Aktuella utvärderingar

Visa resultat

Här kan se resultatet från utvärderingen och exportera statistiken till ett annat program. Det går också att göra en enkel filtrering genom att klicka på svarsalternativen och kommentarerna eller en avancerad filtrering genom att använda knappen längst ned.

Ethics and Intellectual Property, FTE040

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2010-03-09 - 2010-03-18
Antal svar: 13
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 34%
Kontaktperson: Anneli Hildenborg»

Goals and goal fulfilment

The course syllabus states the course goals in terms of learning outcomes, i.e., knowledge, skills and attitudes to be acquired by the student during the course.

1. How understandable and reasonable are the course goals?

13 svarande

I have not seen/read the goals»1 7%
The goals are difficult to understand»0 0%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»6 46%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»6 46%

Genomsnitt: 3.3

- A bit short perhaps? Very high level.» (The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn)

Study climate

2. How were the opportunities for asking questions and getting help?

13 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Rather poor»0 0%
Rather good»1 7%
Very good»10 76%
I did not seek help»2 15%

Genomsnitt: 4.07

- The roles of the different lecturers were not very clear, which makes it hard to know who to contact. » (Rather good)
- I particularly liked the lectures that was more of a discussion, e.g. the last one.» (Very good)
- A lot of discussions and lecturers invited to ask in e-mails etc.» (Very good)

3. How well has cooperation between you and your fellow students worked?

13 svarande

Very poorly»0 0%
Rather poorly»3 23%
Rather well»4 30%
Very well»0 0%
I did not seek cooperation»6 46%

Genomsnitt: 3.69

- Read it by myself» (Rather poorly)
- I did not cooperate as such, but we discussed to topics of the course during the breaks.» (Rather well)
- no group work in this course» (Rather well)
- None of the assignments demanded group work.» (I did not seek cooperation)
- There were no assignments that required cooperation.» (I did not seek cooperation)

4. How was the course workload?

13 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»1 7%
Adequate»10 76%
High»2 15%
Too high»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.07

- low in beginning but high last few weeks.» (Adequate)
- Writing of 5 pages about something hypothetical is kind of problematic.» (High)

--- Part I: General Questions ---

5. What is your overall impression of the course? Please motivate your answer!

- The course is generally interesting.»
- It gave a broad understanding of IP handling and patents. It was maybe targeted against the bio field a bit to much in my opinion.»
- Its okay. Only the lectures of Caroline pamp were understandable and useful.»
- Initially it was tough, but upon external reading and some effort I was able to get in track of the course. But the course could have been even more better if there were live case studies (not just one!)»
- good, it gave a good overview of the IP situation»
- Unclear structure. It feels like it is a lot of copy/paste from various other courses.»
- Good with different lecturers with different background and focus. Work load was focused to last two weeks with cases and could have been spread out. Maybe too focused on bio-tech.»
- Important»
- It was a good course in regards to IP, but the ethics part could have played a bigger part (since it is a mandatory ethics course). »
- It is a vast field which is condensated to 3 uni cretids. It serves its purpose as an introduction.»
- The course is a very good one especially for those who start PhD. I think these problem discussed in the course will happen for us.»
- I think it was good and it corresponded with my expectations.»
- Pretty ok. The focus was mainly on IPR and we touched ethical questions along the way.»

6. Was the course relevant in relation to your own research process? Why/why not?

- Not exactly. It was too much related to genetics ethical issues.»
- To some extent, but I am not working in biology or nanotech, which seemed to be the to major fields that were discussed.»
- Yes. The course showed an overview of pros and cons of patents and publications. How the patenting process works and the time involved in patenting process etc.»
- yes, as I work in close collaboration with industries»
- yes, since we are considering filing a patent»
- Yes, since I am a PhD student.»
- IP and ethics are relevant in research collaborations. Outcome may be patented so info on rules and law is important.»
- Yes, since we all have to deal with patents»
- Yes it was. IP questions will probably arrise in a near future. »
- Not to great extent, much focus was put on bio/genetics and this differs vastly from many other fields in terms of patentability, tradition (!) etc.»
- It is completely relevant. I have a condition for signing agreements and similar discussions related to the course content.»
- Yes it was. It is good to know what my rights are and who I can turn to if I need help.»
- Some basic knowledge about IPR in and outside Sweden.»

7. Has the course had any impact on how you think about and manage the research results from your research process?

- I have had attended another workshop by ChalmersInnovation called researcher program. However, I learned more about teacher exemption and several other laws this time.»
- Yes, to some extent. I am now more aware of the dangers when collaborating, for example.»
- Yes»
- No, but the course was an eye opener and made me aware of certain regulations and rules which I had no clue prior to the course. »
- sort of.»
- No.»
- Not directly but may think more about different scenarios.»
- Yes»
- Yes, I am more aware of the different possibilities of dealing with IP, and will hopefully not fall into the easiest traps, be more prepared. »
- Absolutely, I"ve taken the initiative to see what patents have been filed by people in my research vicinity and additionally to keep IP-agreements in mind when I"ll be applying for jobs soon within an R&D-setting.»
- Yes, Absolutely. It really helped me to be able to know my rights when I discuss with my supervisor.»
- Yes»
- No, maybe it gave me some thoughs but the working environment and procedure is the same»

