| |
| Bioethics Institute Conference Evaluation |
| Madison, WI
June 1 – 7, 2002
Mohammed Douglah (click email)
University of Wisconsin-Madison (click web link)
|
Abstract |
Back to Evaluation Reports List |
|
From June 1-7, 2002, thirty-three scientists and educators from across the United States and Singapore gathered to participate in the seventh annual Bioethics Institute held in Madison Wisconsin. At the start of the Institute a questionnaire was handed out assessing participants perceived levels of knowledge about core bioethical topics and themes, their feelings toward incorporating bioethics into their professional activities and attitudes toward GMO products. Participants were also asked questions about their current and intended behaviors in relation to addressing bioethics in their teaching activities. The same questionnaire was handed out at the end but expanded to include questions evaluating organizational aspects and perceived outcomes of the Institute. Only 20 matched pre- and post-Institute questionnaires were returned. Five respondents submitted only the pre-Institute questionnaire and one submitted only the post-Institute version. A pre- and post-analysis of data revealed statistically significant increases in knowledge related to each of the bioethical topics or themes presented during the Institute; however, only two statements related to feelings about incorporating bioethics into their professional activities produced statistically significant results. Overall views and sentiments toward GMO products revealed a subtle increase toward the positive; however, no statistically significant differences were found. Yet of more specific questions pertaining to GMOs, one question did produce a statistically significant difference between pre- and post-Institute scores. A statistically significant difference was found in the amount of time participants currently devote to addressing bioethical issues and the amount of time they intend to devote in the future. Additionally, statistically significant differences were found in relation to the extent participants currently subject and will subject their research to ethical considerations and the extent to which they currently engage and intend to engage in ethical discussions with their colleagues. Overall, participant reactions to the Institute were highly favorable. Mean scores for instructional quality ranged from 4.1 to 4.9 with 100 percent of participants falling into the high rating category for three out of the eight qualities presented and 95 percent falling in the high rating category for three out of the eight qualities presented. The instructional quality receiving the lowest scores (15 participants representing 71 percent) was presenting materials at the right pace.
|
| Full Document in Microsoft Word® file |
|
