A. Course objectives:
1. -to acquaint students with the benefits of conducting research as undergraduates
2. -to inform students about the various opportunities for engaging in a research
project with a faculty mentor
3. -to foster interaction between undergraduates and faculty researchers from
throughout the university
4. -to familiarize students with campus research facilities
5. -to increase student awareness regarding the ethical, moral, and social dimensions
associated with conducting research in the various disciplines
B. Course Format & Components: The course consists of 6 sections of Honors students who meet weekly with their section leader/mentors and has the following components
1. -readings and discussions focused on ethical, moral, and social issues associated
with research
Topics include: Embryonic stem cell research: A bioethical discussion, Human
subject research and informed consent and Ethics in Engineering practice
2. -visits with faculty researchers in which faculty discuss their ongoing
research projects and the goals, methods, challenges, benefits, and obstacles
that characterize their work Background
readings and/or a biographical sketch are provided to the students prior to
each visit.
3. -presentations by undergraduate researchers who discuss their research projects and provide practical information on the various ways to become involved in a substantive research project as an undergraduate
4. -presentations by recipients of the Distinguished Scholar-Teacher awards who discuss their academic histories and how they became involved in their particular field of research They also discuss highlights of their research activity.
5. -visits to campus research facilities
6. -an interview conducted by each students with a faculty researcher of his/her choice and the writing of a summary report and reflection on the visit
January 25, 26 and 27 Introduction to course Review syllabus,
course requirements, written assignments, grading policy Information on reading
packet Icebreaker and introductions
Assignment: Purchase reading packet Prepare for second class by reviewing readings associated with TOPIC ONE: EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH: A BIOETHICAL DISCUSSION. “Stem Cell Information, The official National Institutes of Health resource for stem cell research, Stem Cell Basics, Introduction http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics1.asp pp. 1-2, http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics2.asp“What are the important properties of all stem cells?” pp.1-2, “What are embryonic stem cells?” http://nih.gov/info/basics/basics3.asp pp. 1-4, “What are adult stem cells?” http://nih.gov/info/basics/basics4.asp pp. 1-5, “What are the similarities and differences between embryonic and adult stem cells?” http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics5.asp p. 1,“What are the potential uses of human stem cells and the obstacles that must be overcome before the potential uses will be realized?”, http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics6.asp pp. 1-3, “Radio Address by the President to the Nation,” http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/release/2001/08/20010811-1.html “Monitoring Stem Cell Research, The President’s Council on Bioethics, Washington, DC, January 2004, Chapter Three, “Recent Developments on the Ethical and Policy Debates,” http://bioethics.gov/reports/stemcell/chapter3.html pp.1-34, “Stem cell research awaits shifting tide,” Ann Parson, The Boston Globe, August 2, 2004, http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/08/02/stem_cell_research_awaits_shifting_tide?pg=2, “Stem-cell research a pawn in election politics,” Arthur Caplan, Ph.D., MSNBCNEWS, http://www.msnb.msn.com/id614266 pp. 1-4.
February 1, 2, and 3
Discuss readings on stem cell research.
Assignment: For the week of February 6 please read the materials associated with TOPIC TWO: AMERICAN HISTORY: TRUTH AND DISTORTION. Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong, James W. Loewen, New York, Simon & Schuster, 1995 “Handicapped by History: The Process of Hero-Making,” pp. 18-36, “Watching Big Brother: What Textbooks Teach about the Federal Government, “pp. 214-237, “The Quiz: Did Your High School History Prepare You to Take This? http://www.summit associatesinc.com/cgi-bin/quiz.pl/ask/quest.html
February 8, 9, and 10
Discuss readings.
Assignment: Review background materials for the presentations by undergraduate researchers
February 15, 16, and 17
Presentations by undergraduate researchers Discussion and interaction with presenters Distribution and review of Guide to Undergraduate Research Options Visit by the Associate Director and Honors 200 coordinator, Dr. Jim Airozo
Assignment: Prepare first reaction paper on presentations by undergraduate
researchers. Please read the packet materials associated with TOPIC THREE: HUMAN
SUBJECT RESEARCH AND INFORMED CONSENT. “Sample Informed Consent
Form,” The University of Tennessee, Office of Research, Research Compliance
Services, http://research.utk.edu/ora/sections/compliances/humsub/infocon.html
“A Look at Informed
Consent: A Lot of Rules, Too Many Exceptions,” Abby S. Myers, The
Washington Post, January 30, 2000, “Bioethics: Gene therapy business:
the tragic case of Jesse Gelsinger,” Newsweekly,
http://www.newsweekly.com.au/articles/2000aug12_bio.html,
“Penn Ends Gene Trial on Humans,” Deborah Nelson and Rick Weiss,
The Washington Post, May 25, 2000 pp. A1 & A23, “Dying for
Science,” Sharon Begley, Newsweek, July 30, 2001, p.36, “Panel Blames
Hopkins in Research Death,” Amy Artsinger, The Washington Post, August
30, 2001, p. B3.
