Anonymous

This case appears to be simple at first. Students' natural reaction is to identify with Michael and Mary because we have all had arduous and difficult work, which we have spent our youth tirelessly pursuing. The overbearing nature of Dr. Well's directions leave little room for argument and presents an open-and-shut case.

In order for scientists (and for Michael) to do work, it must be "owned," in a sense. In this sense, Dr. Well's suggestion that Michael turn over his work to Mary is unethical. The primary complication of his suggestion in Well's lab is that the individual investment in projects will decline, perhaps even to the point that post-docs and students leave the lab.

Mary is hamstrung by Well's suggestion. She needs to graduate, but she has also personally invested her efforts into other projects, and she realizes that the transfer of work is unfair to Michael. It is also extremely difficult to feel accountable for data one has not accumulated. This response further militates against Mary's - and our - acquiescence. No one in real life would like to be in such a predicament.

The case presents several ethical dilemmas. The first is the issue of fairness and data ownership. Who owns and is accountable for the data? Certainly those who do the experiments. However, the idea of the communism of science also comes into play. Data in a sense belong to everyone. Science by its nature seeks to provide the good of knowledge that can be shared by all. That is one of its grandest aspects. In the microcosm of the Well's lab, communal ownership of data provides a justification for the transfer of Michael's data to Mary. Both students are shown to be capable, industrious scientists. Neither will be harmed by the transfer of data, for if the need arises, data for publication can be similarly transferred to Michael. In this light, the transfer might be undertaken to help Mary.

Another issue that might be identified by some perceptive students is the real problem of doing controversial and difficult work. Michael, Mary and Dr. Well are all engaged in a controversial area in a field that refuses to accept an alteration in its entrenched opinions. If it were not for the intransigence in opinion about the work in Dr. Well's lab, it might be easily surmised the ethical difficulties before Michael, Mary and Dr. Well would not exist. That is one of the problems of doing cutting-edge science in the real world. The question that might be asked in the final analysis is, "Should Dr. Well, Michael and Mary pursue less difficult experiments and hypotheses?"

Most companies in the United States spend a great deal of time and energy collecting data on their employees; whether it is demographic data about workers' ages or work histories, or health data about injuries and illness that workers may experience on the job. Since the Occupational Safety and Health Act was implemented in 1970, the Department of Labor has required companies to keep track of certain work-related health problems that employees experience, in addition to certain treatments, and whether or not time off from work was required as a result of injuries. However, only rather recently have companies utilized these data to implement prevention strategies and health care programs. This case study is intended to generate discussion about how a company handled a very sensitive issue about confidentiality of health information.

Brock Plastics has been described as a company that is well known for its great benefits and bonuses. In addition, the company provides an on-site fitness club and health unit that is staffed with professionals to assist employees with their diet, stress and personal health issues. Brock Plastics has gone above and beyond what is required in the United States by the Occupational Safety and Health Act. However, this company has followed a common trend in corporate America where companies have begun to see the positive impact in profits by treating their employees as valuable commodities. Companies that have happy and healthy employees are more likely to have highly productive employees.

Occupational health professionals are trained to keep all health information about an employee confidential. Only in circumstances where a health issue is related to a workplace exposure is an occupational health professional permitted to share health information with the employee's manager. For example, if Lynda missed work due to back problems related to her job, occupational health professionals would be allowed to share that information with Lynda's manager in order to improve Lynda's work environment. However, if Lynda missed work due to back problems unrelated to her job, the occupational health professionals would not be allowed to share that information with anyone within the company without Lynda's permission.

According to these rules, did Mary violate confidentiality by sending health promotion information to Lynda through intra-office mail? Technically, no, because Mary did not explicitly share with others the information that Lynda's mother was severely depressed. However, the message contained the implied message that Lynda has a problem with depression. When Mary sent the information without permission, she risked breaching confidentiality. If co-workers opened the letter or saw the information on Lynda's desk, they may have suspected that Lynda was having problems with depression. Therefore, Mary and her staff changed their practice of targeted mailings, ensuring that they obtained permission to mail information before doing so.

The second significant issue in this case is the use of computerized health data in order to plan needed prevention programs by the company. Should Brock Plastics be responsible for sharing information with its employees about how their personal data are being used and stored? Should employees be informed that their personal health information is being used to plan programs? The company's intentions are good. Regardless of the fact that they want to care for the health of their employees in order to safeguard the bottom line, the end result is still the same. The employees are well cared for. However, Brock Plastics has not been forthright with its employees regarding the use of the data. If the company asked employees to provide permission for the use of personal data, they probably would find that some employees would not allow it to be used.

In the past five years, Congress has debated the issue of whether people should be informed about how their health information is utilized and stored by hospitals, insurance companies and corporations. In April 2001, the Department of Health and Human Services promulgated the Privacy Rule. Most health plans and health care providers that are covered by the rule must comply with the new requirements by April 2003. This measure will provide employees with more control over their health information by setting boundaries around the use and release of health records. In addition, it will establish appropriate safeguards that health care providers and others must observe to protect the privacy of health information. Lastly, it holds violators accountable, with civil and criminal penalties that can be imposed if they violate patients' privacy rights. For employees, it means that they will be able to make informed choices about how their personal health information is being used.

It is a positive move for companies like Brock Plastics to invest in the emotional and physical well being of their employees. However, companies must respect employees' rights with regard to their personal health information. Brock Plastics did the right thing by asking its employees if they wanted to have health information sent to them through intra-office mail. However, they still need to implement the process of informed consent for the use of their employees' health data.

The main purpose of this case is to discuss some of the dilemmas that many engineers and scientists may face when dealing with important scientific issues that directly affect the public interest. In this case, a large number of lakes in a region have been found to contain high acidity (low pH). Tom and Richard both believe that the pH changes are caused by pollution that originated at the regional power plants and traveled through the air to be deposited on the lakes. Their main reason for believing this explanation is that when such a large area is affected, the mechanism for the pollution is most likely air transport. However, no real scientific evidence has been gathered to link the pH changes to the electric plants, and Tom and Richard are launching a five-year study explicitly to determine the cause of the pollution.

In the case of some scientific or engineering studies, there would be no dilemma; Tom and Richard could perform the study and determine the cause of the pollution, and others could decide how best to deal with the problem when they were finished. But in this case, severe and irreversible damage may be done to the lakes, the fish and the communities that rely on the fish before their study has been completed.

Tom feels that he has a responsibility to try and keep the lakes from being destroyed, and he would like to take an active role in removing the cause of the problem. He has close ties to the local environmental community, and he wants to help them keep the lakes safe from harm.

Richard, the older and more experienced scientist, does not want to get involved with the environmental groups. He believes that as scientists, they should not take sides. The position of scientists and engineers in American society is somewhat precarious. They have a reputation for being objective, relying on facts and not being influenced by any particular political agenda. However, as more and more scientists have begun to take an active position in some issues, the public's attitude toward science has been changing. Richard is also concerned about his and Tom's standing in the scientific community if they make such a bold claim and discover that they are wrong after further research.

Part 1

The dilemma rests with Tom. He has a few choices. He could agree with Richard and not take any active position on the pollution, or he could get involved with the environmental activists right away. Another option would be to wait until some preliminary results came from the study and hope that no further damage was done to the lakes by that time. Then he could use the research results to confirm or repudiate his theory and be more confident in his action (and somewhat more objective). Another option would be to mention the problem to his environmental friends but not take an active role himself.

His decision is a difficult one, and I believe that his choice must be rooted in the details of the situation. Tom must weigh the possible effects of continuing unabated pollution on the fish and lakeside communities against the short- and long-term effects of his action on his own career and on his discipline. He should also consider the effect that modifying or closing the power plants would have on the utilities and those who work for them. However, he does not want to turn his back on his friends. If he believes that the lakes will soon be irreparably damaged, he should act now; otherwise, he should probably wait until further information is gathered.

Part 2

Tom has weighed the information and has decided that the potential immediate harm to the environment and the communities that rely on it is more important than other concerns. He has allied himself with his friends in the local environmental group, but his friends want him to make statements that condemn the utilities and are much stronger than the evidence and his beliefs support. They claim that such statements are needed because the public does not understand the intricacies of scientific research and would not be motivated to act otherwise.

Here, Tom's dilemma is even more difficult. Most of the nonscientific public, including many individuals holding political office, do not have a good understanding of how science is done and the large uncertainties that it often involves. Thus, his environmentalist friends have a significant point when they say that they must make their message simple in order to be understood and to galvanize support into action.

However, in many scientific circles, and probably in Tom's mind, brushing over the uncertainties to that extent is a lot like lying. Personal and scientific integrity would make it difficult to take such strong a stance on this issue. But, if you step back from it, that's really the only thing that has changed. Tom still believes that the lakes face imminent danger if nothing is done. Is keeping his personal integrity intact worth the destruction of the lakes?

Of course, the salvation of the lakes does not entirely rest with Tom. Whether he is involved or not may not make any difference, although the support of a scientist closely involved with the study will probably strengthen the case of the environmental group. Would making the statements really be tantamount to lying? Should he adamantly refuse to make the statements but still be involved with the groups' actions?

Another option would be to set up some community discussions where he could explain the details of the lakes' increased acidity without saying definitively that the pollution is coming from the power plants. Would this option satisfy his need to stop the pollution without harming his integrity? If such scientific discussions were commonplace in the community, would that make Tom's job and decision easier?

Regardless of Tom's decision, it must be a very personal one, informed by the facts and the likely effects of his actions. It is hoped that a discussion of this case will help better prepare scientists and engineers to face this type of decision. Perhaps it will even encourage them to take steps to educate the public on scientific matters before a problem like this one occurs.

Student-Mentor Relationship

Rights and Responsibilities

Misconduct vs. Questionable Research Practices

Conclusion

A cursory review of the case study "Whose Lab is This?" may lead the reader to notice and address the obvious dilemma confronting both student and professor, dwelling on the pressure that Professor Baker is under and the necessity for Alex to be free in developing his scientific analytical skills. Clearly, these issues are the overwhelming topics that must be addressed. However, several subtle issues emerge when the case is envisioned in a realistic setting.

Student-Mentor Relationship

The ethical and moral issues intertwined in the relationship between students and their mentors do not receive equal attention in comparison with more common ethical matters, such as data ownership, publication or authorship practices, plagiarism, peer review and human subjects research. Thus, it is difficult to develop a depiction of the way the relationship "ought" to be. There are many reasons why the student-mentor relationship is not clearly defined. An excellent report is available in the April 1993 issue of The Journal of Dental Education, which contains five papers that address topics ranging from a student's expectations of the research experience to the mentor's duties during the transition from graduate student to faculty member.

First, arguably more than any other aspect (ethical or not) in the research process, the relationship between a student and mentor is heavily driven by compatibility of personality traits. This compatibility is difficult to outline and define. As the case study suggests, Alex and Professor Baker appear to have a suitable match of personalities for a productive and enjoyable working relationship. The reader has no grounds for assuming any underlying tension that could escalate into a conflict.

Second, the relationship between a mentor and his or her students is dynamic. As suggested above, the subtle nuances of interpersonal relationships may play heavily on the success of the relationship. Joy and sorrow in all of our lives must be handled properly in the professional setting of a research training program. The case study highlights this aspect of the relationship quite clearly. The reader will notice the initial productive atmosphere in the lab where both professor and student are concerned primarily with the success of the project. Throughout the evolution of the case, this attitude is maintained. Depending on the inflections used to convey the dialogue, the reader may be correct to assume that Alex and Professor Baker are getting along quite well. This attitude immediately changes with the last passage by Professor Baker, however.

While the case does not indicate how this incident actually changes their relationship, tension and mistrust are evident at the end of the case. Alex feels that he should not always be told how to do his experiments. His graduate school education is not intended simply to carry out Professor Baker's research, but more importantly, to develop his own critical thinking and ability to design and carry out relevant experiments in the pursuit of scientific knowledge. How is Alex to think that Professor Baker is acting as a mentor when she forbids him to pursue his own experiments, restricting his actions to work she needs done? Many variations on this case study can alter the weight the reader imparts to the righteousness of either party's behavior.

Professor Baker states analogous feelings of mistrust of Alex. She has not only asked but told her student to perform a specific task. In addition, she also told him not to pursue a second line of experiments, which she felt diminished the impact of her laboratory on the scientific field. When Alex failed at the first request and violated the second, Professor Baker had every right to mistrust him.

An additional question that arises from this analysis is whether Professor Baker's requests were fair. Comments on her request and authority appear below.

As a result of a change in the research procedure, the relationship between Alex and his mentor has shifted from positive support and cooperation to anger and mistrust. Such fluctuations may be extreme, but are unfortunately realistic. Again we find it hard to clearly outline the fundamental role of personality traits in the student-relationships.

Often, labs are often composed of many students, technicians and post-doctoral fellows. The various roles that these members play in part regulate their rights and responsibilities. In the case study, it is entirely possible that Alex's position as a graduate student was the determining factor for the unfortunate outcome. If the reader decides that Alex was wrong in his choice of actions, would it change matters if Alex were a technician? A post-doctoral fellow? Even at the level of graduate student, could the mentor be justified in granting autonomy differentially to various students? The performance history, level of education, and cooperation of a given student most certainly affect this decision. Is the student-mentor relationship violated when one student receives an advantage over her peers in the same laboratory? The nuances of this relationship are extremely difficult to outline. Consequently, relatively little information on the ethics of the student-mentor relationship is available. G. T. Perkoff proposes the qualities that make a good mentor, including charisma, empathy and being a good personal and professional example. (Perkoff 1992).

