Competition, Sociology, Discovery - Case Notes

SCI Home | SCI Faculty Page | Cover Sheet | Reference List | Users Notes

Author - Linda Hensel, Tim Brazill, John Shepherd - Spring 2000
This is a modified version of a case presentd at the following workshop:
Teaching College-Level Science Through Case Studies, October 25-26, 1996, Emory University
Cases and Simulation in teaching ethics and values in science - Pat Marsteller & Steve Olson

Teaching Notes:

Instructions from the Emory workshop exercise are available here.  These have been simplified and streamlined in the case described here.  One useful feature of the Emory workshop version is the possibility of incorporating spies into the roles.

Students should be given some introduction to the roles they are supposed to play before the exercise begins.  They could simply be given a link to Roles on the Research Team, which is a slightly edited version of what Tim Brazill used in Spring 1999.  My classes (JDS) have had very little knowledge of faculty and student ranks, roles, and incentives.  They've had a little knowledge of tenure and how that might affect the system. 

You need to set up your arrangement of blocks before class in another room.  In one class we suspected some people were touching (and/or changing) the blocks, so it might help to put chairs such that they can walk around and look but can't reach the blocks.  (You could draw a picture of the model before class.   This would give you a backup if the model topples or you need to keep it overnight.)

Once the roles have been assigned within the groups, the rules are explained:

1. Their goal is to reconstruct the "molecule" in all its details. Every aspect of the "molecular structure" is important: which blocks are where, distances, angles, etc, etc
2. The group conducts "experiments" by sending a single person into the experimental room to gather observations.  The person may not take writing materials and may not write anything down.  They return and report there results orally to the rest of the group.  Only when they return from the experimental room, then a  group member may write down their observations {this simulates putting together individual experiments into a manuscript}.
3. The team functions as a unit with the PI determining what happens. (this is a bit of wishful thinking) The PI can be directive (tell observers exactly what to look for) or not.  You could discuss situations where the PI does not take charge and what the consequences would be. 
4. If you want a more complicated situation, you can make a Corporate Grant Offer.
5. When the group is satisfied with their results, they report such to the instructor, after which they may no longer change their "manuscript."  { I (JDS) let the other groups work for a few more minutes so that there will be more opportunities for peer review.}
6. Then the blocks from the adjacent room are brought in {{{without knocking them over}}} and peer review begins with "reviewers' putting any perceived problems on the chalkboard and a discussion begins.  Alternatively, you can try the next idea:
7. Alternatively, when the first group "publishes" the other groups can start to review their model/manuscript while they continue to work.  If there are errors in the first model/manuscript, then a second paper/model/manuscript could be published to claim the prize or to a add a correction to the literature.

This whole exercise fits well in a 75-minute class, including the peer review.  If you have a 50-minute class and a way to store all the blocks, you could postpone peer review until the next class.

This exercise gives them the sense of competitive interaction talked about in the Double Helix case and they can understand the role of peer review and why it might be important.  The Daubert Case extends this same idea.  Most of the social interaction in the exercise reflects the group's normal interactions rather than their assigned roles, but the students have been able to talk about those roles and how they might have been played out, so at least it raises those issues.