The Comparative Effectiveness of Synchronous and Asynchronous Online Bioethics Lecture Delivery on Student Learning in Discussion Board Posts

"Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, many courses that were once in person are now online. In our new “physically distanced” world, bioethics faculty has had to adapt quickly. To bridge the gap created by eliminating face-to-face interaction for two cohorts of international bioethics students, we combined them and created five four-week online bioethics mini-courses: “Justice and Pandemic Diseases,” “Reproduction,” “Pediatrics,” “Organ Transplantation,” and “Death and Dying.” Each mini-course involved required readings, weekly lectures, discussion board participation, and a final paper. Our study evaluates the comparative effectiveness of synchronous and asynchronous lecture delivery on student learning as evidenced in online discussion board posts in the mini-courses. Students from both cohorts received the same educational materials but were divided into two groups for alternating synchronous and asynchronous Zoom lectures. We developed a standardized rubric, and raters have been using it to score each student’s initial posts. We hypothesized that, for the same discussion board question, students’ scores on posts following synchronous lectures will on average be higher than those following asynchronous lectures. We will finalize our data analysis at the conclusion of the final mini-course in late March and learn if the data support our hypothesis. There are many challenges in determining the comparative effectiveness of synchronous and asynchronous teaching on overall student learning. Our study addresses a modest yet worthwhile question, whether and to what degree these different lecture modalities impact student learning evidenced in discussion board posts. Our findings will contribute to bioethics pedagogical research during these challenging times. "

Teaching Vulnerability in Research: A Study of Approaches Utilized by a Sample of Research Ethics Training Programs

This article reports the outcomes of qualitative research on the teaching of “vulnerability in research” undertaken with principal investigators of international bioethics training programs funded by the Fogarty International Center of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) of the United States. To properly contextualize this research, we begin with an overview of the various ways in which vulnerability has been conceptualized both by writers and by ethical guidance from low-, middle-, and high-income countries. We conclude with some preliminary suggestions for best practice and recommendations for further research. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first time research of this kind has been carried out.

I soggetti vulnerabili nella ricerca clinica europea: dalla Convenzione di Oviedo al Regolamento (UE) N. 536/2014 / Vulnerable subjects in European clinical research: from the Oviedo Convention to Regulation (EU) No 536/2014

Il confronto tra la Convenzione di Oviedo e il Regolamento (UE) N. 536/2014 ha consentito di strutturare lo “standard etico-giuridico” europeo relativo alle misure di protezione dei soggetti vulnerabili coinvolti nelle sperimentazioni cliniche. Tale standard è stato analizzato seguendo il filo conduttore dei tre principi fondamentali della ricerca, enunciati dal Belmont Report: rispetto per la persona, beneficialità e giustizia. Le discrepanze riscontrate al suo interno hanno fatto emergere le criticità di talune categorie di base, ad esempio la distinzione tra beneficio diretto o beneficio sul gruppo e la nozione del rischio minimo. A 20 anni di distanza dalla Convenzione di Oviedo, documento di riferimento della bioetica europea ed internazionale, viene argomentata la necessità di ripensare criticamente quella dimensione “difensiva” della vulnerabilità, che prevale nella normativa europea e occidentale. ---------- The comparison between the Oviedo Convention and the Regulation (EU) No. 536/2014 has allowed to discover and structure the European “ethical-legal standard” on the protection measures for vulnerable subjects involved in clinical trials. This standard was analyzed following the three fundamental principles of research, as outlined by the Belmont Report: respect for persons, beneficence and justice. The discrepancies found inside have highlighted the criticalities of some basic categories, such as the distinction between direct benefit or benefit on the group and the notion of minimal risk. Twenty years after the Oviedo Convention, a reference document for European and international bioethics, there is a need to rethink critically the “defensive” dimension of vulnerability, that prevails in European and Western legislation.