Rights and Responsibilities

Professor Baker plays a dual role in the case study, that of mentor and that of laboratory supervisor. As a mentor, she has a duty to convey scientific expertise and research standards to Alex. The student will also infer from his mentor's words and actions implicit notions dealing with collegial interactions, funding pressures and laboratory supervision. This last item, laboratory supervision, extends into laboratory authority. It is central to the concept of mentoring and necessary to the correct direction of information transmittal from professional to apprentice. Professor Baker holds all of these responsibilities, which are necessary for the proper development of the trainee, Alex.

In the scientific graduate system today, students are frequently in a position to select their own mentors based largely on the research interests of the faculty most congruent with those of the student. In addition, the reputation, productivity and atmosphere of the laboratory undoubtedly influence the selection of mentor. A few glimpses into these aspects are presented in the case study. For example, Professor Baker's status as assistant professor and a faculty member quite concerned with obtaining funding suggests her lab is not a well-established leader in the large scientific field. However, the productivity of the lab, as evidenced by already receiving a research grant and developing a successful detergent-free protein folding method, is commendable. Professor Baker therefore does have reasons for her desire that this procedure be carried out in the manner she has pioneered. In different circumstances, such as Alex making a smaller modification to the protocol, the reader's opinion as to whether Alex was correct in his decision may change.

Alex's responsibilities and Professor Baker's legitimate expectations of her student must also be addressed. This discussion can be quite broad, ranging from Alex's responsibility to carry out agreed-upon, documented experiments to his duty to prepare himself for independent scientific investigation in the next few years, considering he is in his fourth year of graduate school and nearing completion of his Ph.D. degree. Alex also has an obligation to his mentor to perform specific experiments, especially when she has presented a compelling argument justifying the manner in which they are to be executed. The question focuses therefore on whether Professor Baker's reason for insisting that Alex omit detergents from the protocol is justified. The reader is intentionally not provided with more details regarding the importance of CTAB to initiate discussion regarding importance of methods versus results, in this case, the folding of the cambin protein.

Creativity and authority seem be antagonistic forces, both present in the case study. Meshed within the rights and responsibilities of both Alex and Professor Baker, this antagonism is clear. Alex's desire to pursue his idea may be justified, especially in the circumstances where Professor Baker's method repeatedly failed. As a graduate student nearing completion of his doctorate, his scientific opinion begins to carry more weight than earlier in his training. Should he have the privilege of following his own line of reasoning? Equally, Professor Baker's argument for the omission of the CTAB detergent from the protein folding method may carry substantial weight. Her position as faculty member, mentor and principal investigator impart authority. She has shown creativity in her research by pioneering a detergent-free method while all of the competing labs resort to an implied inferior process. This interplay between creativity and authority on both parties emerges as an undertone to the case, yet it is stated in the title.

Misconduct vs. Questionable Research Practices

In 1993, the National Academy of Sciences defined misconduct in science as "fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism, in proposing, performing, or reporting research." Errors in recording, analyzing, and interpreting data are not classified as misconduct. The NAS has also described "questionable research practices" as those which "violate traditional values of the research enterprise and may be detrimental to the research process." (National Academy of Sciences, 1992, p. 5)

The case study "Whose Lab is This?" outlines a scenario in which neither Alex nor Professor Baker appears guilty of scientific misconduct, yet both may be guilty of carrying out questionable research practices, depending on the decisions made in light of Alex's discovery. Many ethical discussions have focused on conducting research and handling the resultant data. As both Alex and Professor Baker are currently funded by tax-derived scientific research grants, they have a strong obligation to conduct their work in an efficient and justified manner. Science has an underlying assumption that research data will always be accurately and truthfully presented. Without this assumption, false statements will completely devalue those which are true. Money, time and ultimately lives will be lost when the field is biomedical research.

Alex has found a novel, efficient manner of folding a biologically important protein, or at least one whose study merits funding. That raises the issue of whether the Baker lab is justified in proceeding with the old, comparatively inefficient procedure in the face of Alex's new results. Frequently, scientists use an established procedure since it "does the job." Furthermore, the originator of the method may feel most allied with it, unwilling to change.

These issues are embedded in the case study and may justify Professor Baker's actions. However strong this argument may seem, Alex appears to have found a better way to approach the task of folding the cambin protein. Should his method be published or used? Even if detergents are undesirable, many proteins must be folded by detergents before any studies can be done on them. The inclusion of CTAB may not be ideal, yet Alex's work appears to be a substantial contribution. The current importance of the cambin protein may dictate Professor Baker's and Alex's obligation to report the new procedure.

Many argue that research is to increase our knowledge in a particular field. Many of the landmark findings in science have resulted from findings which were unknown as to their importance at the time of publication. If other laboratories could potentially further their scientific contributions using Alex's method, one could argue that they are required to publish it.

Conclusion

"Whose Lab is This?" was written to focus very tightly on the student-mentor relationship. Just as with most ethical issues, not all the facts of the case are known when the critical decisions must be made. Alex and Professor Baker both have to balance their rights against their duties to each other and to the scientific research process. Hopefully this seemingly simplistic case has encouraged the reader to fully address the core issues, but also issues that can result from actions made by Professor Baker and her student. The student-mentor relationship is central to the case, yet topics including whistle blowing, conducting and reporting research, laboratory supervision, and conflicts of interest may all emerge, providing for a diversified discussion.

References

• American Association of Dental Schools and American Association for Dental Research. "Proceedings of the Joint Symposium of the AADR Student Research Group and the AADS Section on Educational Research and Development and Curriculum: Mentoring Students in Research from Faculty, Administrator, and Student Perspectives." Journal of Dental Education 57 (No. 4, April 1993), special issue.
• National Academy of Sciences. Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1992.
• Perkoff, G. T., M.D. "To Be a Mentor." Educational Research and Methods 24 (No. 8, November/December 1992): 584-585.

In very large, multi-center studies, where the researchers have no contact with the participants, but rather only with their tissue or DNA, it can be easy to forget that "samples" come from individuals with everyday lives just like their own. These individuals have given consent for the use of their samples by specific people and in specific experiments, and they may have thought very carefully about what they do and do not want done with their samples and by whom. A researcher cannot -- and may not -- assume that the consent applies to anything except the uses explicitly described in the IRB-approved consent document. Researchers must always try to put themselves in participants' shoes and ask how they would feel if someone took such a cavalier attitude toward something so very personal as their tissue sample or genetic information. Genetic information is one of the most personal pieces of data about any individual, and it must not be treated lightly. Furthermore, researchers have a responsibility to the scientific community to treat subjects and their samples with respect to avoid harming the interests and goals of the broader community by generating mistrust of researchers and their aims and souring the public's attitude toward science.

Some scientists view consent forms and institutional review boards (IRBs) as procedural hurdles to be surmounted -- hoops to be jumped through -- rather than legitimate and necessary protections for research study participants. It is important to be aware of the origin of these protections, prompted by the Nuremberg trials, the Tuskegee syphilis study and a host of other egregious breaches of trust perpetrated by members of the scientific community. Renee's intended use of the samples is relevant only in terms of the wording of the consent: If the intended use does not fall within the definitions laid out in the consent form, then it is impermissible unless new consent is sought from the study participants. Finally, anonymous control DNAs can be purchased from commercial repositories for about $50 per sample, making this a feasible alternative for most labs.

References

• Jones, James H. Bad Blood: The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment. New York: The Free Press, 1993.
• The Nuremberg Code. http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/nuremberg.php3.

The elements of the case, "A DNA Dilemma," are intended to foster discussion of the ethical conduct of human subject genetic research; additional complexity is introduced by the supplementary details. Linguistic, cultural and authoritarian distinctions are presented to contextually cloud the waters of the case and realistically portray the complications that often accompany such circumstances. In this commentary, the following points will be presented in order: 1) Mark's options/ responsibilities; 2) human subject research ethics and regulations, 3) secondary responsibility of Thomas, Fan Chen and the institution. Concluding remarks will provide suggestions for the presentation of this case and a summation of the overall ethical questions it addresses.

Mark's options

The first discussion question focuses on the action that Mark should take; however, a more thoughtful review will first address Mark's responsibility for taking action. Mark's responsibility to act depends upon the regulations overseeing this type of human subject genetic research and upon the local IRB's interpretations and policy on these issues. These points will be discussed in the section on human subject research regulations. It can be concluded, however, on the basis of Mark's unsettled reaction that he must do something if even just to find out what the regulations are. The responsibility to act may ultimately be in the participants' interest, but Mark's personal uneasiness should also be a consideration in his decision. A thorough review of Mark's options might include, but should not necessarily be limited to, the following possibilities.

1. Mark could speak with Thomas directly. This option might be the reader's first reaction; however, the implications of such a discussion should be fully explored. It is apparent from Thomas's handwritten note to Fan that Thomas supports this use of the DNA. Therefore, in speaking with Thomas, Mark will need to navigate the conversation carefully to avoid appearing accusatory, at least if Mark anticipates a positive outcome from his conversation with Thomas. Clearly it would be in Mark's best interest to play the role of the learner/clarifier and not the accuser. Mark could inquire about the process of consent in human subject research from the point of view of wanting to learn about the processes from his knowledgeable adviser. This approach would help defuse the situation and reduce Thomas's defensiveness. This approach does include some elements of uncertainty and jeopardy. If Thomas feels accused or threatened, his relationship with Mark could quickly sour. If Thomas ultimately concludes that the use of the DNA is permissible, then Mark is left with either accepting the idea or informing third-party administrators. Both options have distasteful elements. Therefore, it becomes critical for Mark to guide the conversation to a positive outcome. This necessity may be overwhelming for Mark to consider, and the resolution will largely depend on the previous relationship and trust enjoyed by Thomas and Mark.
2. Mark could contact the IRB. Mark may choose to contact the local Institutional Review Board (IRB). He has at least two options. Mark could contact the IRB anonymously and merely alert them about the secondary use of the DNA in Thomas's lab, or he could contact the IRB and seek clarification of the regulations overseeing this type of research in general. In the first option, Mark would play the role of the anonymous informant. Although this strategy attempts to remove Mark from direct confrontation with Thomas, it does present some difficulties that should be considered. The possibility remains that Mark's anonymity may be compromised. In these situations, the informant eventually becomes suspect and then must endure an intensely damaged relationship with the parties involved. This risk is inherent in the first option. The second option allows Mark to seek the generalized advice of the IRB. This approach may be the best way to get a definitive answer to Mark's dilemma; nevertheless, it also presents some risks. The IRB may ask Mark for the reason for his inquiry, and the IRB will certainly review Thomas's research. If Thomas faces IRB questions he will begin to suspect lab members as informants. Ultimately this risk is similar to the anonymous note. Another quandary is what Mark will do with the information once he receives it. If the IRB approves this use of the DNA, there is no problem, but if the IRB objects to the unconsented use of the DNA, Mark finds himself back at his original dilemma with proof of unethical conduct.
3. Mark could contact administrative officials. If Mark decides to speak with an administrational official (i.e., department chair, dean, office of research), he will face the risks presented in Option 2. The difference is that Mark will have introduced the situation to those who could directly affect Thomas, and it is likely that the officials will contact the IRB for clarification. The implications for a negative outcome for Thomas are heightened, which makes this choice less desirable than Option 2. It may, however, provide a third party that Mark may feel more comfortable addressing.
4. Mark could suggest that Fan use DNA from another source. This option may be the most palatable, but may not be the first resolution considered. It does present some potential for harm to Mark. It is apparent that Thomas has authorized and suggested the use of the breast cancer DNA. If Mark suggests that Fan use a different source of DNA (i.e., a commercially available control), it may appear that Mark is excusing Thomas's role as principal investigator. If the experiments work well, the repercussions to Mark may be minimal and even positive; however, if the experiments fail, then Mark's intervention in the protocol outlined by Thomas may be blamed for the failure. In suggesting the change, Mark must also consider whether he will inform Thomas of his intervention. This may present some of the same concerns addressed in Option 1.

Human subjects regulations

The National Bioethics Advisory Commission, which generated the Belmont report in 1974, laid the foundation for the ethical considerations that should accompany the thoughtful review and approval of human subject research. The Belmont report focused on three meta-ethical principles: beneficence, respect for persons (autonomy) and distributive justice, which provided the underpinning for the federal regulation overseeing human subject research (45CFR46). This law, known as the Common Rule, has been adopted by all of the federal agencies sponsoring human subject research.

Genetic research has provided a unique spin on these basic principles and regulations, necessitating a review of the role of confidentiality, kinship, the autonomous and informed consent of a subject to donate DNA for specific purposes, and limitations on use of donated DNA in research that the donor finds morally repugnant. It is interesting that genetic research even affects the conception of distributive justice; however, this element of genetic research is beyond the scope of this case, which focuses on the confidentiality of the donor in genetic testing and the donor's rights in determining the use of donated DNA.

Clearly the elements of beneficence and autonomy are central in such a consideration. Beneficence is the principle of "first, do no harm." Some benefit must justify the risk. The element of beneficence has previously been the common endpoint of both utilitarian and Kantian thought; however, the element of kinship may alter the endpoint of these two modes of moral philosophy. The utilitarian would justify the use of genetic material of a few if it produces benefit (information, cures) for the larger society. Kantian thought, however, would disagree with the use of the genetic material as a means and not the end. The role of kinship and the fact that one's genetic information may affect one's relatives may alter the application of these principles. This type of discussion may be addressed as a tangential debate about of the morality of genetic research.

Kinship also plays a unique role in autonomy. If Relative A does not want to participate in a study but Relative B does, the information obtained by Relative B may affect the decision and confidentiality of Relative A. This element may play some role in the case depending upon the use of identifiers in labeling the DNA and whether the code can be broken. A more significant threat to autonomy may be a complication of the enduring nature of genetic material. Genetic material can be immortalized in cell lines that will persist long after the donor is deceased. Also, the genetic material may be used in a staggering array of research studies. Should donors have the ability to determine the use of their DNA? Unfortunately, this decision may depend upon the state in which the research is conducted. To date, Oregon has one of the most comprehensive statutes on the use of genetic material. Currently in Oregon, genetic material is considered to be the property of the donor, and the donor must be informed and must consent to the use of DNA in every study in which its use is proposed.

