2011
[ Spring 2011 TLTC Ethics Series Report]
Sponsored by the Texas Tech University Ethics Center, the Teaching, Learning and Technology Center
(TLTC), and the Graduate School
Spring 2011 TLTC Ethics Series Report
Introduction
In collaboration with the Teaching, Learning, and Technology Center (TLTC) and the
Graduate School, the Texas Tech Ethics Center (TTU Ethics Center) hosted three luncheons
during the Spring 2011 semester. This luncheon series touched on research ethics topics and
values, justice and genetic discrimination, and ethical classroom behaviors for students and
teachers.
All three sessions were well attended and received mainly positive feedback. The
following report summarizes the three Series sessions in detail.
2
| Prepared by the Texas Tech University Ethics Center
Session I
Event Name: Research Ethics Topics and Values
Date: 1/27/2011
Time: 12:00 - 1:00 PM
Location: Room 151 - Audio/Video Instructional Lab (AVI)
Speaker: Dr. Howard Curzer
Event Summary: “Most classes aim to instill knowledge and/or skill, but Research Ethics aims to
motivate behavior, too. Forbidding wrongdoing and threatening punishment are insufficient;
they merely produce increasingly clever rule-breaking. To succeed, one must get buy-in from
the listener by explaining why the wrongdoing is wrong in ways that the listener will accept.
That is, one must connect the desired behavior with values already held by the listener. In my
Research Ethics course I grapple with a range of RCR topics: Scientific Misconduct, Authorship,
Dual Use Research, Publication and Peer Review, Conflicts of Interest, Intellectual Property,
Mentoring and Collaboration, Data Management, Responsibilities to Animal Subjects, and
Responsibilities to Human Subjects. To these topics correspond a range of ethical behaviors.
What values do listeners already possess that enable them to buy into these behaviors? How
does one motivate virtue?” 1
Number of Participants: The 58 participants came from 29 different departments/units. See
the following chart for a more detailed description of the composition of participants.
1
https://www.tltc.ttu.edu/WebApps/EMSEventEnrollmentDev/View/RSS/RSS.asmx/GetEvents (accessed,
01/26/2011)
3
| Prepared by the Texas Tech University Ethics Center
Distribution of Departments
Agri
1
Arts and Sciences
1
3
BA
Career Services
1
Chem
1
2
CMLL
1
DBS
4
Design
Economic and Geography
1
EDCI
1
2
EDUC
1
EDUC/TLTC
2
Electrical & Computer Engineering
1
FCS
4
Department
FCSE
Grad School
1
Human Sciences
1
7
Library
1
Mechanical Engineering
2
NHR
3
OVPR
Philosophy
1
Physics
1
5
Plants & Soil Science
1
Provost Office
4
Psychology
1
Theatre and Dance
3
TTUHSC
1
WISE
0
1
2
3
Frequency
4
| Prepared by the Texas Tech University Ethics Center
4
5
6
7
Event Questionnaire: 47 questionnaires were collected and included the following five
questions or statements:
1. What is your affiliation with Texas Tech University?
2. This workshop met my expectations based on the workshop title and description.
3. I would recommend this workshop to my colleagues.
4. Do you have any comments or suggestions you would like to share regarding this
workshop?
5. Do you have any suggestions for future ethics work shop?
The charts summarize the answers to the first three questions/statements.
1. Most respondents were TTU faculty and graduate students:
Question 1 : What is your affiliation
with Texas Tech University?
25
22
Frequency
20
15
15
10
5
5
2
2
1
0
TTU Faculty
5
TTUHSC
TTU Graduate
Faculty/Graduate
Student
student
TTU Staff
| Prepared by the Texas Tech University Ethics Center
TTU
Undergraduate
Student
Grant research
associate
2. The majority of the respondents strongly agreed or agreed that this workshop met their
expectations based on the workshop title and description:
Question 2: This workshop met my expectations based on the
workshop title and description.
30
26
25
Frequency
20
15
11
10
7
5
3
0
0
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
3. The majority of the respondents strongly agreed or agreed that they would recommend
this workshop to their colleagues:
Question 3: I would recommend this workshop
to my colleagues.
