For Engineering and Science
Anonymous
Commentary On
This case is intended to focus discussion on the responsibilities of research advisers and graduate students in regard to completing work related to research. Most graduate students will do whatever an adviser asks in the research arena. A huge power differential exists between the graduate student and the adviser, who largely decides when a student has completed enough work to graduate and will be asked to write recommendations for the duration of the student's career. In this case, an argument can be made that Joe is being taken advantage of in preparing a presentation that his adviser will be making. Whether or not Joe's perception of the situation is accurate, he is definitely left with the feeling that he is completing Smith's work over the weekend at the expense of completing his own research. If Smith had a legitimate reason for not working on Saturday, this would have been an excellent time to share it with Joe. There are certainly legitimate reasons why Smith may not be able to work over the weekend, but he needs to respect Joe's time and effort enough to explain the situation to him.
Research advisers have a responsibility to be aware of what goes on in their lab. That includes being aware of workloads students are carrying, their general schedules, etc. It is definitely acceptable to expect students to carry out work at the direct request of the research adviser, but there is a huge difference between working for/with an adviser, and working instead of the adviser. Open communication between the adviser and the students is essential to maintaining a productive research environment.
Graduate students also have a responsibility to make certain that their advisers are aware of what they are doing. The communication must be both adviser-to-student and student-to-adviser. Joe bears some responsibility for Smith's taking advantage of him: He could have told Smith that he always works on Saturdays, that he had plans that weekend to start his last set of experiments, etc.
The second large question raised by this case is the murky issue of authorship. Research advisers should have a carefully thought out idea of how authorship is established and how the order of authors is decided. It is important to make sure that graduate students and collaborators are aware of these policies as well. Authorship issues often are not discussed openly because they are awkward and uncomfortable. It is worth it to face the discomforts of openly discussing these issues, however, to avoid situations like Joe's, where the student and adviser clearly have different ideas of what authorship should be. The students who have left the program should also have an opportunity to review the presentation if their names and data are included.
Overall, the research adviser is ultimately responsible for establishing the policies and norms that will be followed in the laboratory, whether by active participation and awareness of what goes on in their labs or by the default of nonparticipation. It is impossible for research advisers to avoid this responsibility. Better to craft the environment they want than to send the default message that there are no policies or standards for conducting research in the lab.
Commentary On
Working with advisers and other faculty on research studies is an integral part of the graduate school experience. It is an excellent opportunity for students to be mentored and guided as novice researchers. As we all know, the dissemination of study findings through publications and presentations is key to the success of labs and departments in most academic settings. However, professors and students often find themselves grappling with the rules, or lack of rules, when it comes to authorship. The purpose of this case study is to generate discussion about the typical pitfalls that both students and professors encounter in sorting out issues of authorship.
Although authorship is the key to academic success, it is rarely discussed during the planning stages of a study. When is the best time for researchers to discuss this issue? Jane and David discussed it at the outset of the study. During the planning stages they divided their responsibilities and decided that Jane would receive first authorship. This approach could avoid problems at the closure of a study when it is time to publish and both researchers may feel they deserve first authorship. Jane and David had an understanding at the beginning that David's contributions would be less than Jane's, and therefore she would be listed as first author.
The most obvious disadvantage to having a discussion about authorship at the outset of the study played out here in this case. David didn't follow through with the original plan that he would conduct the data analysis. In fact, his contributions to the study were minimal, at best. However, he and Jane had already agreed that he would be second author. How should Jane have handled this situation? Although not legally bound to include David as a second author, is she bound professionally to honor the agreement originally made? Was David ever told that Mark stepped in and completed his work? Mark was not told whether Jane informed David that a third party was brought in to do his work. Furthermore, Mark was never informed whether David insisted on remaining second author. It's hard to speculate about Jane's motives here. Why would she choose to jeopardize the integrity of her relationship with Mark in order to keep peace with David?