8. What would you recommend us to do differently next year, do you have suggestions for improvements?

- I think that maybe Ulf could have another lecture instead of the one given by Mats.»
- Please introduce a small project that facilitates the interaction between members. For example: group work on a case study.»
- There were lot of agreement definitions, concepts and certain models which can be explained well. I also recommend to include more cases to discuss. »
- maybe not constraining the course to bio related material»
- Make a clear structure and keep connection between different parts of the course.»
- Could have smaller group discussing cases.»
- Discuss more ethics and be clearer of what you want the students to do with the excercises»
- I was not able to relate the case to my research at all. Furthermore, students with knowledge about gene research had a huge advantage in both the cases. Make the case, or the assignment, more general?»
- It"s a cliché, but I think workgroup-sessions would be good here. Rather than having open discussions in the lecture halls it could be beneficial to split the class into groups and have them discuss e.g. ethical considerations in a specific case or such.»
- Improve the information about the two first handouts. It was a bit difficult to know what the aim of these two assitgnments was.»
- Make it more general and individual orientated. I didn"t like the gene case for instance. I would like to touch the ethical perspective with what I work with.»

9. What was your general impression of the administration of the course?

- Generally good. But some of the course slides was never sent to us.»
- Adequate.»
- It was good»
- Good!»
- very good»
- Worked well.»
- Ok»
- Professional»
- Good.»
- I found some information incomplete and/or confusing (deadlines, wheter tasks were to be oral or written etc). Also it would be beneficial if the written tasks could be performed over a 2wk period of time rather than 1wk. »
- Perfect.»
- Very good.»
- Worked fine.»

10. Course literature

- It would be better to be more specific.»
- The two papers sent out in advance of the two lectures given by Mats and Boo didn"t I find particularly relevant to the course as it developed.»
- Good»
- Good!»
- good»
- Never referred to, but there was a document with suggested(?) readings.»
- Good with pdf:s and references»
- OK.»
- Ulf Petrussons book (PDF) was useful as a quick reference but I belive at this level more emphasis was placed on lecture notes and discussions.»
- very good ones.»
- Good»
- Don"t know»

11. Miscellaneous comments

- I suggest to make this course mandatory for supervisors and seniors. Most of them don"t have any idea about it.»
- The three lectures given by Caroline were for the most part very good and interesting.»

--- Part II: Lectures, Exercises and Assignments ---

12. The lectures by Ulf Petrusson

- Very good»
- Overall good. He has deep knowledge about the things he discussed and it is always good.»
- Boring»
- Good!»
- Good»
- Interesting topic, although a bit unclear agenda.»
- Can catch the audience. Knowledgable and some improvisation. Noy always fully structured.»
- Ok»
- There was a lot of room for discussion and questions which makes the lectures more interresting.»
- Perfect»
- Good lecture with lot of interesting information although I think there could be some improvement on what the assignment was about»
- Good»

13. The lecture by Mats Lundqvist

- A bit unorganized»
- He is a man of many words. I felt the message was to some extent obscured by all the words.»
- Boring»
- ok! »
- Good»
- Interesting topic, although a bit unclear agenda.»
- Likes what he is doing. Ok.»
- Ok»
- Same as above»
- really great»
- Very good and interesting. The message was very clear.»
- Good. I especially liked the dialog between Mats and Ulf on the first or second lecture»

14. The lecture by Boo Edgar

- The most related lectures related to ethics.»
- It had the potential to be very good if the questions would have been drawn a bit further.»
- Boring»
- Good!»
- Good»
- Did not attend.»
- Knowledgable gentleman.»
- Unstructured. It felt very pushy with asking the students questions all the time. »
- interesting and fruitful»
- Okay. I was a bit mad when he pointed out to the women in the audience that he was definitely not gonna talk about ethics between men and women.»
- Good»

15. The lectures by Caroline Pamp

- Very nice, organized and related to our research»
- In general good. She also has deep knowledge in the field, and sticks to the point. I think that at least the first lecture given by her lacked an ethics perspective, and was mostly targeted against law.»
- Excellent. I leaned many new points from her lectures.»
- Very Good! Students interaction and discussion were quite interesting! »
- Good»
- First one was a little bit unstructured. It wasn"t clear how this part fit in the course.»
- Good to go through tha cases on white board. Knowledgable.»
- Ok»
- Very good. Great help for the case report»
- very precise»
- Very good»
- Good»

16. The case Myriad Genetics part I

- A good discussion on the first case assignment.»
- Excellent»
- Good!»
- interesting»
- Very good discussions in the lecture.»
- Interesting questions but a bit messy. Easy to leave things out.»
- Lack background knowlegde or goal with excersice»
- Learning how to degunk was good. Determining the what the intellectual property actually was was the hardest part since my knowledge about genes are highly insufficient for making a good assessment. »
- good case»
- Did not attend this lecture»
- I would like to think of a case that involves the issues of my work. Individual topics here»

17. The case Myriad Genetics part II

- Very good discussions involving a large part of the class.»
- Excellent»
- Fair!»
- not bad, since I didn"t find so much sources to support my ideas»
- Very good discussions in the lecture»
- A more free case. Quite a lot of info could be found on web/database-search. Both cases require some days of work if done properly so tough if other activities take much time in parallel as there was less than a week for each case.»
- Better than excersise part I. More structured and easier to understand goal and excersice task. »
- Too much focus on gene patents. I realize that it is a challanging area when it comes to ethics, but focus more on the ethics part and less on the gene part. I was not able to relate it to my research at all, I"m affraid. »
- good case for practice»
- Very good»
- I would like to think of a case that involves the issues of my work. Individual topics here»

Kursutvärderingssystem från