Bio 5150 – sec.002                                                                        Spring 2002

Graduate Seminar:

Issues & Ethics in Graduate Degree Programs

 

Professor: Stephen Mullin

Office: LSB 1114; tel: 217.581.6234

Internet: <cfsjm@eiu.edu>

Mailbox in departmental office (LS2070).

Office Hours:  Tu & Th 1200 – 1330 h; or, by appointment.

 

Synopsis – This course is designed as a series of discussions centered around appropriate actions that students may take during and following their tenure in a graduate degree program.  Specifically, emphasis will be placed on ethical behavior of the researcher and presentation of their work to the rest of the scientific community.  Case studies and other examples will be drawn primarily from a perspective in the biological sciences.

 

Prerequisites – Enrollment in good standing through The Graduate School in any department.

 

Course Materials – I will provide handouts prior to class meetings, each being appropriate to the topic for that week.  A “course reader” may become available later in the semester.  I would also like to recommend the following sources:

Djerassi, C.  1991.  Cantor’s Dilemma.  Penguin Books, New York.

Macrina, F.L.  1995.  Scientific Integrity: An Introductory Text with Cases.  ASM Press, Washington, DC.

Sigma Xi.  2001.  New Ethical Challenges in Science and Technology – 2000 Sigma Xi Forum Proceedings (ed. C. Blackburn).  Sigma Xi, the Scientific Research Society, Research Triangle Park, NC.

 

Reserve Materials – Several resources will be available to help you with information presented throughout the course.  Booth Library has several of these holdings, but I will also have them available for two-hour check out during my office hours.

Dickson, D.  1988.  The New Politics of Science.  University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

LaFollette, M.C.  1992.  Stealing Into Print: Fraud, Plagiarism, and Misconduct in Scientific Publishing.  University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

National Academy of Sciences.  1996.  Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals.  National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

National Academy of Sciences.  1993.  Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process.  National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

 

Attendance – Lecture

·     With the exception of school holidays, lecture sections will meet from 1430 – 1600 h on Mondays; please avoid the embarrassment of arriving late.

·     I would like to discourage distractions during our meeting times.  Therefore, any student will be penalized ten (10) points if their pager &/or cellular telephone emits any audible noise during the class.

Leading the Way

  Depending on the number of students enrolled, you will be asked to lead either one or two discussion sessions concerning a particular issue in research integrity.  Prior to these sessions, I will supply you with an appropriate topic and the entire class will expect you to have researched it thoroughly.  You should not only present information pertinent to the topic, but also be prepared to address questions from the rest of the class.

 

Academic Integrity – I expect that you will never passively or actively cheat on any of my exams, or those administered by your other professors.  Any documented incidence of cheating or plagiarism will result in a notification to the Judicial Affairs Office, and an “F” grade in the entire course.  Please feel free to speak with me, or consult your Student Handbook, if you have any questions concerning this matter.

 

Exams – Unless otherwise noted, I have tentatively scheduled two take-home exams for each half of the course (the 2nd exam is not comprehensive).  Each student will work independently on their exam and submit typed responses to the test questions.  I will not accept late exams – if submitted after the due date, you will receive in a zero grade for that exam.  Spelling counts!  One point will be deducted from your exam total for every 5 spelling/grammar/context/ syntax/punctuation errors on any of your written work for this course.

 

Grading – In addition to the exams (described above), you will also be evaluated on the basis of your participation during the discussion periods throughout the semester.  Partcipation grades will be a function of your in-class presentation(s) as well as your contributions to the discussions in other class meetings.

 

Written exams (2 @ 60 points each)                          120 points

Presentation(s)                                                    60

Participation                                                      80

TOTAL                                                              260 points

Thus, your awarded grade for the class will be determined on a 260-point scale.  I will follow the standard 10-%age point scale (90-100 % = ‘A’, 80-89 % = ‘B’, etc.).

 

Disabled Students should contact the Student Support Services office (SC 206; x43135) for any arrangements that need to be made in order to ensure that you get the most out of this course.  Within reason, I am willing to make whatever accommodations are necessary to facilitate your learning of this material.


Bio 5150 – Mullin                                                                        Spring 2002

Graduate Seminar:

Issues & Ethics in Graduate Degree Programs

                                             Revised Schedule      

Week         Topic                                                                               Articles

1                  Introduction                                                                                

2                  The ontogeny of a graduate career                                                      

3                  No class (MLKjr day)

4                  Scientific Writing I: The manuscript                                         1, 3 & 4

5                  Scientific Writing II: The peer-review process                                      2

6                  Professional societies and the role of a graduate student                         

7                  Presentations at scientific meetings                                                  5

8                  Beyond Grad. School I: Continuing the academic track

9                  Beyond Grad. School II: A job with a purpose                                       

10               Breaching the professional integrity of science                               6 – 9

SPRING BREAK

11               Ethical Relationships: Grad. students and their mentors                10 & 11

12               Ethical Data: Scientific record keeping                                               

13               Ethical Interpretation:  Do you torture your data?                         13 – 16

14               Ethical Treatment: Use of organisms in biological research                      

15               Ethical Entitlement: Data ownership and intellectual property         17 – 21

16               Ethical Appraisal: Authorship and peer review                             22 – 26

Take-home exam

                                                                                                                

 

 

 

PLEASE DO ME A FAVOR!