Friends collaborate daily in academic settings, and this scenario is not unusual. Professors, like students, seem to be unsure about how to handle the issue of authorship, especially when collaborators fail to do their part. Jane and David handled it well by discussing authorship early in the research process, but they failed to continue the discussion throughout. Unfortunately, Jane chose to handle the situation by avoiding it. She went so far as to exclude Mark from the writing of the manuscript in order to justify his placement as third author. How could Mark possibly argue that he deserved second authorship when he didn't contribute to the manuscript? Did Jane deceive Mark by excluding him from the writing of the manuscript? Absolutely. Regardless of her intentions, she failed to inform Mark that she would be writing the manuscript without him. Furthermore, Mark's contributions in the data analysis earned him the right to publish his findings. Even though Jane originally offered him the opportunity to do so, she failed to keep her word. The price that Jane paid here to avoid confrontation with David was considerable and unnecessary.
The second issue of this case is who should be included in the discussion of authorship. Jane approached Mark at the beginning of the study and asked him to participate. She was very clear with Mark regarding his responsibilities; however, she failed to inform him that an agreement had already been made regarding authorship. Mark might not have agreed to work on the study had he known that he had no chance of being listed as first or second author. Fortunately, for Jane, Mark was the typical graduate student who was flattered just to be asked.
Why wasn't Mark included in the discussion? The answer to this question brings up the issue of those responsibilities that lend themselves to receiving credit through authorship versus those that do not. It is common knowledge that some responsibilities, such as survey development and data analysis, are typically considered to be more important than other responsibilities, such as mailing surveys and keying data. Mark may not have been included in the discussion because he was originally responsible for mailing surveys and data entry. Jane and David may not have regarded his contributions to the study as significant.
The final issue in this case is Mark's responsibility to himself. Should Mark accept what his adviser tells him, or can he take further action to ensure that he receives proper credit for his hard work? Mark is in a difficult situation because he is not considered to be a colleague or a peer, but a subordinate. He was hired to do a job, not to be a collaborator or a major contributor on the project. If he chooses to confront his adviser, who is in a position of power, he may have difficulty throughout the remainder of his graduate school career. However, Mark should take responsibility for becoming informed about how to best handle issues of authorship in the future. Although Jane did not bring up the issue of authorship when she asked Mark to work on the study, perhaps Mark should have. There are no rules that say students can't ask. Students have a responsibility to themselves to become informed about university and department policies regarding ethical conduct in research, including authorship.
The Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (1995) recommends that frank and open discussion regarding the division of credit within a research group occur as early as possible in a study. Furthermore, they suggest that authorship criteria be explicit among all collaborators, as well as giving students and research assistants appropriate credit if they make an intellectual contribution to the research project. Jane was faced with a few situations here that required open and direct communication. Unfortunately, she missed a valuable opportunity to teach her student the best way to handle some tough issues with regard to authorship.
References
- Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. On Being a Scientist: Responsible Conduct in Research. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1995.
Commentary On
Compared to industry, many demands compete for Principal Investigators' (PIs') time on college campuses: They have teaching, administrative and laboratory responsibilities. Their ability to juggle all of these responsibilities is the subject of this case study, which illustrates how a PI's various roles affect the graduate and undergraduate students working in his lab.
Professor Hopkin is swamped by academic and teaching responsibilities. He asks Ryan, a senior graduate student in the lab, to help advise Laura with her undergraduate honors thesis. This situation happens frequently in academia and can be mutually beneficial: The graduate student gains mentoring experience, and the PI is able to free some time. The situation goes awry when too much of the PI's responsibility is pushed onto the graduate student.
Although Ryan enjoyed the time he spent helping Laura, he did not feel he was getting due credit. Instead of talking things out, however, he ignored the problem. The situation blew up when he found out that Laura and Hopkin were thinking of publishing the study. One important point to note is that the time to speak up about inconsistencies in practice is sooner, rather than later. The problem might have been avoided if Ryan had raised the issue a lot sooner than he did.
The other glaring problem in the case study is Laura's taking more credit than she deserves. She might not have realized the inappropriateness of her actions. After all, she is an undergraduate with minimal lab experience. If that is the case, then Ryan could have used the opportunity to educate her on research norms. If she deliberately overstated her role in the experiment, then she needs to be educated. One of the hallmarks of good research mentors is that they are able to guide their advisees through the research process, informing them about good research practices and norms.
The case study also brings up PIs' responsibility to their undergraduate and graduate students. Should the PI hold both classes of students to the same standards? Surely not. Undergraduates and graduate students should be held to different standards in terms of laboratory responsibilities and the extent of independent thinking expected of them, due to their different backgrounds. But how much work can a PI expect graduate students to do when it is not directly related to their own work?
