues Feb 6, 2018- Class Discussion Video)
1. Ref (1) Intro to RCR, Chap 5 Conflicts of Interest
2. Ref (2) On Being … , Competing Interests (pp.43-47)
3. Ref (1) Intro to RCR, Chap 6 Data Management Practices
4. Ref (2) On Being … , Treatment of Data (pp.8-11) and Intellectual Property (pp. 39-42)
5. UMaine Policy on Public Access to the Results of Federally Funded Research, http://umaine.edu/computingcoursesonline/files/2015/09/PublicAccessMemo.docx
6. Optional Additional Materials: http://ori.dhhs.gov/education/products/rcr_conflict.shtml and http://ori.dhhs.gov/education/products/rcr_data.shtml

Module D
Moderators/Editors: (Maggie Mazenko, Erin McConnell) (Michael Flanders, Matthew Gonnermann, Sahar Roozbahani) (Randy Raditya, Derek Whited)
The critical questions for Module D are
D-1 Should researchers be allowed/encouraged to profit personally from their research apart from their normal compensation? (Ref 1)
D-2 What are appropriate mechanisms for managing financial conflicts of interest? (Ref 1)
D-3 Should research data belong to researchers rather than to research institutions? (Ref 1) In the absence of institutional policies what does the law say? What is the institutional policy at the University of Maine? (See a summary at http://umaine.edu/computingcoursesonline/files/2014/06/UMSIntellectualPropertyBriefing.pdf)
D-4 Should data recording practices be standardized to facilitate sharing and monitoring? If so, what recording and archiving practices could be standardized? (Ref 1)
D-5 Who should have access to underlying research data after results have been published? How can that access be provided? Who should bear the cost? How can one ensure that data won’t be tampered with?
All M-W students respond to these questions before 5:00 PM on the evening before class, all others 8 PM the evening before class.

Further Assignment: Complete the University of Maine on-line Training Program in Financial Conflict of Interest. See Section 3 under Course Requirements at the top of this web page.

Session 6

Mentor and Trainee Responsibilities  (Wed Feb 7, 2018 – Class Discussion Video) (Thurs Feb 8, 2018 – Class Discussion Video) (Thurs Feb 8, 2018 – Class Discussion Video)
1. Ref (1) Intro to RCR, Chap 7 Mentor and Trainee Responsibilities
2. Ref (2) On Being … , Advising and Mentoring (pp.4-7)
3. Adviser, Teacher, Role Model, Friend: On Being a Mentor to Students in Science and Engineering (1997), Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, National Academy of Science, http://books.nap.edu/books/0309063639/html/index.html (pp. 1-16 and skim pp. 65-68).
4. “Truth and Trustworthiness in Research”, by Caroline Whitbeck, [Read section on “The Moral Soundness of Trust Relationships in Research; The Relationship Between Thesis Supervisor and Supervisee”] This essay was first published in Science and Engineering Ethics, 1:4 (October 1995) 403-416. http://www.onlineethics.org/CMS/research/resessays/cw2.aspx
5. “Guidelines for Advisor/Advisee Relations: Department of History, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign” http://www.history.illinois.edu/graduate/forms/advisor/
6. Optional Additional Materials: How to Pick a Graduate Advisor
https://hst.mit.edu/sites/default/files/Barres%20BA.Neuron.80.275.2013.pdf
How to be a Graduate Advisee
http://www.cell.com/neuron/pdf/S0896-6273%2813%2901191-4.pdf
7. Optional Additional Materials: http://ori.dhhs.gov/education/products/rcr_mentoring.shtml

Module E
Moderators/Editors: (Ian Nesbitt, Sujita Pandey) James Hodge, Matthew Moyet, Curtis Thompson) (Sari Mayhue)
The critical questions for Module E are
E-1 What are the qualities of a good mentor? A good trainee? (Ref 1)
E-2 What are the qualities of a good research environment and how can they be fostered? (Ref 1)
E-3 What are safe or comfortable ways for graduate students to learn about the differences among the policies of individual supervisors, inquire about a potential supervisor’s policies before becoming that person’s supervisee, and to assess their own treatment by a supervisor? (Whitbeck)
E-4 Should elements of the mentor-trainee relationship be reduced to a written agreement that both parties would sign at the beginning of the relationship? (Ref 1)
All M-W students respond to these questions before 5:00 PM on the evening before class, all others 8 PM the evening before class.


