How is this course, specifically the RCR part, working for you? What, if anything, have you learned? What do you want to know more about? The focus here is on course content, rather than format.
By the way, I think I forgot to tell you that once a degree is conferred, it cannot be rescinded. (referring to a case from a few weeks ago where a new professor was accused by a lab technician of falsifying data, and the lab books were never found).
In my opinion, RCR is decently straight-forward and not very difficult to read. I especially enjoy working through the cases and applying not only our RCR knowledge but also our virtues knowledge. The cases give us all a chance to connect the dots and apply a multi-faceted view to a situation.
ReplyDeleteThe chapter on Misconduct was probably my favorite chapter because it can be directly correlated with real-life examples. Misconduct is a problem that I believe is swept under the carpet sometimes, or excused as "interpretating data". The example of prehistoric skull is just one of several examples of "interpreting data". On this subject, I would love to see more discussion about the line between presenting data or interpreting data, and misconduct. I feel like this subject is still quite flexible.
Overall, the book is interesting, straight-forward,and has answered a few questions about research for me.
http://ww.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v1n3/cures.html
ReplyDeleteI found this to be an interesting article applicable to today's discussion about Research on Animals. Here's my question:
Where is the line between science and curiosity? From a Utilitarian standpoint, painful/fatal research on animals should be done only to benefit the greater good. The animals are being used as a means to an end, therefore, is it ethically right?
I believe that some research should be done to help save human lives, but other experiments seem to have no other point but satisfying curiosity.