25
22
Frequency
20
15
10
13
9
5
3
0
0
Strongly Agree
6
Agree
Neutral
| Prepared by the Texas Tech University Ethics Center
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
4. The following comments and suggestions were provided by thirteen faculty members,
one staff member, one TTUHSC Faculty/Graduate student, and ten graduate students.
•
Comments and suggestions from faculty:
 It was more on Dr. Curzer's class than on the general topic or on uses of
researchers.
 Make stream & PowerPoint available.
 Hard to hear him.
 Hard to hear from the back of the room. Put a mike on the speaker. Still unclear
what the "take away" points are.
 Good info on how to use ethic and values in doing research.
 Great info. A mike would have helped. Good speaker. Great assessment of
topics.
 Repeat - annually?
 Very well done.
 It was difficult to hear the speaker.
 Could have presented a case or two for analysis as a group. Talk more about
what ethics is, i.e. how is it defined, how do ethics differ from principles, values,
etc. Have the audience participate in examples of ethical dilemmas to
experience what students might in teaching about ethics.
 A microphone would be good. Speaker was difficult to hear.
 Really interesting topic and presentation.
 Need to be louder.
7
| Prepared by the Texas Tech University Ethics Center
•
Comments and suggestions from TTUHSC Faculty/Graduate students:
 More space.
 More topics on ethics & research would be great! More in-depth discussion on
each issue.
•
Comments and suggestions from the staff:
 You imply that there is no definite answer to ethical decisions. I disagree - there
are definitions that must be projected - Students' right is not the only answer to
ethical decisions.
•
Comments and suggestions from graduate students:
 Thanks.
 Sometimes it was difficult to hear our speaker.
 Although he told us at the beginning that his presentation would be directed
toward faculty, in the description I was led to believe it would be beneficial to
students as well. The information was relevant but left me felling unfulfilled.
 Though I had nothing to contribute, I enjoyed the Q&A and discussion period
after the seminar. I wish the seminar had taught more about ethics than how to
teach ethics.
 I enjoyed and found it interesting. I enjoyed learning about the philosophical
approaches to ethics. The jokes were cute, too. Also, great job fielding questions
and comments from the audience.
 Great.
8
| Prepared by the Texas Tech University Ethics Center
 It'd be interesting to see how TTU's IRB applied deontology utilitarian
approaches in approving or rejecting proposals. One person asked about how to
transfer this information to graduate students. As a grad student, it seems like if
more advisors/faculty were aware of this approach and used it. It would help.
Many faculty will state their reasoning (say the utilitarian) as a fact, truth etc
(not something that could be argued with). Because students are aware of
conflicting ethical reasoning, this can actually hurt our ability to make these
decisions because we don't want to accept this as fact, but do not know how to
approach a solution to this dilemma.
 Please use MIC. Can barely hear.
 I expected to learn things I should avoid in academia. What will be plagiarism,
for example; I don't think it was mentioned at all.
 More topics on ethics & research would be great! More in-depth discussion on
each issue.
5. The following suggestions for future ethics workshop were provided by three faculty
members, and two graduate students.
•
Suggestions from faculty:
 Tibor Nagy as a speaker.
 More like this.
 Healthcare discrimination to include: socioeconomic, age, race, disabilities.
•
Suggestions from graduate students:
 Lunch was a great idea! & Please provide more examples.
9
| Prepared by the Texas Tech University Ethics Center
Session II
Event Name: Justice and Genetic Discrimination
Date: 02/24/2011
Time: 12:30 - 1:30 PM
Location: Room 151 - Audio/Video Instructional Lab (AVI)
Panelists: Dr. Cheryl Erwin
Event Summary: “The TLTC and TTU Ethics Center Spring Series: “Justice and Genetic
Discrimination” with Cheryl Erwin, JD, PhD, Visiting Professor, Texas Tech University Law School.