Send me an internet message containing the following items, each on a new line of text:

·     your name as you wish to be addressed

·     your SSN#

·     your phone #

·     versions of the following two statements:

"Yes/No you may/may not post my grade by special code."

[If "yes," then provide 6-digit code -- you may use any sequence of numbers or letters.].

"Yes/No you may/may not release my phone number to the rest of the class."

·     your research emphasis

Bio 5150 – Mullin                                                                        Spring 2002

Graduate Seminar:

Issues & Ethics in Graduate Degree Programs

                                       Course Reader Contents

 

1       Jaeger, R.G., and C.A. Toft.  1998.  Writing for scientific journals I: The manuscript.  Herpetologica 54(supplement):S42-S54.

2       Toft, C.A., and R.G. Jaeger.  1998.  Writing for scientific journals II: The review process.  Herpetologica 54(supplement):S54-S63.

3       Liner, E.A., and V.H. Hutchison.  1998.  Bibliographic accuracy: Importance in herpetological publications.  Herpetol. Rev.  29:71-74.

4       Wilson, R.  1986.  Bad, bad, bad, bad, citations.  New Scientist  May 1986:56-57.

5       Toft, C.A.  1998.  Oral presentations at scientific meetings.  Herpetologica 54(supplement):S67-S75.

6       Chubin, D.E.  1985.  Research malpractice.  Bioscience 35:80-89.

7       National Science Foundation.  1989.  The National Research Council Policy on potential sources of bias and conflict of interest in studies and related activities. [part of grant application form]

8       Hamilton, D.P.  1992.  A shaky consensus on misconduct.  Science 256:604-605.

9       National Academy of Sciences.  1992.  Misconduct in science – incidence and significance.  Pp. 80-97 in Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process, vol. 1,.  National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

10    Guston, D.H.  1993.  Mentorship and the research training experience.  Pp. 50-65 in Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process, vol. 2, (ed. National Academy of Sciences).  National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

11    Steneck, N.H.  1993.  Fostering responsible conduct in science and engineering research: Current university policies and actions. Pp. 3-25 in Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process, vol. 2, (ed. National Academy of Sciences).  National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

12    Wade, N.  1976.  IQ & heredity: Suspicion of fraud beclouds classic experiment.  Science 194:916-919.

13    Gould, S.J.  1978.  Morton’s ranking of races by cranial capacity.  Science 200:503-509.

14    Davenas, E., F. Beauvais, J. Amara, M. Oberbaum, B. Robinzon, A. Miadonna, A. Tedeschi, B. Pomeranz, P. Fortner, P. Belon, J. Sainte-Laudy, B. Poitevin, and J. Benveniste.  1988.  Human basophil degranulation triggered by very dilute antiserum against IgE.  Nature 333:816-818.

15    Maddox, J., J. Randi, and W.W. Stewart.  1988.  “High-dilution” experiments a delusion.  Nature 334:287-290.

16    Associated Press.  2001.  7 biologists put lynx fur in forests; congressmen want inquiry.  New York Times, 21 December 2001.

17    Fields, K.L., and A.R. Price.  1993.  Problems in research integrity arising from misconceptions about the ownership of research.  Academic Medicine 68(supplement):S60-S64.

18    Native Seeds/SEARCH.  1995.  Intellectual property rights: A forum of ideas and views.  Seedhead News, Winter 1994:5-6.

19    Native Seeds/SEARCH.  1995.  Plants and seeds as “intellectual property.”  Seedhead News, Winter 1994:7.

20    Pratt, T.  2001.  Patent on small yellow bean provokes cry of biopiracy.  New York Times, 20 March 2001.

21    Adler, P.  1995.  Statement on lawful uses of copyrighted works.  Association of Research Libraries, Washington, DC  3 pp.

22    Hamilton, D.P.  1990.  Publishing by – and for? – the numbers.  Science 250:1331-1332.

23    Seufert, W.D.  1992.  The ancient art of peer review.  New Scientist, Jan. 1992:39.

24    Cole, S., J.R. Cole, and G.A. Simon.  1981.  Chance and consensus in peer review.  Science 214:881-886.

25    Maddox, J.  1992.  Conflicts of interest declared.  Nature 360:205.

26    Goodstein, D.L.  1995.  Peer review after the big crunch.  Amer. Sci. 83:401-402.

 

–––

Miscellaneous readings that you might find helpful &/or interesting……

 

·   Council on Graduate Studies.  2000.  Manual for Master’s and specialist thesis and alternate formats.  The Graduate School, Eastern Illinois University, Charleston, IL.  11 pp.

·   Duellman, W.E.  1999.  Perils of permits: Procedures and pitfalls.  Herpetol. Rev. 30:12-16.

·   Pulliam, H.R.  1998.  The political education of a biologist, Part I.  Wildlife Soc. Bull. 26:199-202.

·   Simberloff, D.A.  19??  Simplicity, danger and ethics in conservation biology.  Conservat. Biol. ?:156-157.