Local institutional review boards are at liberty to reach their own conclusions about the human genetic research context as it applies to federal regulations. The continuum of opinions range from broad acceptance of DNA use as an exempt-status protocol (at least where the samples have been coded) to requiring that each novel or secondary use of the DNA be regarded as a modification of protocol that must gain IRB approval.

In the case presented, Mark appears to be unaware of the requirements and interpretations espoused by his local IRB. The case offers little information about the database and storage of the DNA for their intended use in the breast cancer study, which also may affect the possibility of secondary use of the DNA. Central in this evaluation is the informed consent process and the document signed by each participant. Mark notes that the consent form neither authorizes nor precludes the use of the DNA in secondary studies.

This lack is a common oversight. Due to the unique semi-permanence of genetic material, it is not uncommon for an IRB to fail to consider the secondary use of donated DNA. Many IRBs are requiring the inclusion of language in the consent document that allows the donor to indicate whether the DNA may be used only for the present study, whether they would like to be contacted in the future to give consent for later studies or whether they give a blanket consent to the use of the DNA for all future research studies.

This central consideration should be the primary message of the case and should underscore the importance of including appropriate language in the consent form for human genetic research. In the case as presented, the informed consent document does not specify whether the DNA will be used in secondary studies or not. Since the purpose of the research, as stated in the informed consent document, is to study cancer, it is the commentator's opinion that the participants should be asked to give consent for secondary use of the DNA -- even if it is used as a control -- because it is not known what generalizable knowledge or personal information may be discovered by the secondary use of the DNA, and such research or information may be distasteful to the donor.

Responsibilities of Thomas, Fan Chen and the Institution

During the discussion of the case, there will likely be an interchange over Thomas's role. The roles of Fan and the institution may not be immediately voiced; however, their roles should not be overlooked. Thomas's role seems apparent. He has condoned and even advocated the secondary use of the DNA. His part in creating the problem may be clear, but his level of accountability is not clear. Thomas may be unaware to the ethical problems associated with secondary use of the DNA. However, Thomas may be aware of the IRB's standing policy on such use of the DNA and be in compliance with those institutional regulations. He may already have contacted the IRB and gained approval for the secondary use, but may have failed to notify Mark.

Fan Chen's role is also uncertain because of the language barrier. It is difficult to determine Fan's level of responsibility, but the discussion about the language and cultural barriers provide depth to the considerations of Fan's responsibility. It should also be noted, however, that Fan may have some responsibility, and his role should not be minimized or overlooked when discussing the case.

Finally, the institution is responsible to provide adequate IRB review of the wording of the consent form. The institution should provide avenues for researchers to access its regulations and policies overseeing human subject research. A clearer communication of these regulations could be achieved via an Internet module, institutional forums educating researchers and more direct interaction between the IRB and the researchers. They should provide better oversight of human subject research or at least well-publicized mechanisms for inquiry. As a tangential idea, as the number of foreign student post-docs and graduate students continues to increase (particularly in the area of human subject research), the institution should offer supplementary educational opportunities in research conduct, U.S. regulations and, possibly, cultural and linguistic courses to assist foreign students in the process of assimilation.

In conclusion, this case is intended to provide a rich forum for the discussion of human genetic research and the regulations overseeing this branch of human subject study and an avenue for discussion of the federal regulations and how student researchers as well as the principal investigator need to be aware of these regulations. The contextual elements of the case may be altered to provide additional points of discussion. For example, the language barrier could be removed; Fan could be an undergraduate; the note from Thomas could be omitted. By altering these contextual features the discussion may change or the central ethical dilemma may be more clearly delineated.

References

• Ferraro, F. Richard; Szigeti, Elvira; Dawes, Kenneth J.; Pan, Shihua. "A Survey Regarding the University of North Dakota Institutional Review Board: Data, Attitudes, and Perceptions," Journal of Psychology: 133 (3, May 1999): 272-280.
• National Bioethics Advisory Commission, Research Involving Human Biological Materials: Ethical Issues and Policy Guidance, Executive Summary, Volume I and II: Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Rockville, Md.: National Bioethics Advisory Commission, August 1999.

Informative Websites

• http://bioethics.gov/pubs.html: Web address for the National Bioethics Advisory Commission.
• http://ohrp.osophs.dhhs.gov/: Web address for the Office of Human Research Protections (links provided to regulatory documents (i.e. 45 CFR 46) and other historical documents (e.g., The Belmont Report).

Scientists are always searching for better ways to test their hypotheses, to ask smarter questions and to get the most out of their data. Today, not only does the science drive the technology, but the technology drives the science, as well. That is especially true in the case of computers, with their increasing speed and sophistication, which allow us to ask bigger, more complex questions about the data we generate and collect. In this case, Edwards tries to take advantage of the technology for the benefit of his patients and colleagues.

Since the advent of computers, questions and fears have been raised about their role in our lives and their potential for harm. The line between benefit and harm can be blurry, and a balance must be struck. Edwards, with his development of Medusa, must make a host of decisions in which the "right" answer is not necessarily clear.

Is there a substantive difference between paper records and Medusa?

Concerns have long been voiced about the ill uses to which computers might be adapted. Concerns about privacy and security continue. The main issue in this case, I think, is not so much the security of medical information in isolation - in my experience, paper records are often no more secure than electronic ones - but rather the power of medical information when used in the context of a broader scheme of information collection or database mining (DG Johnson 2001). Presumably, Edwards will ensure that his patients' data are adequately protected from unauthorized access over the network, as well as unauthorized direct terminal access.

Is Edwards justified in his use of patient information for database development and promotion? Why or why not?

Two major issues must be addressed here: informed consent and conflict of interest. The issue of informed consent is a tricky one because it is understood that one's physician will keep a thorough and accurate medical history for each patient. While historically such records have been kept in manila folders in file cabinets, it does not follow that technological advances ought to be ignored. The question then, is whether database development constitutes "research." It may seem clear that if Edwards were to begin to mine the database in an attempt to ask questions about his patient population as a whole, it would be appropriate and required that he formally enroll his patients as participants in a study - with appropriate consent. However, what if he wants to ask whether patients with different income levels have significantly different health outcomes? Is it clear that this question goes outside the bounds of his duty as a physician to provide the best possible care to his patients? Where does one draw the line? Does the mere development of the capacity for such queries constitute a need for consent?

In regard to the potential conflict of interest, it cannot be assumed that Edwards's obvious perceived conflict of interest is, in fact, a real conflict of interest about which his patients ought to be concerned. It may be reasonable to give him the benefit of the doubt, to assume that he is driven by a genuine desire to help present and future patients through the development of his database. Medusa certainly has the potential to allow elaborate and unwieldy data analyses and lead to valuable findings that significantly impact science and medicine. That is not to say that Edwards ought to be absolved of responsibility, only that we cannot assume that he is acting out of pure self-interest - the situation is likely far more complex than that.

Given this additional information, do you feel differently about Edwards's use of patient information in the development and promotion of Medusa? Why or why not?

Edwards has clearly failed to think through the implications of his actions in regard to the distribution of the encryption key. As their physician, it is his responsibility to protect the confidentiality of his patients' information. He might have preempted this sort of behavior by having all persons receiving the encryption key read and sign a statement of confidentiality and/or participate in some sort of training related to working with sensitive information.

Some people may suggest that despite the difficulties, Edwards ought to have created a mirror database, with fake names and information; however, it is important to keep in mind that Edwards's primary interest is in getting Medusa out there, in use and serving patients, physicians and scientists. Again, that is not to absolve Edwards of responsibility, but only to show that this case is much messier than one might think at first blush.

References

• Johnson, D. G. Computer Ethics. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 2001.

In this case, the long- and short-term needs of a private company are at odds with a locally rare animal. Several issues are at play here - the legal issue between landlord and tenant (which we will leave to the legal department of WPP); the integrity of data of the vandalized tests; and the possible incompatibility of this type of research with justifiably (although not legally) protected wildlife.

Private industry may not be subject to the same checks as academe. Financial backing is provided by shareholders, and may not be supported by federal or competitive grant money. Findings are proprietary, and publications may be limited to internal documents, reports and strategies for doing bigger and better things (or doing the same ones faster or more cheaply) rather than peer-reviewed journals.

Discussion Questions:

• What are Zilgett's responsibilities to Rubens, Spruce, WPP and the cutenfuzzies?

Zilgett's primary responsibility and concern is for good quality data. While he may not have been involved with the establishment of the study, it is his job to bring it to completion and make recommendations for the benefit of WPP. Unless these tests are in the district managed by Spruce, Zilgett's only responsibility to him is to provide accurate and timely information for Rubens to relay. As the cutenfuzzies are not listed for special protection, Zilgett has a fairly neutral responsibility toward them. He should have minimal interaction with them.

Spruce demands respect due to his long-standing involvement with WPP; he expects access to his leased property. As employees with considerably less tenure than Spruce, Rubens and Zilgett both fear retribution. Rubens expects lessees to abide by the terms of the lease. She maintains correspondence with tract managers so she can relay pertinent and accurate information to the lessees, and communicate their concerns to the tract managers.

WPP anticipates that research and supervisory staff will work in its (and its stockholders') best interests. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) protects threatened and endangered species from becoming endangered or extinct. Although the cutenfuzzy is not aware it has this protection, we expect it to be protected should it become listed. In any case, it should be treated humanely and be free from harassment.

• Should Spruce, as the club's representative, have cleared his decision with WPP before the club took action?

Both Spruce and Zilgett are bound by the codes of ethics of their professional organizations, and Spruce by that of his Sportsmen's Association. State and national codes of ethics for foresters and forest workers stress consultation and cooperation with other specialists on matters beyond their own competence. Zilgett demonstrated this standard when he directly questioned Spruce. Spruce indicated that he attempted to gain support in the past, but hasn't requested assistance recently.

Spruce likely would never have decided vandalism was his only course of action if the company had been proactive in conservation of the cutenfuzzy, or if it were already legally listed as threatened or endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act (or state equivalent). Penalties for knowingly violating the ESA include criminal fines, prison sentences and civil damages for each violation in addition to forfeiture of illegally taken species and any equipment used in the taking (Kohm 1991).

In the best case scenario, Spruce would have requested a meeting with representative stakeholders within WPP - Zilgett, Rubens, the Research Supervisor and the company's newly hired wildlife biologist. Four courses of action are possible.

If a cleaning really is warranted as Spruce indicated, qualified WWP personnel should be assigned this task. If WPP lacks this expertise, a licensed and reputable contractor should be retained.

Several of these studies are at the near end of their research usefulness. In 1979 the Senate set the precedent for moving a species (snail darter) rather than the industrial act that threatened its habitat (Dingell 1991). WPP could relocate either the cutenfuzzies or their nemesis in conjunction with training sessions for clubs on their rights, responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act (ESA; federal, and any state or local contingencies).

Tests could be established elsewhere, and negotiations opened with state and environmental groups. If the cutenfuzzy is truly a unique feature, these parties can assist the company in promoting the species' continued presence on this property. It is also feasible the company can reduce its tax burden by deeding the property to the state or a responsible not-for-profit environmental group like the Nature Conservancy once WWP no longer needs access. Further, it is likely that nondestructive access can be negotiated during the deed transfer.

WPP could have legally determined that no action was required except continued monitoring. While uncommon to this region, the cutenfuzzy is not a protected species.

Option 3 has great advantages. With a good relationship with the environmental group, WPP could maintain access to the tests and could negotiate permission to measure the trees and collect some sample tissues (increment cores, leaves, pollen and seed). WPP could reduce some of their research costs by eliminating the tax burden of this area. Some extremists could see the "donation" as a publicity stunt that allowed WPP to save face. In truth, however, this decision would be environmentally and economically sound.

The Society of American Foresters (SAF) (1993) has taken the position that the ESA is too restrictive; human economic needs should be considered as well as the biological needs of plant and animal species. Further, the organization maintains that landowners who cede control of their property to society in the name of conserving threatened or endangered species should receive just compensation. My personal position is that each case must be considered on its own merit. Depending on the status of cutenfuzzies throughout their range, option 4) may very well be viable.

Discussion Questions:

• Should Spruce's actions "off the clock" affect his professional life?

Registered foresters in Mississippi deem untrained persons and those who "lack good moral character" as unqualified (Mississippi Board of Registration for Foresters). At first glance, this position seems overly harsh. The most morally bankrupt individual can have the technical expertise to write and execute a stellar management plan or research proposal. However, the best interests of the landowner, employer or funding agency may never be represented. Spruce put great thought into the actions against WPP, and deliberately destroyed company assets. This should not be overlooked, even if the activity occurred after hours.

• What should Rosa Rubens do?

The decision on what to do should have been made prior to any action by Spruce's club. They have already taken action, however, and Rubens and Zilgett must determine the proper next step in terms of the lease and the tests. Rubens has one easy answer: There is no question that the lease has been violated, and severely so. Termination of this club's lease is most certainly warranted. It is more difficult to decide whether charges should be brought against the "Boys" for their vandalism. This step could be determined by the extent of damage, and whether or not WPP presses charges.

Zilgett needs to involve his own supervisor as soon as possible. Not much can be salvaged from this particular study as it was designed. It can be used to monitor the effects of the cleaning "treatment." If these same seed sources (clones) are replicated elsewhere in untampered "control" plantings, that could show that a more active role in competition control is helpful (or a complete waste of time and resources) in meeting the company's goals.

