AMBIENTUM BIOETHICA BIOLOGIA CHEMIA DIGITALIA DRAMATICA EDUCATIO ARTIS GYMNAST. ENGINEERING EPHEMERIDES EUROPAEA GEOGRAPHIA GEOLOGIA HISTORIA HISTORIA ARTIUM INFORMATICA IURISPRUDENTIA MATHEMATICA MUSICA NEGOTIA OECONOMICA PHILOLOGIA PHILOSOPHIA PHYSICA POLITICA PSYCHOLOGIA-PAEDAGOGIA SOCIOLOGIA THEOLOGIA CATHOLICA THEOLOGIA CATHOLICA LATIN THEOLOGIA GR.-CATH. VARAD THEOLOGIA ORTHODOXA THEOLOGIA REF. TRANSYLVAN
Rezumat articol ediţie STUDIA UNIVERSITATIS BABEŞ-BOLYAI
În partea de jos este prezentat rezumatul articolului selectat. Pentru revenire la cuprinsul ediţiei din care face parte acest articol, se accesează linkul din titlu. Pentru vizualizarea tuturor articolelor din arhivă la care este autor/coautor unul din autorii de mai jos, se accesează linkul din numele autorului.
Autori: WIM VAN DER MOLEN, ELS MAECKELBERGHE.
DOI: 10.24193/subbbioethica.2021.spiss.121
Published Online: 2021-06-30
Published Print: 2021-06-30
pp. 177
FULL PDF
ABSTRACT: Parallel Session I, Room 6 The Digi-Table Method (DTM) was developed as a tool to visualize abstract concepts and processes by means of a digitable. It is a tool for familiarizing users with complicated and complex issues, learning content, and addressing the more methodical aspects didactically. In this project, we have adapted the DTM for reflecting on research ethics, i.c. research with human beings and its ethical requirements and the review by the medical ethical review committee (MREC). A MREC reviews research proposals based on various (ethical) requirements and requires researchers to understand the ethical consequences and societal impact of their research. Before writing their own proposals, it is important for students to know and understand these ethical requirements and the process through which research proposals are reviewed. In order to train this, we prepared the digitable to simulate the review of a research protocol by an MREC and adapted it into an existing assignment on research ethics for master students. The students were informed of our aim and the use of DTM as an educational tool, and asked for consent. We invited them to critically assess the activity and we ensured participation would not influence their grade. The students reported a better understanding of the medical ethical review and felt it would improve their own work. From the educator’s perspective, the quality of argumentation of the review was much improved compared to previous years. The DTM as an educational tool is now a standard element in different master courses on scientific integrity.