This case study brings up lots of interesting questions for discussion. Is the PI being fair when he excludes Ryan from the author list? Ryan did contribute quite a lot in the early conceptualization stages and in helping to set up the experiment.
How should the PI handle a situation that pits an undergraduate's opinions against those of a graduate student? Should Hopkin take Ryan's comments at face value? What if Laura still insists that she did all the work?
Finally, should it matter that a publication would help Ryan's graduate career more than Laura's undergraduate career? Would it matter if Laura were going into business after graduation rather than academia? What if Ryan were going into business?
Commentary On
This case may lead to several areas of discussion, for example, the use of computers in the work place, the implications of strict computer use policies, or even co-worker interactions. The case identifies some of the common conflicts that can arise in the workplace with regard to the use of computers.
At first glance, it may be tempting to lead the review in a direction that aims to define pornography; it is the writer's hope that the case will instead lead to a discussion of how computer use in the workplace can affect the work environment. It is hoped that the discussion will focus on how the questionable use of computers in the workplace affects co-workers and the institution's image. The case should also lead to consideration of how policies governing the use of computers can affect workers and how these policies would be implemented and enforced.
In this case study, three people have been immediately affected by the situation. Frank and Jessica have been placed in an awkward position, while Mark has been pinned as a suspect, which could affect his interoffice/lab relationships and lead to questions about his professionalism. Jessica and Frank may or may not be opposed to pornography, just as they may or may not be opposed to Mark looking at airfare quotes, religious sites or neo-Nazi sites. This point relates to the first question: Would it have mattered if other potentially controversial material had been viewed? Suppose Mark had been using his lunch hour or a Saturday evening to get some air fare quotes for a trip to Aruba. Would that have been an abuse of office/lab equipment? The problem is that we don't always agree on the boundaries of what is permissible to view at work. While it is difficult to agree on appropriate computer use in the workplace, it is important to have guidelines. The use of computers has a broad impact because it is possible for cyber-fingerprints to be traced, which could affect an institution as a whole.
In analyzing this case, it is important to identify the individuals and institutions immediately affected by this situation (Jessica, Frank and Mark) as well as those who may be affected later (other co-workers, the head of the lab, the dean of the college, the university's image). Next, one should consider what course of action would be best. In devising a course of action, it is imperative to identify who will be affected by the course of action and what long- and short-term effects will result.
A comprehensive review should address the pros and cons of several courses of action. For example, it may be best for Jessica and Frank to approach Mark about his actions. In doing so, they will limit the exposure of this incident, and they may avoid further tarnishing Mark's reputation. Additionally, Jessica and Frank will reduce the probability that they will be required to testify publicly about their discovery. Unfortunately, this approach may not resolve the situation, and it may adversely affect the dynamics of the lab's social environment. Mark may feel he has been wrongfully accused, or he may feel awkward around his colleagues after such a confrontation.
An alternative approach is for Jessica and Frank to discuss the situation with their lab head. In this case, they may request anonymity, which may be comforting with respect to the social dynamics of the lab. A downside is that the lab head may view Jessica and Frank as being poor at problem solving and incapable of handling social issues. Another possibility is that the lab head may not believe the students or may trivialize the matter; these outcomes are possible if the suspect carries a higher rank in the lab than the whistle blower.
As one can see, many avenues of action are available, with different effects to consider. This case may lead to discussions about the ethical use of computers in the workplace and the dynamics of colleague interactions.
Commentary On
This case is meant to raise issues involved in determining whether scientific misconduct has been committed. Recently, a uniform definition for scientific misconduct has been proposed for all federal funding agencies.
In this case study, Brighton is concerned that her data are being falsified. In contrast, Gilligan feels he is presenting the data in a favorable manner. As scientists we are influenced by our working hypotheses, but we need to be aware of the possibility of self-deception or delusion when interpreting our results. Gilligan feels that standards for presenting data vary among formats, i.e., grants, publications, etc. Undoubtedly, many scientists would agree. When writing a grant proposal, spin doctoring or salesmanship may be needed to convince the reviewers of the importance and feasibility of a project. But when does a "positive spin" become falsification of data?