Sportsmen are responsible for their own safety and for any damages they cause to the property of others (Bromley 1997). WPP, or any landowner that grants recreational hunting rights, would be wise to require the club to demonstrate proof of sportsman insurance. These policies cover the club against any damage they may cause, and are available through insurance companies and national sportsmen's associations (Bromley 1997). With luck, the club's insurance policy will cover the cost of repeating this study. It would be a nice gesture for the club's members to volunteer labor they are qualified to do.

• How would your responses differ if tests were to determine the likelihood of reintroduction of equally uncommon plant species and Spruce had sacrificed one protected species for another?

The four main commands of the Endangered Species Act are to conserve listed species, to avoid jeopardization of said species, to avoid destruction of critical habitat, and to avoid taking (Coggins 1991). There is a difference between protected animals and plants. Traditionally, trees and grass belong to the landowner; wildlife is a common good held in trust by the state for the benefit of people (Rolston 1991).

Making the area attractive to the common competitor to increase the likelihood of physically removing them is probably a less effective measure than making it unattractive to turkeys so that they just stayed away. This solution to the problem was risky because the 1973 law declares it unlawful to "harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture" protected species. While Spruce could argue the attempt was to harass the competitor, he could easily have destroyed the population he wished to protect.

Experience has shown that conservation of endangered species and promotion of long-term human welfare can be accomplished without significantly harming short-term economic interest (Dingell 1991). This goal is partially accomplished when political pressure leads to complicating amendments to the ESA to slow listings (Bean 1991). Further, the Senate has set the precedent for moving the endangered species rather than the industrial act that threatened habitat (TVA vs. Hill, 1979).

Discussion Questions:

• How would your responses differ if Mr. Spruce's club just wanted to improve his hunting success and hadn't recognized the cutenfuzzy habitat?

The first tenet of the National Rifle Association's Code of Ethics (NRA undated) reminds hunters that they are invited guests that they should conduct themselves in such a way that they will be welcome in the future. The Canadian Camo Company (2001) warns that it is not enough to ask for permission to hunt; hunters must respect all buildings, fences, livestock, and crops. In addition, hunters should learn and respect the landowners' concerns.

As employees of WPP, this club had intimate knowledge of which plantings were of special concern, and what the landowner's interests were. They cannot plead ignorance.

• What responsibility does WPP have to its lessees and to the environment to have a sound contract without loopholes?

A sound contract protects all parties, especially WPP.

References

• Bean, Michael J. "Looking Back Over the First Fifteen Years" in K. A. Kohm, ed. Balancing on the Brink of Extinction: The Endangered Species Act and Lessons for the Future. Washington, D. C.: Island Press, 1991.
• Coggins, George Cameron. "Snail Darters and Pork Barrels Revisited: Reflections on Endangered Species and Land Use in America" in K. A. Kohm, ed. Balancing on the Brink of Extinction: The Endangered Species Act and Lessons for the Future. Washington, D. C.: Island Press, 1991.
• Bromley, Peter T. 1997. A Landowner's Guide to Working with Sportsmen in Virginia. Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication Number 420-035. http://www.ext.vt.edu/pubs/forestry/420-035/420-035.html
• Canadian Camo Company. 2001. Hunting Ethics. http://www.canadiancamo.com/ethics.php
• Dingell, John D. "The Endangered Species Act: Legislative Perspectives on a Living Law" in K. A. Kohm, ed. Balancing on the Brink of Extinction: The Endangered Species Act and Lessons for the Future. Washington, D. C.: Island Press, 1991.
• Kohm, Kathryn A. "The Act's History and Framework" in K. A. Kohm, ed. Balancing on the Brink of Extinction: The Endangered Species Act and Lessons for the Future. Washington, D. C.: Island Press, 1991.
• National Rifle Association. Undated. NRA Hunter's Code of Ethics. http://www.nrahq.org/shooting/hunting/nraethics.asp
• Rolston III, Holmes. "Life in Jeopardy on Private Property" in K. A. Kohm, ed. Balancing on the Brink of Extinction: The Endangered Species Act and Lessons for the Future. Washington, D. C.: Island Press, 1991.
• Society of American Foresters. Briefing on Forest Issues. Bethesda, Md.: Society of American Foresters, 1993.

Background

Two main issues arise in this case. The first is whether it is moral to use animals in fatal research for the benefit of humans, and the second is whether it is moral to use chimpanzees in research. The first issue may appear to be moot since most of the animal research conducted today results in the animals' death. Social acceptance may legitimize the research, but social acceptability does not make an act moral.

Animal research is a highly debated topic, and many philosophers and ethicists have developed strong arguments for and against this issue. For example, in his book Animal Liberation, Peter Singer (1975) proposed the view that any organism capable of feeling forms of pleasure, pain and distress must be included under the umbrella of ethical consideration. In essence, Singer argued that animals matter because their pain matters. Singer did not maintain that all animal experimentation was wrong, but he felt the issue could be settled by the cost/benefit analysis. He argued that a standard must be established that required the predicted benefits of the research to outweigh the costs to the animals, and that the benefits must not be achievable in any other way (Singer, 1975). Largely, this standard is not met; therefore, Singer would consider much of the research now being conducted unjustified.

In this same camp, Tom Regan held a more extreme view. Regan argued that animals have rights not be harmed just because they are "subjects of a life." In other words, any entity has an inherent value, which is not conditional nor a value that has to be earned. Stated simply, an animal's life course and set of interests characteristic of that animal should be sufficient to warrant protection for that animal (Regan, 1983).

Lastly, Bernard Rollin (1989) challenged the idea that there is a right to do research on animals, and he pointed out the lengths to which some researchers will go to deny that any animal suffering is occurring.

On the other side of the debate, Carl Cohen (1986) argued that although we have an obligation to avoid treating animals badly, any notion of rights is ludicrous when applied to animals. For Cohen, rights are given to members of moral communities, who have the ability to make reciprocal agreements, such as a human research subject saying "stop" in the middle of a study that he/she had previously consented to (Gluck and DiPasquale, 2002).

This topic continues to be debated. Even though there is no valid conclusion as to whether it is humans' right to experiment on animals, research on animals continues.

The second issue relates to the type of animal used in this case study, namely, a chimpanzee. Some of the theories for and against the right to use animals in research are based on the cognitive abilities of humans versus animals. Cohen's (1986) argument for example, is based on humans' ability to meet certain cognitive criteria such as consciousness, self-awareness and intentions, which affords them rights. With the award of higher cognitive abilities comes increased moral protection, hence animals are used in more invasive research instead of humans. Following Cohen's view, one could insist that this whole matter of whether animal research is justified could be resolved by saying that animals do not share the same degree of relevant characteristics that humans do. All in all, humans are just more intelligent.

A problem with this proposal is that not all humans share the same level of intelligence, and in fact, some humans are far less intelligent than others. How should we treat humans who fall below the standard, a standard that has justified human experimentation on animals? It seems an entity must have two human parents in order to be protected.

The cognitive characteristics that are used to differentiate humans from nonhuman animals are not so clear-cut. Byrne's book, The Thinking Ape (1997), cites the majority of research that has been conducted on cognition in chimpanzees. Chimpanzees have been observed for many years, both in the wild and in captivity. Fouts and his research team (1997) have communicated with their captive chimpanzees with sign language, showing chimpanzees' higher cognitive capabilities. Other studies conducted with chimpanzees showed the animal's capacity for self-awareness as in the study where a red dot was placed on a chimpanzee's head without her knowledge. When the chimpanzee was looking at herself in the mirror and saw the red dot, she took it off her forehead instead of trying to get it off the mirror (Byrne, 1997). Many more studies conducted by field biologists, psychologists, linguists and ethologists have supported the existence of greater cognitive capability in chimpanzees (Byrne, 1997). The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) recognized chimpanzees' cognitive abilities, and the 1995 amendments require better housing standards and enrichment for chimpanzees in research. Other countries, such as the United Kingdom, have banned the use of chimpanzees in research since 1998 (Orlans, 2002).

This background brings us to the dilemma of using chimpanzees in research. On one hand, chimpanzees are given greater protection through the AWA due to their "higher" level of cognition, but on the other hand, since chimpanzees are most similar to us genetically (98.4 percent), they are more commonly sought as animal models to research highly fatal diseases in humans, which frequently results in the death of the chimpanzees, a very ironic twist.

Case Study Discussion

In this case, Frank was a worker in a large primate facility. His career goals and interests changed during his employment. It appears that Frank's main goal became the care of the chimpanzee, Vern. In this context, Frank responded appropriately when faced with the dilemma of whether to participate in the infection of another chimpanzee. If Frank had protested he could have been fired, which would have prevented his caring for Vern until his death.

By collaborating with the facility and allowing the research to proceed, Frank benefited directly by ensuring he could keep his job. The research facility benefited financially from the continuation of the research. However, the research subjects, chimpanzees, do not benefit at all. In fact, they are harmed by the continuance of the research. It is not clear whether society benefits directly from this research. There is a potential direct benefit to society, which will occur only if the research succeeds.

When assessing any research protocol, a balance is sought between cost and benefit. By allowing the research to continue, Frank is potentially harmed because he is acting against his beliefs. Frank may feel somewhat responsible for the infection of another healthy chimpanzee. In contrast, the research facility does not experience any harm by continuing the research, but the chimpanzees experience the greatest harm of all, death. Lastly, society is not affected by allowing the research to continue. In fact, society may not be aware that it is going on. When the subjects of research are human, huge weight is placed on the idea that the cost to the subject should not outweigh the direct benefit to the subject. However, animals are not afforded the same justice when they are the subjects of research. In this case, for example, the party that benefited least and was harmed the most were the chimpanzees.

If in fact, chimpanzees were considered "subjects" in research, not just "materials," would it change the cost/benefit assessment? Probably not. At this time, animals are not given the same rights or moral standing as humans.

The motivation behind the continuation of the research is the research facility's obligation to society. Humans are considered superior to all other animals; therefore, society has sought the use of nonhuman animals to benefit humans in a variety of ways. The research facility uses governmental funding (as well as private funding) to search for cures for fatal diseases in humans. Many diseases have been prevented in humans due to animal research. It is the obligation of this primate facility to try to find a cure for the AIDS epidemic in humans. The facility's obligation to Frank is stated in his job description. The facility's obligation to themselves is to produce findings that will bring in more money. The facility's obligation to the chimpanzees is conduct the research with minimal amount of pain and suffering. In this case, the research facility does not appear to follow through on that responsibility. Vern spent many agonizing years full of pain and discomfort with the purpose being unclear. Instead, Vern should have been humanely euthanized to end his pain and suffering.

References

• Byrne, R. The Thinking Ape: Evolutionary Origins of Intelligence. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.
• Cohen, C. "The Case for the Use of Animals in Biomedical Research." New England Journal of Medicine 315 (1986): 865-870.
• Fouts, R. Next of Kin: My Conversations with Chimpanzees. New York: Avon Books, 1997.
• Gluck, J. P., and DiPasquale, T. "Introduction." In J. P. Gluck, T. DiPasquale and F. B. Orlans, eds. Applied Ethics in Animal Research: Philosophy, Regulation, and Laboratory Applications. West Lafayette, Ind.: Purdue University Press, 2002.
• Orlans, F. B. "Ethical Themes of National Regulations Governing Animal Experiments: An International Perspective." In J. P. Gluck, T. DiPasquale and F. B. Orlans, eds. Applied Ethics in Animal Research: Philosophy, Regulation, and Laboratory Applications. West Lafayette, Ind. Purdue University Press, 2002.
• Regan, T. The Case for Animal Rights. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983.
• Rollin, B. The Unheeded Cry: Animal Consciousness, Animal Pain, and Science. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989.
• Singer, P. Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals. New York: Avon Books, 1975.

The purpose of this case is to highlight the issues surrounding the misuse of grant funds by academic institutions. The misuse in this case causes an unfair teaching burden on the research professor that is intended to be alleviated by this particular line item in her grant.

Federal funding agencies vary in terms of providing salary offsets: The National Science Foundation does not; the National Institutes of Health does. Salary offsets are generally larger for medical center personnel than for university faculty. It is generally assumed that faculty members in medical schools are expected to bring in all of their salary via offset. Offsets for medical school faculty are usually spread over two to four different grants, and they can total 50 percent or more of salary while being "unnoticed" by accounting departments. Considering that physicians have other obligations besides teaching and research, the large percentage of salary offset is something of an ethical conflict; without it, however, most medical schools would struggle financially.

The usual offset for university research is roughly 25 percent. The 25 percent figure, if anything, somewhat underestimates faculty members' research load, but the funding agency applies subtle pressure to keep this figure low. Another point to consider is that university faculty can bring in summer salary from a grant, which actually contributes more money into a professor's annual salary. Summer salary goes some distance toward normalizing university and medical school research costs since medical schools do not offer summer salaries. Medical school faculty members are on a twelve-month contract; university professors' contracts cover a nine- to ten-month period. The rule of thumb at some universities is that professors can budget for a month of summer salary for each 10 percent of offset their grants contribute.

Carolyn finds herself in a familiar professional situation as a university professor, bringing in adequate funding for her research yet overloaded in terms of teaching responsibility. The department appears to be taking advantage of Carolyn's work ethic by assigning her more classes than the required load while not hiring a sufficient number of adjunct faculty members. In such a situation, the department is misusing the grant funds to support interests that are outside the grant's scope. Consequently, the professor labors excessively for the benefit of the department, not the grant project. Moreover, the research to be explored by the grant is not receiving adequate time and energy. In this case, the public funds that contribute to the governmental grant are sustaining a private university's special interests. Herein lies the ethical dilemma. The case focuses on the injustice of spending money for purposes other than those for which it was allocated.