Genetic discrimination is the denial of rights, privileges, or opportunities or other adverse
treatment based solely on genetic information. Individuals worry about potential discrimination
at a higher rate than which they experience such incidents. This worry may motivate them to
place subtle and/or overt limits on themselves, such as keeping their family history a secret,
abstaining from genetic testing, or passing by opportunities to change employers. While the
Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act of 2008 seeks to address these concerns, it is not
clear whether these worries have been allayed, or whether the perception of genetic
discrimination has diminished. This discussion will highlight Genetic Discrimination, the Genetic
Information Non-Discrimination Act of 2008, and Huntington’s disease.” 2
Number of Participants: The 43 participants came from 26 different departments/units, and 11
of them were from Biological Science:
2
https://www.tltc.ttu.edu/WebApps/EMSEventEnrollmentDev/View/RSS/RSS.asmx/GetEvents (accessed,
01/28/2010)
10
| Prepared by the Texas Tech University Ethics Center
Distribution of Departments
Art
1
Biological Science
11
Business
2
1
Civil Engineering
1
Covenant
1
Economics
1
ECE
1
EDIT
1
EDUC/TLTC
1
International Medicine
1
University College
1
Department
Chemistry
HR
2
Library
1
Mass Comm.
1
OVPR
2
Philosophy
1
Physical Plant
1
Plant Soil Science
3
Psychiatry
1
Psychology
2
Theatre & Dance
2
TTUHSC
1
WISE
1
Zoology
1
Others
1
0
2
4
6
Frequency
11
| Prepared by the Texas Tech University Ethics Center
8
10
12
Event Questionnaire: 33 questionnaires were collected.
The following five questions/statements were asked on the questionnaire:
1. What is your affiliation with Texas Tech University?
2. This workshop met my expectations based on the workshop title and description.
3. I would recommend this workshop to my colleagues.
4. Do you have any comments or suggestions you would like to share regarding this
workshop?
5. Do you have any suggestions for future ethics workshops?
The following charts summarize the answers to first three questions/statements.
1. More respondents were TTU faculty and graduate students:
Question 1 : What is your affiliation
with Texas Tech University?
13
14
12
Frequency
10
8
6
6
4
4
4
2
3
1
1
1
Clinical
TEACH
Fellow
0
TTU Faculty TTU Graduate
TTU
Student
Staff/Graduate
Student
12
TTU Staff
TTU
Undergraduate
Student
| Prepared by the Texas Tech University Ethics Center
TTUHSC
Faculty
The majority of the respondents strongly agreed or agreed that this workshop met their
expectations based on the workshop title and description:
Question 2: This workshop met my expectations based on the
workshop title and description.
25
24
Frequency
20
15
10
6
5
3
0
0
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
0
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
2. Most respondents strongly agreed or agreed that they would recommend this workshop
to their colleagues.
Question 3: I would recommend this workshop
to my colleagues.
25
21
Frequency
20
15
11
10
5
1
0
0
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
0
Strongly Agree
13
Agree
Neutral
| Prepared by the Texas Tech University Ethics Center
3. The following comments and suggestions were provided by three faculty members, two
graduate students, two undergraduate students, and three other participants (TTUHSC
Faculty, Clinical, and TEACH Fellow).
•
Comments and suggestions from faculty:
 We need this.
 The personal stories were particularly powerful and illustrative. Perhaps adding
those in hard copy form.
 Fascinating and a very necessary discussion!
•
Comments and suggestions from graduate students:
 It was a good PowerPoint.
 I enjoyed it. Reminded me of Jeremy Rifkin's "Empathic Civilization" in the
conclusion - (Global empathy/we/us).
•
Comment and suggestion from undergraduate students:
 Well done lecture. Very interesting and informative.
 Very good workshop which helps raise awareness of problems related to
“genetic discrimination!” Laws and social issues need to be kept in mind.
•
Comments and suggestions from other participants:
 Outstanding program.
 Great talk. Great discussion - wish there was more time for discussion.
 Very good workshop.
14
| Prepared by the Texas Tech University Ethics Center
4. The following suggestions for future ethics workshop were provided by two faculty
members, three graduate students, two undergraduate students, and four other
participants (TTUHSC Faculty, Clinical, and TEACH Fellow) .
•
Suggestions from faculty:
 Mental health stigma.
 Keep up the good work!