Session 7

Collaborative Research  (Mon Feb 12, 2018 – (Partial) Class Discussion Video) (Tues Feb 13, 2018 – Class Discussion Video-Recording Failed) (Tues Feb 13, 2018 – Class Discussion Video)
1. Ref (1) Intro to RCR, Chap 8 Collaborative Research
2. Ref (2) On Being … , Sharing of Research Results, pp. 29-33
3. “Mentor vs. Protégé”, Chronicle of Higher Education; 12/17/2004, Vol. 51 Issue 17, pA14-A15, 2p, 1c, http://chronicle.com/free/v51/i17/17a01401.htm (Or gain access through Fogler online publications or see the extra copy on Blackboard Course Readings)
4. Optional Additional Materials: http://ori.dhhs.gov/education/products/rcr_collaboration.shtml

Module F
Moderators/Editors:(Dean Pelletier, Erin Peterson) (Tejaskumar Patel, Katie Patenaude) (Fred Seavey, Edna Pedraza Garzon)
The critical questions for Module F are
F-1 What are the benefits of collaborative research? (Ref 1)
F-2 What are the drawbacks to collaborative research and how can those drawbacks be lessened? (Ref 1)
F-3 If working collaboratively with another and using or building from the ideas or labor of your collaborator, what level of credit or acknowledgement is warranted for your collaborator in scholarly outlets if you don’t have a formal agreement? Should it be acknowledgement of contributions? Citation to documentation? Co-authorship?
F-4 Which question or issue related to the readings would you most like to raise and discuss with the rest of the class?
All M-W students respond to these questions before 5:00 PM on the evening before class, all others 8 PM the evening before class.

Session 8

Authorship and Publication (Wed Feb 14, 2018 – Class Discussion Video) (Thurs Feb 15, 2018 – Class Discussion Video) (Thurs Feb 15, 2018 – Class Discussion Video)
1. Ref (1) Intro to RCR, Chap 9 Authorship and Publication
2. Ref (2) On Being … , Authorship and Allocation of Credit (p.35-38), Mistakes and Negligence (pp12-14)
3. Optional Additional Materials: http://ori.dhhs.gov/education/products/rcr_authorship.shtml

Module G
Moderators/Editors: (Chris Smith) (Jesse Rochester, Amir Rahmani Chokanlu) (Sahar Roozbahani)
The critical questions for Module G are
G-1 What are the accepted criteria for authorship in your field of research? If there are none, what should they be? (Ref 1)
G-2 The widely accepted ICJME Statement on Authorship indicates:”All persons designated as authors should qualify for authorship, and all those who qualify should be listed. Each author should have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for appropriate portions of the content. One or more authors should take responsibility for the integrity of the work as a whole, from inception to published article. Authorship credit should be based only on 1) substantial contributions to conception and design, or acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data; 2) drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and 3) final approval of the version to be published. Conditions 1, 2, and 3 must all be met by each author.  Acquisition of funding, the collection of data, or general supervision of the research group, by themselves, do not justify authorship.” Should this policy be applied across all scholarly domains? Why or why not? If yes, who should determine the people to be invited to participate as co-authors and thus who controls who should be invited to meet all three conditions for a specific proposed article?
G-3 What should a researcher do if the journal that has accepted a publication will not let the researcher publish the method or results in as much detail as the researcher feels is necessary? (Ref 1)
G-4 What are the benefits or drawbacks of inserting in an article an explanation of the contributions of each author and why the authors are listed in the order shown?
G-5 Which question or issue related to the readings would you most like to raise and discuss with the rest of the class?
All M-W students respond to these questions before 5:00 PM on the evening before class, all others 8 PM the evening before class.


Session 9

Peer Review (Wed Feb 21, 2018 – Class Discussion Video) (Tues Feb 20, 2018 – Class Discussion Video) (Tues Feb 20, 2018- Class Discussion Video)
1. Ref (1) Intro to RCR, Chap 10 Peer Review
2. Ref (2) On Being … , Advice, p.34
3. Responsible Authorship and Peer Review (NC State),
http://www.ncsu.edu/grad/preparing-future-leaders/rcr/modules/index.php (module 2)
4. Optional Additional Materials: http://ori.dhhs.gov/education/products/rcr_peer_review.shtml,
Ethics of Scientific Communication to the Public Under Uncertainty, http://ppe.sagepub.com/content/13/4/343

Module H (Sam Ward) (Sarah Rubenstein, Suraj Sangroula) (David Smith)
The critical questions for Module H are
H-1 What information contained in a manuscript or proposal should reviewers be expected to check? (Ref 1)
H-2 Should reviewers be anonymous? Should authors be anonymous?
H-3 Some disciplines and open access journals have moved to immediate posting of non-refereed preprints with authors names credited while an article is undergoing formal peer review. What are the benefits and drawbacks of this approach?
H-4 Which question or issue related to the readings would you most like to raise and discuss with the rest of the class?
All M-W students respond to these questions before 5:00 PM on the evening before class, all others 8 PM the evening before class.