Administratively, tracking the source and amount of each professor's salary offset would require time and paper work. Maintaining the current system is more beneficial for the administration since it need not be concerned with tabulating this income. If the faculty were to become more adamant about the inconsistency between their work load and their salary offsets, they could demand that their teaching and research responsibilities match their funding income. The department would then: 1) need to train someone to handle the accounting of salary offsets; 2) be required to hire and train more adjunct faculty members, and 3) lose income that supports some other ME interests.

Although changing the present system would "pain" the administration, it is the just action to take. After all, the administration has an ethical responsibility to treat its faculty fairly and to respect their time expenditures. University departments' policies and practices related to salary offsets should be examined from an ethical perspective.

References

• National Institutes of Health web site: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/index.cfm.
• National Science Foundation web site: http://www.nsf.gov/home/grants awards.htm.
• Vesilind, P. Aarne. So You Want to Be a College Professor? Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications, Inc., 2000, pp. 103-111.

The objective in writing this case was to encourage readers to consider the ethical issues related to responsible spending of travel funds. Many graduate students in the sciences are privileged recipients of research assistantships that afford funds for travel to conferences. In many a restaurant during a conference trip, colleagues remark, "Let's get appetizers and desserts - it's on the grant!" Even when more economical hotel accommodations are readily available and convenient, professors and staff may choose more luxurious sites. This commentary is not a proposal that the cheapest available accommodations should always be chosen, but that the economical options should be considered, given the public nature of the funding source. What choices would be made if one's own money were funding the travel? Are we responsibly spending the taxpayers' money when we travel and stay at a conference site? One could consider selecting an economical hotel that meets standards for cleanliness, safety and convenience to the meeting location instead of a more lavish location. Government-funded researchers have decided to stay at a more luxurious hotel simply because the grant will cover the expense; if their own money were to be used to pay for the hotel, they would have chosen other accommodations.

In this case, Edward is responsible for selecting the meeting site and has selected one of the most posh hotels in the D.C. area. Clearly, other options are more affordable and equally comfortable for participants. Since Edward is responsible for this decision, he, too, should consider the public nature of the funding source for this meeting. It appears that his decision is based solely on comfort, convenience and service, with inadequate attention to cost. Furthermore, Edward and his staff stay at the hotel despite living in the D.C. area. This action is an additional misuse of government funds.

Holding the annual meeting at Edward's work location seems like a viable option. His government work site has several meeting facilities that can handle groups of this size at virtually no cost. In weighing the time and energy it would take to arrange for catering services and shuttle services at his site, Edward would have to judge whether it would be the better choice. Based on his previous record for such decisions, it is not likely that Edward would select his work site for this function. Edward does listen earnestly to the participants' comments about the cost and excessive luxury of the meeting site and consequently opts for a less expensive location for future meetings. For this reason, this case serves as a "best practices" example.

It could be argued that nothing illegal or immoral is occurring when travel funds from governmental grants are used to stay at luxurious accommodations. The spending is all out in the open, and the researchers are the "public" who benefits from these travel awards. However, this information is not commonly shared among the general public that also contributes to these travel funds through its taxes. The public should be allowed to decide how its money gets spent, but generally remains ignorant of such allocations. How would a lower-income, single mother of two children feel about some portion of her tax money funding the participants at this meeting? Does she really have a say in the spending of her tax dollars for government-funded travel? Ideally, congressional representatives consider the overall good of their constituents when deciding on such matters. Excessive travel luxuries should be regarded as an unacceptable use of the public's tax money; rather, these monies should be used to fund moderate travel, accommodations and meals. Guidelines could be created to determine appropriate travel expenditures based on typical costs for a given city. Accommodations exceeding these guidelines should be paid with personal finances. Similar spending brackets could be designed for meal allowances.

Attractiveness is an important consideration for meeting organizers, especially for non-obligatory meetings such as conferences and workshops. Especially in the case of international conferences, organizers must consider airport accessibility, weather and city desirability among other details. Certainly greater international participation would be likely at a February conference in San Diego than in Oswego, New York, although hotels and restaurants are more affordable in the latter city.

Several practices could be undertaken to reduce costs to travelers at a conference. Although it is not standard practice, meeting organizers could facilitate the creation of a list of participants who would like to share a hotel room. Shuttle services could be arranged for groups arriving at the city airport simultaneously. Providing local train and bus schedules is yet another way to encourage meeting participants to opt for more economical travel costs.

The per diem food allowance is another point of discussion. Given the public nature of this funding source, grant funds for food should be spent responsibly. The "let's get appetizers and desserts" mentality is an irresponsible perspective. If one considers the daily amount spent on food whether or not one is attending a conference, perhaps grantors should fund less than the entire amount spent on travel meals. According to the U. S. Department of Agriculture's Food Stamps Program, recipients of other governmental sustenance programs such as welfare receive a daily food allowance of roughly $3.60. (A non-income, three-person household is eligible for $329 per month in food stamp benefits.) The Department reports that the average monthly amount of benefits for food stamp recipients in 1998 was about $71 per person. Perhaps travel meals funded from governmental sources should be on par with this other governmental program for public sustenance.

Given that travel funds often derive from governmental agencies, and thus our public tax money, researchers traveling on these funds should carefully evaluate their practices in spending the public's money through the use of grant funds. The funding agencies themselves can also institute more thorough guidelines for responsible travel expenditures. The NSF, for example, specifies that funded air travel must not exceed the cost of round-trip, economy airfares; however, no mention of economy is indicated regarding accommodations or meals in the NSF's Proposal Preparation Instructions. As recipients of "publicly" funded travel awards, many directors, researchers and students can improve their spending decisions to use public funds efficiently and ethically.

References

• National Science Foundation Grant Proposal Guide, June 2001 (http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2001/nsf012a/start.html).
• U. S. Department of Agriculture Food Stamp Program (http://www.fns.usda.gov/fsp/menu/about/about.htm).

This case has been designed as one in which there is no defined conflict. However, any situation in which many individuals are involved is certain to have any number of possible outcomes. This case is no exception. The purpose of such a case is to spark discussions that most often begin with, "what if. . . ."

This case primarily concerns the assignment of authorship, but discussion is certain to encompass many other areas including relationships, intellectual property and intellectual contribution, the role of technicians vs. the role of graduate students, and many other issues.

Discussion Question:

• Do you agree with the order of authorship that David proposed? Why or why not?

The order of authorship for papers is often a subject of great debate, and authorship practices vary from discipline to discipline and among labs of particular disciplines. Since no set standard crosses disciplines, it is most often left to the PI of a particular project to make the final decision. David's authorship proposal was based on the rules that were stated by Killinger upon David's arrival, as is done with each new member of the lab. In this way, all members of the lab are informed in advance of the authorship guidelines. It is easy to agree with the order of authorship that David has proposed. It seems most logical that the individual who is responsible for the actual writing of the paper and who has contributed most to the project should be included as the primary author. Since this project was David's as a post-doc, and most likely his original research idea and design, it seems reasonable that he should be listed as the primary author. It is also almost incontrovertible that the individual supplying the money and/or research space for a particular project should be included as an author (listed last in many disciplines). Such is the case with Killinger, who served as the PI for the project and provided the money and space. The uncertainty concerns the technician and graduate student.

A technician's role in a research laboratory varies from lab to lab. In some labs, a technician may be a scientist with years of experience and many publications as primary author who provides intellectual contributions through trouble shooting in addition to being an expert on certain techniques used routinely in the lab. In other cases, a technician may perform a specific procedure for all other members of the lab, without any additional intellectual contributions to those projects. As a result, it is difficult to make a blanket statement about crediting a technician on a publication. In this case, Haruko has worked closely with David on many aspects of his project. The case tells us that she has done a great deal of the trouble shooting with David in addition to developing a novel technique for isolating organelles. David has therefore decided that she should be included as the second author on the paper.

While there may or may not be a technician in a lab, there are almost always graduate students. Many schools rotate graduate students through several labs before the students choose an adviser and become full-time members of a particular lab. During these rotations, which may last several weeks, but usually not much longer, the students work with current members of the lab to get a feel for the types of research that are being conducted, and to get acquainted with the personality and atmosphere of the lab. While graduate students most often assist the current lab members with their respective projects, they rarely make any significant contributions due to the short amount of time that they are involved. In this case, Benson is in Killinger's lab for only six weeks. He has helped on a final stage of the experiment, but primarily to learn and not as a contributor. As a result, David has decided that he will be acknowledged in the paper for his efforts on the project, but will not be listed as an author.

All of these authorship decisions were based on the rules stated by Killinger. This case is certainly one in a vacuum because there was no disagreement from any of the persons involved, and the situation was resolved smoothly.

What if Killinger had stated different rules? What if Killinger informed each new member of the lab that he would be listed as primary author on all research that was conducted in his lab, whether or not he had any contribution other than providing the money and space? In that case, Killinger would be listed as primary author followed by David and finally Haruko. Would this practice be ethical?

What if Killinger told every new member of his lab that all papers coming out of his lab would have only his name on them, even if he only supplied the money and lab space for the project? Would David and Haruko have reason to feel slighted if that were the case? If Killinger has made this rule clear before each person decides to become a lab member, is he being unethical? He is not lying or being deceptive. If prospective lab members agree to these guidelines, then Killinger cannot be held at fault for any wrongdoing, right? Or, is there something inherently unethical about such a mandate, regardless of who may agree to abide by it?

Discussion Question:

• Is it ethical to include Haruko (the technician), but not to include Benson (the graduate student) on the list of authors for this paper?

This issue has been examined to some extent in the discussion following Question 1. In this case, Killinger has stated that those who have made "a significant intellectual contribution" should be included as authors on papers coming out of the lab. David based his authorship assignments on this ruling. Since Haruko actually designed experimental methods as well as trouble-shooting during the project, she was considered to have made an intellectual contribution adequate to merit inclusion as an author. Benson, on the other hand, was not included because he participated only in the last experiment of the project, apparently to a minor extent, and as such did not make an intellectual contribution significant enough to merit authorship.

What may be of interest here, however, is the possibility that Benson may see his contributions in a different light. What if this final experiment lasted for Benson's full six weeks? What if during that six weeks, Benson recorded data and analyzed those data for David and Haruko? Would that have made a difference? Would that be considered as a "significant intellectual contribution?" What if Benson decides that the authorship decision is unfair, and takes the data he has collected with him to a different lab and publishes the work in a different journal? Would he be justified in doing so?

Discussion Question:

• Does it matter that Benson was just on a rotation through the lab and not (as yet) a regular member?

This question certainly ties into Question 2. Should regular members of a lab be given more priority than a student who is just on a rotation through the lab? Or do the same rules apply? Basically, does the fact that Benson is not really a member of the Killinger lab make it less likely that he would be included on a paper, regardless of his level of contribution? In this case, David has decided that Benson's intellectual contribution on the last experiment was not significant enough to merit authorship. Would it matter if Benson were a senior graduate student who had been in Killinger's lab for four years, and did the same amount of work as described in the case study? Theoretically, it should not, but practically speaking, it very well may. For instance, David probably knows Benson only slightly, due to the short time he has been working in Killinger's lab. If Benson and David had been in the lab together for four years, it is possible that David's decision about intellectual contribution may have been swayed. Would that be ethical?

Discussion Question:

• What constitutes a significant intellectual contribution? Who should decide?

While no authorship standard crosses disciplines, one phrase seems to stand out - "significant intellectual contribution." What exactly is a significant intellectual contribution? An intellectual contribution would be the giving of one's original thoughts. What makes such a contribution adequate to merit credit for authorship? A number of papers have been written on this topic. In the Author Instructions section of the Journal of the American Medical Association, for example, all authors are advised that each should be able to take public responsibility for the content of the paper. The instructions further state that all of the following conditions must be met in order to be included as an author.

Discussion Question:

• There must be substantial contributions to conception and design, or acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data;
• drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content;
• and final approval of the version published. (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, 1997)

Syrett et al. also stated the same three conditions in their article, Authorship Ethics (Syrett et al., 1996). If these conditions are applied to this case study, it seems evident that David and Haruko should both be included as authors, and that Benson should not be included. It is not quite as clear, however, whether or not Dr. Killenger's contributions merit authorship. In fact, Syrett, et al. state that fund acquisition and data gathering do not merit authorship. Should a PI be included as an author on a paper, even if he only contributed funds and lab space?

Even if these three conditions are met, there is still room for debate about authorship. Condition 1 states that there must be a "substantial" contribution. So who should decide what constitutes a "substantial contribution"? Should the PI decide? After all, it is his lab, and the research is most likely being done with funds he has acquired. In this case study, Killinger advises each new member of his lab that he is the final authority on the decision about what constitutes a "substantial contribution." What if this practice were not stated up front? Should the majority rule?

There are certainly no easy answers to the questions posed by this case study, but these questions will stimulate discussions about the problems the case presents. Included below is a list of articles for further reading. These articles should be reviewed by discussion leaders to familiarize themselves with the current views on authorship ethics.

References

• International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, "Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals," JAMA 277 (1997): 927-34.
• K. L. Syrett and L. M. Rudner, "Authorship Ethics," Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation 5 (1996): 1-4.

Further Reading

• American Chemical Society, " American Chemical Society Ethical Guidelines, 1996, http://pubs.acs.org/instruct/ethic.html.
• Brunner, D.D. 1991. "Who Owns this Work? The Question of Authorship in Professional/Academic Writing," Journal of Business and Technical Communication 5(4): 393-411.
• Committee on Science, Engineering and Public Policy, National Research Council. On Being a Scientist: Responsible Conduct in Research Authorship Practices, 2d ed. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1994.
• Cooper, D. "Unethical Scholarship Today: A Preliminary Typology." Paper presented at the Humanities, Science and Technology conference, Big Rapids, Mich., 1988.
• Culliton, B. J. Authorship, Data Ownership Examined. Science 242 (4879, 1988): 658.
• Dunkin, M. "Some Dynamics of Authorship." Australian Universities' Review 35 (1, 1992): 43-48.
• Kassirer, J., and Angel, M. "On Authorship and Acknowledgments" (correspondence). New England Journal of Medicine 326 (16, 1992): 1085.
• Kassirer, J., and Angel, M. "On Authorship and Acknowledgments" (editorial). New England Journal of Medicine 325 (21, 1991): 1510-12.