February 22, 23, and 24
Submit first reaction paper. Discuss readings on informed consent.
Assignment: Read background information in preparation for visits with faculty researchers
March 1, 2, and 3
First Faculty Visit
Assignment: Prepare second reaction paper on visit with faculty researcher Please read the materials associated with TOPIC FOUR: ETHICS IN ENGINEERING PRACTICE Controlling Technology: Ethics and the Responsible Engineer, Stephen H. Unger, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., second edition, 1994, “Introduction” pp. 1-16 and “The Abuse of Technology,” pp. 61-105.
March 8, 9, and 10
Submit second reaction paper. Discuss readings.
Assignment: Review background material for visit to research facility
March 15, 16, and 17
Visit to research facilities
SPRING BREAK - March 20-24
March 29, 30 and 31 Presentations by graduate and professional school advisors
Assignment: Review background materials in preparation for presentations by the Distinguished Scholar Teachers of 2005.
Please note that regular class meetings are suspended for the week of April 3. Dates, days, and times of the DST presentations will be announced.
Week of April 3 Presentations by 2005 recipients of the Distinguished Scholar-Teacher awards
Assignment: Submit third reaction paper on the DST presentations. Review the readings associated with TOPIC FIVE: FRAUD and SCIENCE “A Cloning Scandal Rocks a Pillar of Science Publishing,” Gina Kolata, The New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/200512/18international/asia18clone.html, “Photos cast new doubt on cloning, Questions envelop S. Korean team, Gareth Cook, The Boston Globe, December 20, 2005, http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2005/12/20/photos_cast_new_doubt_on_cloning/, “What happens to Bad Scientists?”, Daniel Engber, Slate, December 16, 2005 http://www.slate.com/id/2132541?nav=ais, “Quality Control: The case against peer review,” Daniel Engber, Slate, April 5, 2005, http://www.slate.com/id/2116244/
Week of April 10
Discuss readings and view the following video presentation “Do Scientists Cheat?” A Production of the Documentary Guild with WGBH/Boston; produced , directed and written by Noel Buckner and Rob Whittsley. This video recording examines the issues of scientific fraud, why scientists may be less than honest, analyzes how the scientific system deals with quality control and considers the adequacy of the scientific community’s responses to fraud.
Distribution of confirmation forms for the final interview with a faculty researcher. Discuss procedures for arranging an interview and expectations on what should be covered in the summary report and commentary.
When contacting the faculty do not assume that they are familiar with Honors 200. Please refer them to the Honors home page at www.honors.umd.edu and ask them to click on the Honors 200 bar from the pull down menus. Once there, they will find a copy of the course syllabus for their review.
Students having difficulty finding a faculty member to interview should ask their section leaders for suggestions or they can email Dr. Airozo. In the message, please specify the fields of interest, i.e. chemistry, biochemistry, biology or government and politics, aerospace engineering, etc.
Please submit the confirmed interview information forms at the first floor offices of the Honors Program by FRIDAY, APRIL 21.
Assignment: Review the background materials in preparation for the second faculty visit
Week of April 24
Submit fourth reaction paper on second faculty visit. Special topics class.
Week of May 1 Prepare evaluations and final class assessments.
Assignment: Conduct interview and prepare final interview paper. Papers should be brought to the Honors offices on the first floor of Anne Arundel Hall by the last class day of Thursday, May 11. No late papers are accepted.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
1. Reaction papers: Each reaction paper should be at least three typed pages in length. The first part should consist of a summary of the highlights of the visit or presentation and the second part a reflection and commentary on what you have learned from the experience.
2. Final interview paper: This paper should be at least five typed pages in length. It should be based on at least a half hour interview with a faculty researcher of your choice. The paper should summarize the following:
a. the faculty member’s academic history and preparation
b. the faculty member’s research history and current research efforts
3. Grading: Honors 200 is graded on an A-F scale. The grading scheme is based on “process grading,” i.e. objective criteria related to the fundamental components of the course. The grading scale is based on 100 points. It is assumed that a student who meets all of the obligations of the course will receive an A at the end of the term.
a. Attendance: (39) points Students who attend all classes, visits, and presentations will receive the full 39 points. For each class missed without a valid excuse 3 points will be deducted from the total number of points. Any excuse must be submitted in writing and present supporting material. These excuses are submitted to the course coordinator who will make the determination as to their validity.
b. Reaction papers: (40) Each paper is worth 10 points. Late papers are not accepted, except in cases of documented illness or family emergency. For each paper not submitted 10 pints will be deducted from the total. Section leaders, at their discretion and in consultation with Dr. Airozo may reduce the number of points per paper in those cases in which a paper does not meet minimal standards for content, length, and writing quality.
c. Final interview and interview paper (21 points) These papers
are due on the last class day of the semester. Failure to submit the final paper
by the due date will result in the loss of the full 21 points.