•
Suggestions from graduate students:
 Issues around assent & children's participation in research & clinical trials.
 I would love to join you in other workshops regarding discrimination in other
ways.
 Just keep up the good work.
•
Suggestion from undergraduate students:
 More time?
 Keep on promoting awareness and discussion serious to see what everyone of
us can do: bring ideas – brainstorming – involving people who have lived such
experiences to help understand the issues. I would promote group sessions of
people/experts in medical/research/insurance fields. Awareness –
understanding – trying to find solutions.
•
Comments and suggestions from other participants:
 Add TTUHSC Faculty - we are one community.
 Data integrity in the "omics" and digital age.
 Add on personalized medicine and genetic counseling.
15
| Prepared by the Texas Tech University Ethics Center
 Would like to have more such workshops.
16
| Prepared by the Texas Tech University Ethics Center
Session III
Event Name: Whose Responsibility Is It? Examining the Ethical Behaviors in the Classrooms for
Students and Teachers
Date: 03/25/2011
Time: 12:00 - 1:00 PM
Location: Room 151 - Audio/Video Instructional Lab (AVI)
Speakers: Dr. David Roach
Event Summary: “The TLTC and TTU Ethics Center Spring Series: “Whose Responsibility Is It?
Examining the Ethical Behaviors in the Classrooms for Students and Teachers." In a recent
headline story, over 200 Florida students were caught in a cheating scandal and all 600 students
were required to re-take a midterm exam as a result. While some applauded the faculty
member’s response and placed blame wholly on the student population, others found fault
with the professor and voiced concern about the availability of test materials online and in
particular, reliance on test banks. This session will involve a discussion of this case study and
looks at the responsibilities and ethical considerations for both students and teachers. Please
join the TLTC, the TTU Ethics Center, the Graduate School, and Dr. David Roach on 3/25/2011
for this session.” 3
Number of Participants: The 44 participants came from 31 different departments/colleges:
3
https://www.tltc.ttu.edu/WebApps/EMSEventEnrollmentDev/View/RSS/RSS.asmx/GetEvents (accessed,
01/28/2010)
17
| Prepared by the Texas Tech University Ethics Center
Distribution of Departments
Ag Education and Communications
1
Animal and Food Sciences
2
Architecture
2
Biology
1
Business, College of
1
CASNR
1
Chemistry
4
CMLL
2
Construction Engineering
1
Department
Education, College of
3
Electrical Engineering
1
IRB
1
Journalism/Comm Studies
1
Library
2
Ombuds
2
OVPR
2
Philosophy
1
Physics
4
Planning and Assessment, Office of
1
Plant and Soil Science
1
Psychology
1
Science, College of
1
Theatre
1
3
TLTC
Upward Bound
1
WISE
1
XL
1
0
1
2
Frequency
Event Questionnaire: 42 questionnaires were collected.
18
| Prepared by the Texas Tech University Ethics Center
3
4
The following five questions/statements were asked on the questionnaire:
1. What is your affiliation with Texas Tech University?
2. This workshop met my expectations based on the workshop title and description.
3. I would recommend this workshop to my colleagues.
4. Do you have any comments or suggestions you would like to share regarding this
workshop?
5. Do you have any suggestions for future ethics work shop?
The following charts summarize the answers to first three questions/statements.
1. Answers to the first question show that most respondents were TTU graduate students
and faculty; the next largest group was TTU staff:
Question 1 : What is your affiliation
with Texas Tech University?
15
15
13
Frequency
10
10
5
1
1
0
19
| Prepared by the Texas Tech University Ethics Center
1
1
2. Almost all of the respondents strongly agreed or agreed that this workshop met their
expectations based on the workshop title and description.
Question 2: This workshop met my expectations based on the
workshop title and description.
25
21
Frequency
20
18
15
10
5
1
1
1
Strongly
Disagree
N/A
0
0
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
3. All respondents strongly agreed or agreed that they would recommend this workshop to
their colleagues (see the chart below).
Question 3: I would recommend this workshop
to my colleagues.