This case raises at least four major ethical issues: data fraud, authorship, the mentor-student relationship, and journal editors' responsibility. Each of these issues is faced by many, if not all, researchers at some stage in their scientific careers and if not handled properly, can result in serious consequences. I will address each topic as it pertains to this particular case and tie in some insight to the discussion questions.

Honesty is an important part of research. All research grants are based on previous work that has been published in scientific journals. Falsification or fabrication of data can lead others astray and prevent them from fulfilling the expectations of their grants, as well as leading science as a whole in the wrong direction. Falsification and/or fabrication of data is the primary basis for the definition of research misconduct and, in a newly recommended definition by the Commission on Research Integrity, it falls under the category of "misrepresentation." (Commission on Research Integrity, 1995)

In this case, Conway is feeling pressure since, even though he has established himself as a good scientist, he has not published a manuscript in quite a while. He makes a couple of mistakes. First, he decides to try to publish preliminary data. No matter how convinced a primary investigator (PI) is that his student or postdoc's data is correct, he has to be sure that it is reproducible. In many cases, the PI is not working at the bench and is not aware of how good his researchers are at the technical level.

Second, Conway decides to publish a manuscript without the consent of his student, Elizabeth, whom he lists as the primary author. For many peer reviewed journals, if not all, this procedure is contrary to policy. In this case, Conway submits the paper to Molecular and Cellular Biology. Under the editorial policy and the instructions to authors section, this journal's website states: "All authors must have agreed to its submission and are responsible for its content." (Molecular and Cellular Biology)

Elizabeth should discuss his authorship policies with Conway, to avoid such problems in the future. It is quite common in labs for individuals to be left off the list of authors although they feel they have contributed enough to be included. It is also common for individuals to receive credit for authorship when they have contributed little to the manuscript. Authorship policies vary from laboratory to laboratory. However, in general, an author is one who made a substantial contribution to the overall design and execution of the experiments.

In this case, Elizabeth is in a relatively tough situation. On one hand, if her findings turn out to be erroneous, her career could suffer. Furthermore, if another laboratory bases a project on her results, another person's career could suffer. On the other hand, when students begin graduate school they begin to feel pressure to produce results and publish. Since Elizabeth is at an early stage in her graduate career, she will benefit from a publication, which will demonstrate her ability as a scientist and provide further benefits as she completes her degree and looks for a job and/or applies for fellowships. Nonetheless, Elizabeth needs to confront Conway about his publishing her preliminary work without her consent, since these actions are not good scientific practice. In the meantime, she could continue to work on the reproduction of her results. In most cases, the paper will come back from peer reviewers with a demand for revisions and by that time, her results may be much less preliminary. Please note that Conway's approach is not a suggested route for submitting manuscripts. If something like this does happen, the best practice would be for Elizabeth or Conway to call the MCB editor and withdraw the manuscript from review.

At first glance, it seems that Conway monitors his lab very closely. However, through his relationship with Elizabeth as illustrated by this case, Conway demonstrates that he considers himself superior to her and doesn't feel that she needs to know everything that goes on, even if it relates to her work. What are Conway's responsibilities to Elizabeth? What are Elizabeth's responsibilities to Conway? As a thesis adviser, Conway is responsible for training Elizabeth to be a good scientist and teaching her how the world of academia works. Elizabeth is responsible for working hard and contributing as much as possible to the overall scientific advancement of the lab. Since Elizabeth is early in her career, she needs to decide if Conway is still the person that she wants to work for. She might find that another advisor would better suit her. However, the longer she waits, the more involved in her research she will become, and the harder it will be for her to just drop it and start fresh. Furthermore, it will take her longer to complete the PhD.

Another issue that is raised by this case is editorial responsibility and peer review. Question 4 asks, "Is it justifiable for researchers to recommend a friend to edit or peer review their manuscripts?" An editor's responsibility probably varies a little from field to field. In biochemistry and molecular biology, the editor has the final decision on whether a paper will be published. A manuscript is submitted to a particular editor (or one is chosen) and that editor identifies two or three appropriate referees. On the basis of the reviews, the editor decides he whether the manuscript is appropriate for publication in that particular journal. In this case, Conway decides to send his paper to an MCB editor that he knows and is friendly with, personally and professionally. It can be inferred that Conway acts in this way to help the chances that his paper will be published. It is probable that if the reviews are marginal, then the editor's decision will favor publication, which will be a biased decision based on his relationship with Conway. Such conflicts of interest should be avoided at all times, to enhance fairness in evaluating research for publication. However, such cases do occur, and all scientists should be aware of this problem. Conflict of interest cases are also very common in the peer review process, which can also cause the advancement of many labs to suffer.

References

• Commission on Research Integrity. "Definition of Research Misconduct and Other Professional Misconduct" in Integrity and Misconduct in Research: Report of the Commission on Research Integrity to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the House Committee on Commerce, and the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources. Washington, D. C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1995.
• Molecular and Cellular Biology. http://mcb.asm.org/misc/ifora/shtml.

Long-term Studies

Long-term ecological studies are often large in scale, with replication over time and space to account for variables in moisture and temperature regimes, soil characteristics, fluctuating insect and disease populations, mobile predators, and missing data points. However, location-specific management data helps realize maximum contribution from natural resources, including forests (Warren 1979). Like other research, lengthy studies call for attention to detail, correctly calibrated and maintained instrumentation, and legible and accurate notes.

Measurements in a natural environment are subject to growing season changes; work is often compressed or statistically blocked to minimize these variations. The life of some studies, especially those that involve populations of trees, may exceed the professional career of a single individual. Researchers rely on the well-prepared notes and analyses of their predecessors to accurately interpret the current status.

Because of the particularly long-term nature in a forested environment and perhaps as a result of the growing public visibility of all things ecological, employers (both industrial and academic) are seeking a revised set of skills and competencies from recent graduates of professional programs. The need for competence in communication, ethics, collaborative problem solving and managerial leadership has greatly increased (Sample et. al. 2000).

Forest development in naturally seeded areas over time can be studied in two ways. The ideal way is to monitor stands from pre-harvest conditions (Are there enough seed-producing trees? How many seedlings are established before those trees are removed?) until the next regeneration period, and then repeat. This system is easy to implement in biomass plantations where rotations (regeneration to regeneration period) are one to five years. It becomes inconvenient with Southern pines (15-30 years) and very difficult with longer lived (150-300 years) species common in northern climates. The other method is to study a "chronosequence." By examining a host of forests at different ages and stages of development, one can draw inferences. As no two sites can be identical in soil, climate, moisture regime, fertility levels, browsing and disease stresses, this approach cannot provide all of the information needed.

Maple's study uses a combination of the two methods. By using the different cutting treatments, they are viewing different stages of development. More information is gained by his students building on the data and interpretations of their predecessors. Each student must trust that those before collected accurate data and reliable information. Coufal (1999) affirms that more is needed: In its institutional life and professional activities, forestry must reaffirm that integrity is the requirement, excellence the standard, rationality the means, community the context, civility the attitude, openness the relationship, ethics the basis, and responsibility the obligation upon which its own existence and knowledge of itself depends.

This case

Jane is in an awkward position. Maple is well respected at IBU, and she has information that his long-standing project could be seriously flawed. She does not know him well enough to ascertain if a confrontation of this sort will be detrimental to her success in this new environment. What if this kindly old gentleman turns into a vicious, nasty character when threatened? Further, while she knows something is amiss with the study, she is a new student and still a novice in this field. She cannot judge the seriousness of the problem or suggest an alternative course of action.

Everyone involved had similar expectations (Questions 1 and 2): forthright communication to enable all participants to do their jobs. Jane (and Ilex, when she was a student) expected to be trained as a reputable scientist and her crew to be schooled in proper technique. Maple had an obligation to provide this guidance to all three parties. Ilex may be the one most severely affected. She is still building her career, and now she has learned her foundation is questionable. Jane, on the other hand, asked questions from the beginning. She has the option of leaving the project and continuing work on another, or even working with a different professor at IBU or elsewhere.

Maple (Question 3) really may have intended this project to be a simple case study for demonstration of concepts and theories to be followed by a carefully surveyed and monitored experiment. Exposure may cause "unfavorable reflection on the profession" (Association of Registered Professional Foresters of New Brunswick code of ethics). Nevertheless, it was Maple's decision to keep this study active, and it was his responsibility to see it was maintained. It would have been reasonable to expect each student to check each marker and replace or reinforce if necessary as the study progressed. When original reports made no mention of surveying equipment or desired precision of measurement, students along the way should have inquired. However, they were researchers-in-training and may not have the skills to recognize this situation was out of the ordinary - they rightfully relied on the expertise of Maple and presumably other committee members for assistance.

Questions 4-6 are very interesting. While much of this case was fictionalized, the real publications actually were limited to master's theses, because the professor questioned the quality of data collection by his students. He viewed master's work as learning opportunities, a means to demonstrate hypothesis development and testing, and a practical application of the scientific method. Even with the flaws introduced by their collective sloppiness, these goals were accomplished.

But what if they had presented or published? It would be too late for retractions or corrections submitted to conference proceedings or journals. The assessment that Jane and Maple agreed upon is appropriate. He can address potential error, explain how they compensated, and stress the importance of investment in good quality markers. This assessment could be published as a paper, research note or letter to the editor (whichever that particular journal prefers).

Question 7 State and national forest organizations have codes of ethics that stress honest and open communication (Society of American Foresters [SAF], Indiana SAF, Association of Registered Professional Foresters of New Brunswick, Mississippi State Board of Registration for Foresters) and consultation and cooperation with matters beyond their own competence.

Forty years ago, surveying equipment was far less accurate than it is today. A licensed surveyor could instruct the current researchers on they types of equipment that might have been used then (and accepted degree of precision for each). Further, this crew could use modern equipment to quite precisely pinpoint each existing stake, allowing Jane to determine the ranges of abundance and diversity per unit area. A reputable biometrician could assist with these statistical analyses.

If this approach does not work, the area could be (and probably should have been) designated for demonstration and teaching to introduce incoming students to these concepts, rather than as a research tool. Once the decision was made to continue past the pilot status, Maple should have invested in high-quality markers that could be reliably located at each measurement interval.

References

• Coufal, James E. "Forestry: It Isn't Rocket Science - It's More Complex" in K. A. Blatner, J. D. Johnson, and D. M. Baumgartner, Hybrid Poplars in the Pacific Northwest: Culture, Commerce and Capability. Symposium Proceedings. April 7-9, 1999, Pasco, WA, 1999.
• Sample, V. Alaric, Nadine E. Block, Paul C. Ringold and James W. Giltmier. The Evolution of Forestry Education in the United States: Adapting to the Changing Demands of Professional Forestry. Executive Summary. Milford, Penna.: Gray Towers Press, 2000.
• Society of American Foresters. 2000. SAF Code of Ethics. Available at: http://www.safnet.org/who/ethics.htm.
• Warren, W.G. "Trends in the Sampling of Forest Populations" in R. M. Cormack, G. P. Patil and D. S. Robson. Sampling Biological Populations. Statistical Ecology, Vol. 5. Fairland, Md.: International Co-operative Publishing House, 1979.

Difficult interactions are not unique to science, but the dynamic of the research setting provides a distinct context for such relationships to develop. Care should be taken, however, to underscore that this case is an example of commendable action on Richard's part. The good practice enveloped within the case should not be overshadowed by the shocking nature of the situation; rather, Richard's laudable actions should be made even more praiseworthy by the remarkable circumstances surrounding his decision.

The case is broken by a decision point for discussion to underscore the critical ethical juncture for Richard and permit the best practice to be examined. Later, the case addresses the contributory roles of all persons involved in a concluding discussion. This commentary will evaluate 1) Richard's decision point and risks, 2) proper or improper actions of Monson, Lisa, Paul and the institution and their roles in potential resolution points in avoiding the situation, 3) assignment of responsibility, and 4) some suggestions on the effective presentation of the case.

Richard's decision Richard is an undergraduate whose introduction to the scientific research endeavor has been appalling. Certainly Richard's perception of laboratory research has been tainted by the deteriorating dynamics of the relationships in Monson's laboratory. From the case, it is unclear to what extent Richard's view of the scientific enterprise has been compromised; however, given the initiation he has received, it appears that Richard may have little incentive to get involved. The case does not comment on whether this is Richard's first research experience or whether he has had previous experience, but it is unlikely that any previous experience would have prepared him for this extreme situation. Richard's subservient role as an undergraduate placed in a situation with a post-graduate researcher and a seasoned technician, however, is indicated. The case reveals that Richard has been affected by the poor relationship between Lisa and Paul. That is why it is interesting to place Richard as the character who must make the ethical decision.

In discussing what Richard should do, an evaluation of the responsibilities and risks posed by each option available to him may provide a richer discussion of the decision point. These choices may not be exhaust the options open to Richard, but they provide an adequate framework for the discussion.

Richard could do nothing.

Richard might assume that no one knows that he has witnessed Paul's actions. That may or may not be a wise assumption. This option may be more justified if Lisa's chair is not contaminated. Remember, Richard could not see what Paul was doing in Lisa's cubicle. If he concludes that Paul was not doing anything wrong in Lisa's cubicle, doing nothing may expose Richard to the least amount of direct risk. He may justify keeping silent based upon his desire to avoid getting involved in Lisa and Paul's squabble. However, Richard does not know whether Lisa's chair is contaminated.

