scientists, or a treatment excerpted from a longer work. After the first few meetings the students asked for some
assistance in what to look for in doing the reading, so study questions were provided each week thereafter.

In discussions, the major positions would be clarified and conflicting values identified. Students would
sugvest and discuss appropriate behavior or ethical guidelines. Although only a few of our weekly topics were
in the area of bioethics, | used George Kieffer’s Bioethics: a Textbook of Issues as a model for treating each topic.
Guest lecturers and video presentations included: a workshop-lecture on techniques of interviewing; a speaker
from Physicians for Social Responsibility; a biologist engaged in "genetic engineering"; an environmental ethicist
who specialized in risk-benefit analyses of nuclear power plants; taped NOVA programs on genetic engineering
and on informed consent in medical experiments.

Training Students in Research

Although the course was entitled "Ethical Dilemmas and the Scientist," an important goal was to help train
the students to do research papers in general. To meet this aim, early in the semester, one of the college
reference librarians gave the class a lecture on library research. She also arranged for the students to have a
special lecture-demonstration by a Science-Engineering librarian at the University of California, Santa Barbara, on
computer searches as a research tool. A presentation by one of UCSB’s Government Documents staff on how to
locate useful information in the myriad of available government documents rounded out the introduction to
doing research. Every paper was different and served an individual educational purpose.

Course Evaluation

At the end of the semester, over a "farewell banquet," the students and I discussed the merits and
weaknesses of the course, Whereas the students’ evaluations of the course indicated their satisfaction with the
cognitive skills they had developed, I considered the affective results to be especially important. Both they and I
mentioned a number of ways the course needed to be improved: shorter, individually-assigned reading
assignments; starting the course with some specific cases and moving to more philosophical readings on ethics at
the end instead of at the beginning; preparation of a reader for the course so that each student could have a
personal copy; recruiting more humanities students; injecting more "pro and con" discussions on controversial
material; doing all the library presentation as early in the term as possible; making greater use of the wide and
valuable experiences of the college’s faculty.

An unplanned reward was the sense of camaraderie developed by the students. They began to work as a
small community, aided unintentionally by the need at times to pass readings around when there weren't
enough copies for everyone. The discussions enabled students to get to know more of each other's beliefs and
experiences. Each student had to lead the discussion once in the semester; and on these occasions, the other
students visibly tried to help the discussion along to make it easier for the leader. In addition, the students
briefly described their research topics to the group at the fourth week of the semester and from then on would
watch for useful material for each other. At mid-semester, they met on a Sunday to share difficulties they were
having and get reactions to their written work.

In conclusion, the course proved to be successful in its goal of enhancing the general education of both
humanities and science students. Students broadened their acquaintance with the different perspective of the
other "culture." The prospective scientists and engineers became more aware of how difficult it was to work
with questions whose answers are not easily arrived at through the application of straightforward logical rules.
The non-science student gained some understanding, albeit limited, of what scientists do and found that,
contrary to a popular image, a number of scientists are disturbed about the social and moral implications of their
work and have done much soul-searching. The course helped prepare students to judge the merits of scientific
ideas and claims to scientific authority when used to vindicate or criticize practices in American society at large.
Through the assigned readings, the students learned a bit about the methodology and much more about current
controversies in a range of scientific disciplines with social implications. They strengthened skills in writing and
in logical analysis of the issues studied. Especially important was the fostering of independent and critical
attitudes in the students by examining issues for which rote answers and memorization simply would not serve.

 

Elizabeth Hodes { YOMGLAS COLLEGE

Santa Barbara City College | ARCHIVES
For further information, contact the author at Santa Barbara City College, 721 Ch ve;

93109-999().

 

 

 

Suanne D. Roueche, Editor
February 21, 1986, Vol. VIII, No. 5
INNOVATION ABSTRACTS is a publication of the National Institute for Staff and Organizational Development, EDB 348, The University of Texas at Austin,

Austin, Texas 78712, (512) 471-7545. Subscriptions are available to nonconsortium members for $35 per year. Funding in part by the W. K. Kellogg
Foundation and Sid W/. Richardson Foundation. Issued weekly when classes are in session during fall and spring terms and monthly during the summer.

© The University of Texas at Austin, 1986
Further duplication is perrnitted only by MEMBER institutions for their own personnel. ISSN 0199-106X