DUE DATE: Your Editor Report (i.e. a summary of a module discussion by Editors), if not already submitted, is due [Tues Nov 14 at 8:00 pm] [Wed Nov 15 at 8:00 pm] [Wed Nov 15 at 8:00 pm]. Post your Editor Report file to Editor Reports under Assignments in Blackboard.

Session 10

Responsibilities to Society  (Mon Feb 26, 2018 – Class Discussion Video) (Thurs Feb 22, 2018 – Class Discussion Video) (Thurs Feb 22, 2018 – Class Discussion Video)
1. View Juan Enriquez: The next species of human (2009) https://www.ted.com/talks/juan_enriquez_shares_mindboggling_new_science  (… you can skip the first 7.5 minutes about finances) OR view Aubrey de Grey: A roadmap to end aging (2005) https://www.ted.com/talks/aubrey_de_grey_says_we_can_avoid_aging. Then view the 2010 video by Paul Root Wolpe: It’s Time to Question Bioengineering at http://www.ted.com/talks/paul_root_wolpe_it_s_time_to_question_bio_engineering and skim the related blog at http://blog.ted.com/2011/03/24/you-need-to-engage-the-ethical-question-all-along-the-way-a-qa-with-paul-root-wolpe/
2. Ref (2) On Being … , Responding to Violations of Ethical Standards (p. 19-23), The Researcher in Society (p.48-50)
3. “In the Grip of the Python: Conflicts at the University-Industry Interface”, David Healy, Science and Engineering Ethics (2002) 9, 59-71(PDF) (Access through Fogler Library e-journals or see Blackboard Course Readings)
4. “Towards the Conscientious Development of Ethical Nanotechnology”, Rosalyn W. Berne, Science and Engineering Ethics (2004) 10, 627-638(PDF) (optional) (Access through Fogler Library e-journals or see Blackboard Course Readings)
5. Optional but Recommended Additional Materials:
a. Among a large number of additional TED talks addressing the future of biology, information technology and engineering that raise societal ethical implications include:
Gregory Stock: To upgrade is human (2003) https://www.ted.com/talks/gregory_stock_to_upgrade_is_human
Craig Venter: On the verge of creating synthetic life (2008) https://www.ted.com/talks/craig_venter_is_on_the_verge_of_creating_synthetic_life
Jennifer Golbeck: The curly fry conundrum: Why social media “likes” say more than you might think, https://www.ted.com/talks/jennifer_golbeck_the_curly_fry_conundrum_why_social_media_likes_say_more_than_you_might_think
b. “The Ethical Implications of the New Research Paradigm”, Scott Peter, Science and Engineering Ethics, Ja 2003; 9(1): 73-84 (PDF) (Access through Fogler Library e-journals or see Blackboard Course Readings)

Module I  (Armando Ayes) (Sarah Turner, Caitlin Wiafe-Kwakye) (Katherine Trepanier)

I-1. Under reference 1, compare and contrast the perspectives and outlooks of one of the first two presenters (Enriquez or de Gray) with Wolpe. Should scientists or society as a whole guide the directions of science in altering or advancing the human life form and the life forms of other beings?
I-2. Which questions or issues related to  reference 2 [On Being a Scientist, Responding to Violations of Ethical Standards (p. 19-23) and The Researcher in Society (p.48-50)] would you most like to raise and discuss with the rest of the class?
I-3. Which questions or issues related to  reference 3 [In the Grip of the Python] concerning conflicts of interest in pharmaceutical research would you most like to raise and discuss with the rest of the class?
I-4. Which questions or issues related to  reference 4 [Towards the Conscientious Development of Ethical Nanotechnology] would you most like to raise and discuss with the rest of the class?
All M-W students respond to these questions before 5:00 PM on the evening before class, all others 8 PM the evening before class.

Class activity:
Review by editors of the key lessons of the semester’s class modules (if time permits).
Student evaluation of course and teacher.

Back to INT 601


Sidebar


Contact Information

Computing and Information Science Courses Online
The University of Maine
Orono, Maine 04469
207.581.1110
A Member of the University of Maine System