If Richard decides not to tell Lisa, and her chair is contaminated with radioactive residue, Richard may be partly responsible for the health risk presented to Lisa. Richard may argue that only he knows that he saw Paul in Lisa's cubicle and, therefore, he can ignore his responsibility to inform Lisa. This argument, however, may be erroneous. Someone else may have observed Richard in the lab with Paul. In that case, Richard may be suspected as an accessory to the incident. If he does not tell Lisa, Richard would have to live with his conscience (if he believes that informing Lisa is the "right" thing to do ethically, regardless of the consequences) and with the possibility that Lisa's cubicle is contaminated. What if, in the future, he is asked to work in Lisa's cubicle? He could be endangering himself. The status of Lisa's cubicle remains uncertain.

Richard could inform Lisa.

If Richard informs Lisa, it may be concluded that he has become involved in the feud. Thus, Richard assumes some risks. If there is no detectable contamination in Lisa's cubicle, Richard could be accused of fabricating the incident to make Paul look bad. Lisa may contaminate her cubicle herself to make Paul look guilty. If Paul learns of Richard's suspicions, that could dramatically affect Richard's working conditions.

Furthermore, Richard's reputation may be damaged. By informing Lisa, Richard will appear to have taken sides. Lisa might suspect Richard is collaborating with Paul in a practical joke to scare and worry her, especially if she finds no trace of contamination in her cubicle. The risks associated with this outcome may seem remote; however, they might be thoughts that Richard should consider. If he chooses this option, Richard will have satisfied the moral responsibility he may feel to notify Lisa of the potential health hazard.

If Lisa's cubicle has been contaminated, this option would be the most responsible action for Richard; however, the status of Lisa's cubicle remains uncertain. This option would present the least negative implications for Richard, and his actions in this instance might even be considered commendable. Should Richard get involved? What is the most ethical action he could take with the least liability?

Next, the discussion should evaluate the actions of Monson, Lisa, Paul and the institution. The potential resolution points to avoid this situation are briefly considered for each individual. This discussion is presented after Richard's decision point and good practice have been evaluated. Considering the role of each person involved allows the reader to consider how the situation could have been avoided. The points presented here are intended to start a discussion and are not intended to be a complete analysis of each role.

Monson It might be argued that Monson should beware of taking on too many administrative duties. He should not jeopardize the safety of his laboratory because of limited oversight time. Certainly, Monson should be more open about Paul's new responsibilities and the way in which Monson envisions the laboratory functioning while he attends to the additional responsibilities he has accepted. Although Lisa and Paul put on "a convincing facade," if Monson were more involved in the laboratory it would be more difficult for Lisa and Paul to cloak the problem. Monson should be meeting regularly with all of the lab members to discuss their research, lab experience and the operations of the laboratory. Clear communication and a trusting relationship among Monson and all members of the lab could have helped to flag the problems between Lisa and Paul.

Lisa The earliest resolution point in this case would have been for Lisa to address her concerns in a more mature fashion. Much difficulty could have been avoided if Lisa had spoken with Monson about her feelings regardless of the negative response she may have feared. At any point in the deteriorating relationship, Lisa could have stopped the cycle and notified Monson. If she had fostered a relationship of trust with Monson and Paul, the problems would have been easier to resolve.

Paul Undoubtedly, Paul should have spoken with either Lisa or Monson about the developing destructive relationship. It appears that he did not speak with Lisa because he felt that his authority was threatened; he may have not spoken with Monson because he did not want to appear incompetent to fulfill his new responsibilities. It appears, however, that speaking up would have been much better than his final action. Because the case is not written from Paul's perspective, it is unclear what caused Paul to take this rash action. Irrational behavior is not uncommon in working environments, although this case may be extreme. What can be concluded is that Paul, like Lisa, had numerous points when he could have tried to solve the problem or sought counseling rather than exacerbating the situation for the sake of his authority.

The institution The role of the institution should not be overlooked. It appears that the institution should be more sensitive to the constraints placed upon Monson in trying to run an active research laboratory and attend to secondary administrative duties. The institution certainly should take greater responsibility for educating its staff and students on the responsible conduct of research and for undergraduates' research/laboratory educational experiences. Too often, undergraduates are underlings who are unsupervised and without mentors in contributing to meaningful science and denied educational interaction with the principal investigator. Undergraduate dishwashers can hardly be satisfied with their exposure to the scientific enterprise that the university promised in recruiting them. The institution should, however, be commended for its rapid response to Lisa's request for radioactivity testing. It is also positive to note that Lisa knew whom to contact in the Office of Laboratory Safety to address the situation. These are indications of positive elements in the institution's response.

Third, the element of responsibility is assigned. It is clear that Paul should take the majority of the responsibility for his actions; however, it might be unfair to assign all of the blame to Paul. As outlined above Monson, Lisa and the institution could have acted to ease the conflict and avert Paul's criminal action. When examining this case, discussion of responsibility will focus on Paul, but a second responsibility should not be overlooked. Each of the contributors had a responsibility to Richard (and to each other, but, since Richard is at the heart of the ethical decision, the focus will be on Richard). He has been affected by the incident. His view of research may have been negatively influenced. All parties share, to some extent, in this disservice to Richard and to science. In discussing responsibility, it might be valuable to consider this element.

This commentary attempts to focus on the key decision point presented to Richard and is intended to underscore the central issue of laboratory relationships and what to do when things go wrong. The case features a variety of roles that must interact in a laboratory setting (professor, post-doc, technician and undergraduate). In this case each character's role and status contribute to the conflict. This case draws upon the interpersonal dynamics of a laboratory setting to demonstrate good practice when those dynamics begin to deteriorate.

References

• Chapman, Valerie-Lee; Sork, Thomas J. "Confessing Regulation or Telling Secrets? Opening Up the Conversation on Graduate Supervision." Adult Education Quarterly 51 (2, February 2001): 94-107.
• Dockter, J. L. "Mentoring in Biomedical Science Graduate Programs: A Student's Perspective." Anatomical Record 253 (5, October 1998): 132-34.
• Dimitroff, A; Davis, W. K. "Content Analysis of Research in Undergraduate Medical Education." Academic Medicine 71 (1, January 1996): 60-67.
• Hackett, Edward J. "A New Perspective in Scientific Misconduct." Academic Medicine 68 (9, September 1993): S72-S76.
• Holcomb, W. F. "Radiation Safety Training Program at the National Institutes of Health." Military Medicine 160 (3, March 1995): 115-20.
• Michel, R.; Kerns, K. C. "Radiation Safety Instruction for Non-radiation Workers." Health Physics 76 (2 Suppl, February 1999): S7-9.
• Sullivan, Lynne E.; Ogloff, James R. P. "Appropriate Supervisor-graduate Student Relationships." Ethics and Behavior 8 (3, 1998.): 229-48.

This case can be discussed on at least in two levels. First, it explores the convolutions of human relationships. This could have happened in any setting; it just occurred in a research laboratory. Second, the accusations of both parties do appear at face value to breach ethical conduct within a research setting and sometimes in an apparently blatant way. The ethical dimension of the case will be examined by the application of virtue ethics.

When this case is viewed from a larger context, the evolution of relationships within this laboratory raises issues of virtue and character. Character is uniquely human and can exhibit itself within any human activity. Scientific research as a human activity is then open to consideration from virtue ethics as we consider relevant issues of character. With the interrelated notions of character, personal integrity and scientific integrity, one can examine the responsibilities and actions of those involved in this case.

Cindy could be said to be one of those people who has considerable aptitude and dedication to her work, incurring the envy of those around her. Because she is such a go-getter, Beth may have been unduly envious. The initial miscommunication between Cindy and Beth over the manuscript, perhaps a breach in etiquette but not ethics, sowed the seed of discord on already fertile ground.

The second incident, the accusation of sabotage, is a serious charge. It goes beyond pettiness and is a substantial breach of research conduct. It is serious for both the accused and the accuser, but the burden of proof lies with the accuser. In response to Cindy's accusation, Beth offered a reasonable account: that it had been a matter of simply forgetting to switch the joysticks at the end of a long day.

However, Cindy did not believe this explanation and related her account of the situation to Tom. Tom responded by keeping a certain distance from the growing problem. The other graduate students in the laboratory keep their distance also, but perhaps behind closed doors they had definite opinions on the matter. At this point the issue becomes one of lab harmony and trust, as well as personal and scientific integrity. What are the responsibilities of those involved?

Simple misunderstandings arise in everyday situations, and usually can be resolved by direct communication. It is obvious that Cindy did not believe Beth, which resulted in more or less open hostilities between the two for a period of more than a year. Their bad relationship must have created tension within the lab, with Tom and definitely between Cindy and Beth. Tom, the PI, did not get involved, nor did the other graduate students. Did they have an obligation to? And if they did, what course of action would be appropriate?

If this were a one-time misunderstanding, I could understand Tom's letting things slide. However, these situations kept coming up. I think in order to foster greater cooperation between the researchers the PI had an obligation to address the situation directly. The reason for this obligation resides in the understanding of scientific integrity. If these students are required to work with other people as a team in some other setting, such as industry, government or academia, and similar situations arise, they do not have a good model on which to base future decisions. If scientific integrity is achieved by cultivating good habits, it seems then these people did not have that kind of guidance from the lab they left. In new situations, they may transfer habits that are not congruent with personal and scientific integrity.

This discussion raises the further question of the responsibility of the other, some more senior, graduate students. The situation could have been raised in their lab meetings, addressing and restoring trust within the lab. But they might ask, "Am I my brother's keeper?" It could be argued that Tom and the other graduate students should have taken a more proactive stance. The popular conception of scientific integrity includes notions of a community of people working together to solve some of the greatest questions we have ever asked of nature. As such, scientists are perceived, for good or ill, as a species of intellectuals who have the greatest good in mind and are given responsibilities and are commonly expected to act in accordance with this. Scientists are expected to be responsible researchers and to put aside personal issues for the greater good of science and society.

Regardless of the validity of such popular notions of science and scientists, the people participating in the scientific endeavor have, at the least, responsibilities to the concept of scientific integrity. They have a concern to maintain the trust and support of the public, who are the ultimate sponsors of science. Self-policing of science, which does work for the vast majority of the time, needs to permeate all levels of the scientific enterprise, including interpersonal relations. From this perspective, then, the other graduate students in the lab could have voiced their concerns. Is this matter really a breach in research ethics, or is it a breach of personal integrity? I think it is both. Cultivating scientific and personal integrity early in one's career will in the long run produce interpersonal habits that will facilitate the goals of scientific research.

This case is designed primarily to stimulate discussions about scientific relationships including adviser-graduate student; adviser-post-doc; and post-doc-graduate student. It is further intended to explore the relationship of one lab to another lab in the scientific community. What may not be obvious at first, however, is that this case should also stimulate discussion about intellectual property.

Discussion Questions

1. Should McGovern accept the position in Wang's lab? Why or why not?

This question is difficult in that there is no one correct answer. To begin to answer this question, one must first think about McGovern's responsibility to himself. Although McGovern has most likely been invited for interviews at other institutions, it is evident from the case that he is most favorable toward Wang's lab. McGovern's first love is developmental biology, and Wang is well known as the leading developmental biologist in the field due to his frequent publications in prestigious journals. To accept a post-doctoral position in such a lab could prove highly beneficial to McGovern's career.

Since much of the preliminary data has been collected on the protein that Wang has just isolated, and McGovern has already learned about techniques used in such work from Bringham as well as being privy to her experimental data, it seems highly likely that he could finish such a project quickly. McGovern would be able to publish quickly, which would certainly impress Wang. Wang certainly has a wide network of collaborators and scientific friends, all of whom could be potential sources of future employment for McGovern.

Despite all of the positives for McGovern, one must question whether his taking the position is ethical. Although McGovern is not responsible for the fact that Wang and Bringham may have isolated the same protein, he would be responsible for using Bringham's data at Wang's lab, should he choose to accept the position. Would it be fair for McGovern to capitalize on Bringham's hard work? Alternatively, it appears that Wang has done the same work independently and derived the same results; is it possible that McGovern would have no responsibilities to Bringham after all? There is also a possibility that the two proteins are totally different. Would the situation be easier to resolve if that were the case?

2. Is it necessary for McGovern to discuss his findings at Wang's lab with Martin? Should he inform Bringham that if he accepts this post-doc position he would be doing the same work she is doing?

An easy solution to this whole problem seems to be for McGovern to discuss what he has learned at Wang's lab with both Bringham and Martin. All of the issues would then be on the table, and McGovern would be able to determine the feelings of his current lab on the topic. It is important to consider Bringham and Martin's reactions to McGovern's revelation, however. It is quite possible that they may encourage McGovern to accept the position, understanding how such a move could prove to be a positive career decision. Conversely, Bringham may realize that since another lab is conducting the same research as she, it would be in her best interest to work extra hours to ensure that she is the scientist who gets to publish the data first. Martin may even encourage Bringham to follow this strategy. Bringham would then be receiving unfair inside information, which would reflect poorly on McGovern. Would this action be just as unethical as McGovern sharing Bringham's data with Wang's lab?

3. If you were Martin and McGovern asked you what he should do, what advice might you offer?

Although Martin is McGovern's adviser and should have McGovern's best interest in mind, it is almost a given that Martin would want to publish the data before any other lab. This goal would certainly cloud any words of wisdom that might come from Martin. Which is more important: Martin's responsibility to McGovern or Martin's responsibility to Bringham and the rest of the lab?

4. If McGovern takes the position, should he be allowed to use his knowledge of Bringham's data to apply to new research at Wang's lab?