According to the proposed definition of misconduct, changing and omitting data in the research record are not permitted. The research record is defined as the record of data or results that embody the facts resulting from scientific inquiry, and includes, for example, laboratory records, both physical and electronic, research proposals, progress reports, abstracts, theses, oral presentations, internal reports and journal articles. This list suggests that high standards must be applied in all formats for data recording/presenting.
The second set of questions is designed to generate discussion of institutional and government policies for reporting misconduct. Reporting scientific misconduct is obviously a sticky situation for all scientists; however, students and post-docs are in a difficult, tenuous position when they feel their adviser/mentor is falsifying or misinterpreting data. Consult institutional policies for reporting misconduct before presenting this case study. Additionally, consult the following websites for government misconduct regulations: http://www.ori.dhhs.gov; http://www.nsf.gov/oig/resmisreg.pdf; http://ori.hhs.gov/misconduct/index.shtml.
Commentary On
Lying, cheating and stealing are examples of behaviors that most members of our society would deem unethical in most situations. It follows that many young scientists may think of such behaviors when asked to discuss ethics. For example, it is unethical to fabricate data; it is unethical to copy someone elseÀs answers during an exam; and it is unethical to plagiarize. Each action is a relatively unambiguous example of unethical conduct, and scientists can easily define the behaviors that make each action unethical. Many of the ethical quandaries faced by scientists are not so straightforward. This case study is designed to illustrate a subtler ethical dilemma: conflicting commitments and obligations.
Conflicts of obligations are those situations where competing obligations prevent honoring both obligations effectively.
While many graduate students feel that life becomes golden upon graduation, obligations seemingly loom larger. As professors, the scientists now have obligations to whole laboratories and all their players from student workers to technical assistants to graduate students. Professors also have obligations to their superiors, funding agencies, university committees, professional societies and families. Vesilind devotes an entire chapter to this juggling act in his book So You Want to Be a Professor.
Unfortunately, very few scientists are professional jugglers by training. With so much promised to so many people, something has to give. When these obligations conflict and scientists are forced to honor one obligation over another, they may find themselves in an ethical pickle.
In this case, there should be no bad guy. Jones may come off as naive, and McCleary may seem a little aggressive, but one would be hard-pressed to determine where to place the blame. Certainly no one has committed any act that needs to be reviewed by a judiciary board. It is simply a case where commitments have been made to several different parties and the two major parties involved have a different hierarchy as of commitments.
Question 1: To whom is Jones obligated, and what does he owe them? What about McCleary?
Ideally, students will come up with a variety of answers to this question. Jones is certainly obligated to McCleary, who has funded him at least partially throughout his work, afforded him a laboratory with equipment and technicians. McCleary has also lent Jones his expertise and reputation in pursuing funding and provided an environment in which Jones can freely pursue the science that interests him. Jones is obligated to keep McCleary informed of his results and allow him to share in the credit for his successes at some level. Jones is also obligated to share in the responsibility of disseminating his research findings.
Jones is also obligated to the funding agencies that supported his work, one of which is a nonprofit organization devoted entirely to raising money to defeat Kruese's disease. Jones is responsible to the funding agencies for honestly pursuing his hypotheses and reporting his findings to them.
Jones may also have familial obligations and obligations to those who gave him technical support throughout the work. Students can continue in this same vein in trying to determine McCleary's obligations.
Question 2: In what ways do any of these obligations conflict?
Students can weave a complicated web trying to determine which obligations conflict. For example, Jones feels an obligation to the scientific community and recognizes that patents may hinder other scientists building on his work. The patents, however, would partially satisfy Jones's obligation to McCleary by letting him share in their successes. The patents also would add prestige and perhaps revenue to McCleary's lab, fulfilling in part the professor's obligations to his laboratory. McCleary, however, in an attempt to market the patent in a manner that brings profit to the lab, may make the test much more expensive than the Society for the Prevention of Kruese's disease would desire. Considering Jones's obligations to his family, it may be in his best interest to be part of the patent and make a little profit from his work.
Question 3: Which (if any) of these obligations are more important or stronger than others? Why?
The real ethical quandary develops when students are asked to determine which obligations are more important than others. Having to choose one obligation over another will push students to consider the ethics surrounding obligations. Why is it so bad to break promises?