30
27
Frequency
25
20
15
15
10
5
0
0
0
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
0
Strongly Agree
20
Agree
| Prepared by the Texas Tech University Ethics Center
4. The following comments and suggestions were provided by seven faculty members,
eight staff members, and six graduate students.
•
Comments and suggestions from faculty:
 More time! Good discussion and great speaker!
 Plenty to discuss, but make the student-portion available/included. I'd like to
hear what the students thought/think.
 Learned from this workshop.
 Good content, use of technology, discussion availability. Gave good specifics,
thought provoking.
 There are courses which do not have exams, but rather projects. Ethics are as
critical here as an exam.
 Good job.
 Effective strategy.
•
Comments and suggestions from the staff member:
 Have a 2-hour time period if not longer for ideas and discussions.
 IF cannot control, make rules!
 There was a good discussion on ethics on professors, but no discussions on
research ethics law had been discussed. Being a postdoc, I would be more
interested in "Research Ethics."
 I enjoyed engaging in such an open discussion.
 I enjoyed the dialogue and ideas presented.
21
| Prepared by the Texas Tech University Ethics Center
 Nice job.
 Dr. Roach is an enthusiastic, knowledgeable presenter. Thank you! Great topic.
 Schedule part II. This single topic could fill a series of presentations.
•
Comments and suggestions from graduate students:
 Very helpful.
 Nice done!
 Perhaps a bit longer would allow for more discussion.
 Need more time for discussion.
 The time just flew by.
 I really liked this workshop; would like to have more of such workshops.
5. The following suggestions for future ethics workshop were provided by two faculty
members, two staff members, one faculty/graduate student, and three graduate
students.
•
Suggestions from faculty:
 The leader should talk about TTU "Ethical Codes," especially the main ones.
 Build an idea about ways to structure class activities; risks of prepared
materials that accompany text books.
•
Suggestions from staff:
 It's nice workshop! At the same time, the student should also have similar
workshop to share with the faculty.
 More like this one.
22
| Prepared by the Texas Tech University Ethics Center
•
Suggestions from faculty/graduate students:
 Thank you. Maybe we look at student's expectation.
•
Suggestions from graduate students:
 I was expecting it to focus on relationships with teachers and students (i.e. how
approachable to convey yourself).
 It would be helpful to discuss ways to handle plagiarism, cheating, and other
ethical issues as a follow-up workshop.
 Would like to discuss about Research Ethics Guest authorship in Publications.
Conclusion
The evaluations from the Spring 2011 TLTC Ethics Series showed that these workshops
were informative and well-received, benefiting the participants in several ways. The evaluations
show that a great number of the respondents (83.6%) agreed or strongly agreed that these
workshops met their expectations based on the workshop title and description. Many
participants believed the workshops provided insightful information and raised some
interesting and important topics. Also, the majority of the respondents (86.1%) agreed or
strongly agreed that they would recommend these workshops to their colleagues.
For future workshops, the respondents suggested inviting outside experts, hosting more
workshops each semester, and involving more students in the workshops in order to hear their
perspective and expectation. Topics of interest included data integrity, mental health stigma,
personalized medicine, genetic counseling, healthcare discrimination (socioeconomic, age, race,
disabilities, etc.), and ways of handling plagiarism, cheating, and other ethical issues.
23
| Prepared by the Texas Tech University Ethics Center
On the other hand, a few participants wished for more examples or cases for analysis,
and more definitions on ethics (codes) and the differences between ethics and principles. Many
people also suggested allowing more time for audience participation; the “one-hour” limit
seemed to prevent more in-depth discussions. A couple of technical issues were also addressed,
such as the use of microphone to aid soft presenters.
Compared to the Fall 2010 TLTC Ethics Series, the Spring 2011 Series saw an increase in
the attendance: the average Fall Series attendance number was 28, while the Spring Series
reached 48, an increase of 71.4%. Consequently, the Spring Series also received more feedback:
the Fall Series had an average of 24 evaluations returned per session, while the Spring series
had 42 evaluations.
Overall, the results were very positive. Many participants suggested additional time for
each session and expressed interest for more workshops on various topics of ethics.
24
| Prepared by the Texas Tech University Ethics Center