This question is intended to spark discussion about intellectual property. To whom do the data belong? Are they Bringham's, since she has done most of the work? Are they Martin's, since the research was done in his lab, supported by his grant? Does McGovern have some rights to the data, since he and Bringham have worked together on parts of the project? It is easy to argue the case for each of the persons involved. The decision, however, should be in the hands of the head of the lab, Martin. Since the work has been done in his lab, and supported by his grant, he has the final say in what is done with the data.

Many PIs make it clear to each new lab member upon arrival that all data become and remain the property of the lab. What if Martin took it for granted that Bringham and McGovern knew of this unwritten rule, and therefore never informed either of them that such is the case? Should Martin still have the final say about the data?

5. If McGovern decides not to take the position in Wang's lab, should he inform Bringham and/or Martin about Wang's data?

This question was partially discussed following Question 2. If McGovern decides to decline the job offer from Wang, what should he do with the knowledge that someone could be close to scooping Bringham? Is it McGovern's place to inform Bringham? If Bringham learns that another scientist (especially one who is well known and respected) is currently conducting the same research that she is, she will almost certainly rush to publish quickly. Suppose that in doing so she becomes less concerned about accuracy and decides that she needs to do her last few experiments only once. What if her conclusions are altered due to lack of experimental repetition?

As stated earlier, there is no one right or wrong solution to the problem(s) introduced by this case study. However, consider the following as one possible resolution.

Suppose that upon arriving back in Martin's lab, McGovern organizes a meeting with Martin and Bringham and informs them that Wang has presented him with data that look quite similar to Bringham's data. McGovern further states that Wang has offered him a position in which his first project would be the one Bringham is currently working on. McGovern points out that taking a position in the lab of a figure as well respected in the field as Wang could prove to be an important career move. McGovern suggests that the two labs work as collaborators and publish the data jointly. He suggests that this strategy may allow the labs to publish more than one paper out of the data with a few follow up experiments. Since Wang is a developmental biologist and has isolated this protein as a result of some developmental studies, it is possible that this protein may play a role in the development of the organism. Since Martin's lab has little experience in developmental biology using a model system, and since Wang's lab has little experience in molecular and biochemical studies, it seems ideal that McGovern become the bridge to link the two labs together in a mutually beneficial collaboration.

This solution is certainly not the only solution, nor is it necessarily the best one, but it could provide a platform on which further discussion may be built.

Part 1

Part 2

This case was written for examination from several perspectives. It features four main players whose roles, obligations, and interests can be evaluated independently. Their interaction and effect on others also allows for discussion concerning ethical decisions. The roles of advisers with students, responsibilities of committee members, and student needs and obligations in the research process are among the issues to be highlighted.

Part 1

Johnson is in the difficult position of needing to secure another committee member in a short time period. She feels comfortable approaching Dr. Wood about serving on the committee but is quickly placed between the two faculty members who do not agree on the timeline. Johnson's agenda at this point is to form a committee whose members will agree to a meeting date so that she can proceed with her study.

Wood is willing to accommodate the added burden he will assume in serving on the committee. He is not willing to compromise his input by rushing the meeting and not allowing himself time to adequately review the written manuscript. As a new, tenure-track professor, Wood likely desires to do well in his position and does not want to be ill-prepared for a prospectus meeting involving Dr. Morris, who is the department chairperson. On the other hand, he wants to help the student and accommodate Morris by meeting her timeline.

Morris's agenda appears to be to keep the project moving. She indicates that she really isn't terribly interested in Wood's input. She is using her power over Wood and Johnson to keep the timeline in place.

In reviewing Wood's request for more time, the interests and obligations of each of the players can be brought out. Wood's feedback from Morris indicates that his rubber stamp is all that is really required. This feedback comes from her verbal statements as well as the fact that she expects him to read the manuscript in a very short time period. Wood has to weigh doing what seems to be best for himself and the student against displeasing his chairperson.

Back to Top

Part 2

Wood decides to risk alienating Morris by insisting on more time to review the manuscript. In Part 2, he is again in the position of having to question Morris. In deciding how Wood should handle the dilemma of the prospectus meeting, he must carefully examine the benefits and potential harm to those involved.

Possible benefits

While Johnson may feel that she will benefit from proceeding immediately, Wood is considering how the student can move forward into the study when she appears to be so uncertain of what she is doing. She will be responsible for implementing the methods and analysis and will again be under the gun when she must defend her thesis. The easy choice for Wood might be to simply allow Johnson to proceed. After all, Morris is pushing for that and she will ultimately be Johnson's adviser on the project. If Wood were to think only of himself, his choice might to be to sign off on the project.

Morris may potentially benefit from allowing Johnson to proceed if the project is completed in accordance with her timeline. The case does not specify a reason for her adherence to the timeline so we might speculate as to why she seems so insistent. Perhaps she has intrinsic reasons in wanting to finish the project in order to make a presentation or to submit a publication. Despite her tenure status, these considerations may be affecting her behavior. A more extrinsic reason might be that she wants Johnson to graduate on time and feels that holding the project back will delay that. We can only speculate as to why Dr. Story appears willing to sign off on the project following the prospectus meeting. We do know that she and Morris are friends and collaborators on research projects. Is this relationship or the desire not to make waves enough reason to approve the project?

This portion of the case can be used to discuss Muskavitch's comment that "In the real world, people almost never have all the information they would like before they must make a decision concerning what to do next." (p. 3).

Back to Top

Potential repercussions

In discussing the decision facing Wood, it is also useful to examine the potential harm that could come from his approving the project when he does not feel that the student has adequate knowledge. It is easy to contemplate many problems that could arise from Johnson being allowed to go forward with a project she does not seem to understand. She could struggle during the entire project or receive just enough help to complete it and then fail in her thesis defense. In addition to the obvious disservice to this student's effort to learn the research process, Morris's modeling of poor ethical choices is also potentially harmful to Johnson. According to Vesilind, "Students have their ethical antennae up. If we fail them, they will be poorly served by higher education." (Vesilind, 2000, p.170) If our goals in higher education are for students to learn from us, then we must realize that they will learn from all we do, not just those behaviors that we choose.

Another point to consider is the possibility that Johnson will be allowed to proceed without really understanding the project and Morris will somehow manage to get her through the project. At some point, Johnson may come to realize that she did not obtain the degree or complete the thesis on her own, but rather that she was allowed to slide through for the sake of convenience. If this realization were to occur, Johnson's accomplishment would be diminished in her own eyes. (Vesilind, 2000)

Wood's reputation, as well as those of the other committee members, could be at stake if they sign off on a project in which the student is inadequately prepared. The student's education and perhaps, her future research career could be jeopardized by this action. In discussing relationships in research labs, Weil and Arzbaecher describe the three major goals of research groups as "(1) to get research done; (2) to get students trained; and (3) to acquire the funding needed to achieve the first two goals." (Weil and Arzbaecher, 1995, p. 73) Morris may have acted to sacrifice the second of these goals in order to accomplish the first and possibly the third. This point may lead to a discussion of the ways in which these goals can be balanced appropriately and how unethical behavior is sometimes reinforced (i.e., through publications, tenure and promotions). The fact that many pressures can be alleviated by unethical behavior is important. People who may generally be ethical and honest may chose a different path when faced with these pressures.

Another factor to consider is possible harm to subjects involved in the study. If Johnson were allowed to see or evaluate subjects without adequate knowledge of the procedures, these subjects could be at risk. In general, if this worst-case scenario were applied, it is possible that the lack of knowledge on the student's part could tarnish the reputation of everyone involved in the project.

Back to Top

References

• Muskavitch, K. M. T. "Some Pointers on Writing and Using Case Studies," unpublished essay.
• Vesilind, P.A. So You Want To Be a Professor? A Handbook for Graduate Students. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1999.
• Weil, V., and R. Arzbacher, "Relationships in Laboratories and Research Communities" in D. Elliott and J. E. Stern, editors. Research Ethics: A Reader. Hanover, N.H.: University Press of New England, 1997.

While this case presents many ethical questions, the problems stem from two fundamental issues: responsibility and trust. I make this assertion because an underlying assumption in the academic community is that each professor and student will be responsible in his/her respective position. Similarly trust has been established between the faculty and the outside community, both scientific and lay.

If we focus first on the responsibility issue, we need to be careful in how we approach the problem. At first glance many would say that the responsibility lies with Dr. Brown. It is apparent that Brown has committed a number of gross violations. He has given an unfair advantage to his student on exams in addition to falsifying authorship to a peer-reviewed journal.

There can be no doubt that both of these acts are egregious, but to place blame solely on his shoulders is to miss the more pervasive, and more troubling problems. As culpable as Brown is, James and the other faculty members are also responsible for the situation. James is responsible for letting his professor know when his studies aren't going well. Rather than be proactive, or even reactive, James exhibits an apathetic attitude. This attitude creates a situation in which Brown must either allow James to fail or take extraordinary steps to ensure his success. And while these circumstances do not mitigate Brown's actions, they certainly provide a backdrop for them.

More importantly, the faculty's failure to provide honest criticism to Brown and James is the worst violation of responsibility. By failing to address Brown's actions with respect to the exams, and then by passing James, the faculty is creating an atmosphere in which merit and work no longer predominate in student evaluation. The faculty's failure of responsibility is dangerous because it creates a situation in which students can be awarded a degree they did not earn. The obvious result is that unskilled, and perhaps incompetent, students are released into the general community.

Coupled with the issue of responsibility is the issue of trust. All students who matriculate assume that they will be treated equally and that the requirements for graduation will be uniform. When Brown creates a differential, he is not only being irresponsible to the university, but he is violating other students' trust in him and the faculty. In addition, industrial employers trust that the university will teach students a certain skill set that they can utilize. When Brown violates this trust, he endangers other students by creating a situation where they may not be hired given James's performance.

Many more issues are at work in the case. The discussion questions should facilitate the exploration of some of these questions. However, I would argue that the case at its heart is an investigation into the expectations of the graduate experience. Also very important are questions about what actions are appropriate to ensure that those receiving degrees have mastered a skill set and are responsible and trustworthy enough to be employed.

This case was designed to introduce a situation where the many roles, responsibilities and demands of students, advisers and faculty can be revealed in simple conflicts. In an environment that purports to protect academic integrity and scholarship, the discussants are provoked to consider a number of different outcomes and situations in their examination of the ethical conflict. This multifaceted presentation may facilitate a better understanding of the complexities of interpersonal, professional, academic and social responsibilities in ethical decision making. This commentary will approach the discussion and analysis from that viewpoint.

Of primary concern is the decision on the subject of plagiarism. The first two questions strike at the heart of this discussion. Did the student knowingly plagiarize a paper? Was this action wrong, and from whose perspective? The case also provides an opportunity to address the differing rules that apply to international students vs. domestic students. U. S. institutions of higher learning typically utilize similar policies for academic integrity and research. The internet has broadened the scope of research and education throughout the world. When authorship on the internet becomes questionable, academia confronts a dilemma in the quest to separate valuable and reliable sources from the vast information pool that is the World Wide Web.

Also unique in this case is the student's coming from a society where the normal practice is not referencing material. The professors are now forced to factor in potential cultural differences that are in direct conflict with any decision based on policies and procedures. Jihvraj and Brady are also concerned with their responsibilities as faculty members. Some schools do not place such decisions in the hands of professors due to potential for liability, etc. However in this situation, they decide to consult the University Handbook for guidance. They are presented with five or six choices on how to deal with this situation. It is important to analyze how well they explored each of the options available to them. Should they have involved the Judicial Board? Would that have been a significant and important turning point?

Another important consideration is the issue of fairness. Fairness paints a picture with a broad brush as it involves a number of different factors. Being fair and being ethical may not be synonymous despite how often the word "fair" is used in this situation. What is fair to the student? Should he be given an opportunity to rewrite the paper or provide his references, or should he have to do nothing at all? Would that be a fair and favorable outcome? He feels that while he is a student, he is also a professional and that his treatment should take account of his status. Professional courtesy is not being extended, and there may be further implications from that viewpoint.

What is fair to the other students in the class? Their involvement in the conflict, while seemingly minimal, carries some weight. Graduate school is an investment in education, which implies that all three professors have an underlying obligation to treat all of their students equally and without bias. How should this obligation be approached in this situation? Further exploration may even illustrate that being fair may not be the ethical objective in this case.

Dr. Whelan's involvement was also critically important. Would his inclusion in the decision making have changed the outcome? When exactly should that inclusion occur? Where do his responsibilities ultimately lie? They may be with his student, his class or the rest of his faculty team. The fact that he is the senior faculty member of the group and a former department chairperson brings up conflicts due to potential power struggle, both personally and interpersonally. There is also the question of bias in his position. He is only contesting the decision on the grade and not on the retaking of the course. Therefore while it seems that he isn't protesting the issue of plagiarism, it is understood at least that there is no benefit to have his advisee receive a C grade.

The last few questions are directed at examining the impact of potential outcomes in arriving at a decision. Who is to gain or lose the most from the outcome? Response from the funding agency of the international fellowship may be complicated; the agency might take issue with the maltreatment of the student. As a result the school may suffer a backlash, jeopardizing future participation or funding.

Whelan's protest is also problematic for Jihvraj and Brady. As junior faculty, they face the challenge of achieving tenure. Crossing an influential segment of the faculty can hinder their achievement of that goal in addition to the potential for added strain in the team-taught course. The dean is faced with handling faculty dissension, possible student protest and a potential problem with the funding agency. The student faces the possibility of a stain on his record in addition to being labeled as a cheat. Retaking a course may also have an impact on his responsibilities for maintaining the fellowship.

Many different courses of action may have been used in this case, each carrying its own significant set of outcomes. It is the goal of the reviewer/observer/discussant to employ a careful approach to addressing the problem(s) and ultimately arrive at a solution that meshes social and academic responsibility with sound ethical practice.