Question 4: What are some of scientists' obligations to society? Are any of these obligations "special"? Why?
The first three questions are designed to encourage each individual to decide which obligations should receive priority in this particular situation. The fourth question is designed to encourage students to think of the bigger picture: our obligations to society as scientists. As research scientists, we spend years becoming experts in our fields. In many situations, what we research and how our results are used affect an enormous number of people. To say that we have "special" obligations may be pretentious. An assembly line worker has as great an obligation to society in ensuring that a car's braking system is properly assembled. The development of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, however, is one example of scientists being the most knowledgeable in their fields and seemingly failing in their obligations to society. The result has proved disastrous for several generations.
As members of society most knowledgeable in our fields, we certainly must define our obligations to society. At present, progress is exploding in the field of biotechnology. The technologies being developed could go far to alleviate human suffering but could also prove calamitous if misused. Most scientists agree that we have an obligation to society to be honest in our discoveries, but how far do these obligations extend? Do we have obligations to society to ensure that these technologies are not misused? These are decisions each scientist will have to make individually. What are our obligations? How far do scientists' obligations extend? How can we adequately honor all of our obligations?
Commentary On
This case study deals with a situation that can easily occur given a few seemingly reasonable institutional policies. The policies regarding the financing of graduate students can create various ethical problems if other policies are not already in place to resolve them. In this situation, first-term graduate students are being asked to be teaching assistants in undergraduate classes; their training is concurrent with their assuming teaching responsibilities.
The secondary issue is that of Mike, a student with a special-learning waiver. While handling such situations may not be considered difficult, the fact that this situation has arisen during Laurie's first (untrained) experience as a TA can create several ethical problems that may not be realized until later. A tertiary issue is the role of the professor who is teaching the class. In this case study, the professor is largely absent. This possibility is realistic; if no standards or requirements specify the appropriate level of oversight by the professor, then the level of involvement can vary dramatically.
Part 1 focuses primarily on a generic problems-between-partners issue, which allows the introduction of Laurie, Fred and Mike before the issue of the special-learning waiver is introduced. Given that Laurie has not been informed about the waiver, this part is reported primarily from her point of view.
Question 1 focuses on the uncertainties of the untrained TA, Laurie. She would certainly like to help resolve problems, but is not sure how to do so. To a very limited degree, however, this is the same problem as personally working to stop world hunger or war, or to save the environment. People know they should help, but they are limited by means and/or motivation. Laurie knows that it is important for the students to learn how to work with partners they do not enjoy working with, given the likelihood of this experience in the workplace. She also believes that Fred is doing an unfair amount of the work. Ethically, what is the balance point, if one exists?
Question 2 introduces the possibility of going to an authority figure to resolve the issue, given the small likelihood that any solution will be provided. However, Laurie is being short sighted here; she is under the impression that the only solution is allowing Fred and Mike to change partners. The position of a TA, however, does require some degree of independence and the use of personal judgment. Is a full policy regarding the extent of problem solving between the professor and TA necessary or even useful?
Question 3 focuses on other resources that might be available for Laurie. However, the need to protect Mike's privacy will impact some of the ideas brought up in discussion.
Question 4 has two sides. First, Laurie is giving Mike an opportunity to air his concerns. Second, Mike fails to mention the special-learning waiver at this point. If readers have not read Part 2, the discussion will be limited to refining the issues discussed in Question 3 to include Mike's opinion of his performance.
Question 5 directly addresses the impact of the school's financing and training policies on Laurie. Frequently, fiscal limitations or timing constraints cause people and institutions to cut ethical corners when creating such policies. In this case, what ethical issues have been overlooked? What happens to the students who need first-term funding if they are not able to serve as TAs during that time? Should TAs be trained before they are allowed to work with undergraduates? Are mentorship programs a viable alternative, if enough experienced graduate students are available? Trials by fire are a common occurrence in the workplace; should academic institutions be held to a higher standard?
Part 2 introduces the special-learning waiver, which specifically requires special consideration for Mike in reading-based tests. The conflict here arises because of the nature of this lab; a hands-on practical test does not fall into the same category as a reading-based test. This difference sets up a conflict between Laurie's personal judgment that this difference is both logically and ethically correct and Mike's concern about his ability to pass the test. Fred's concerns in Part 1 are important to remember here; both Fred and Laurie know that Mike has not been using the equipment enough to become familiar with it. Is it possible that this knowledge may bias Laurie against Mike? Could she be inappropriately limiting his extra time on the test to 10 minutes because of bias?
Question 6 reflects on Question 4 in that the issue of personal responsibility would have required that Mike inform Laurie about the waiver earlier than the end of the term. Apparently, he has not relied on her knowing about the waiver, as he does eventually tell her after the test has been written. Should this issue be covered by policy? Should the professor have informed Laurie about the waiver before it had become obviously relevant?
Questions 7 and 8 again address an untrained TA's development of personal judgment. The existence of the waiver implies the existence of an office that issued the waiver; Laurie has not used this resource. Is it ethical for her to fail to ask for guidance from this office, given what appear to be explicit instructions on the waiver? Is it possible for her to determine how much extra time is reasonable without such guidance? What would be required of Laurie to ensure fairness to Mike?
Part 3 Both new TAs and experienced professors might misjudge the length of time required for a given exam. A common resolution to this problem is to curve the grading scale to prevent this misjudgment from affecting the students' grades. Does Laurie's misjudgment apply unequally to Mike as compared to the rest of the class? Part 3 also returns to the issue of dealing with learning disabilities -- even disabilities considered minor -- in the classroom; Laurie may feel vindicated that Mike demonstrated a lack of understanding of the hardware, as she may have expected, but her lack of effort to do everything she could have done to help Mike can still provoke strong reactions in the discussion group.
Questions 9-10 create a parallel between the allotment of extra time for Mike and the other student (who did not have a known learning disability) who failed the exam. While issues of fairness for learning disabilities are discussed, the definition of the extent of a disability is not in Laurie's hands. Suppose the other student had a migraine on the day of the exam. Would that be a good reason to allow extra time? To what extent do considerations for a specific learning disability (reading, in this case) apply to other applications (e.g., use of equipment)? Who is responsible for making these decisions (e.g., the office that issued the waiver, the university, the professor, the TA, the student)?
Question 11 addresses the perceived impact of special considerations on other students. What would happen if Fred had just managed to pass the exam, after doing more than 90 percent of the work in the lab, and Mike managed to pass the exam (with extra time) after doing only 10 percent of the work in the lab? What could be the impact on the profession that these two students will enter? What could be the impact on the reputation of the university with respect to the quality of the engineers it graduates, or with respect to how it treats students with learning disabilities?
Commentary On
At first glance, this case appears to be about authorship. But it is really about the responsibilities of graduate students, graduate advisers and graduate institutions.
We do not know Alyssa's scientific background and experience, why she decided to work in Swift's laboratory and what, if anything, she was told about the lab and what was expected of her. We do not know about Swift's relationship with the other six graduate students, his background or why he agreed to have Alyssa work in his lab. We are aware that Alyssa and Swift do not agree on what is expected of each of them in relation to the other.
Graduate students entering into a new program may not be aware of what it "means" to be graduate students. They may have no idea what is expected of them. In some cases students may not even have laboratory experience. If we assume that that was the case with Alyssa, who was responsible for making sure Alyssa knows what is required of her as a graduate student in Swift's laboratory?
In the graduate school setting, it is too often assumed that a Ph.D. confers the ability to teach and train students. Although some institutions do train their faculty to be effective instructors, some do not; contrary to popular belief, there is no universal "scientific method" that all research groups follow. Research groups vary greatly due to discipline, institution, department and especially the personality of the research group director.
Let's assume that Swift was never trained to teach. Therefore, it is possible that Alyssa was aware of her responsibilities but was not being trained effectively to accomplish the goals set out for her.
Several institutions have developed their own graduate student bill of rights and responsibilities, and some have included the faculty's responsibilities to the students. Many of these are accessible via the Internet.
Due to the decentralized nature of research, it is essential that graduate institutions have rules and regulation that clearly define the roles and responsibilities of graduate students and advisers. Without these guidelines, it is not safe to assume that all students in an institution are being trained effectively or comparably. They should also outline the responsibilities each has to each other, the laboratory, the institution and the scientific community. The institution should also make available the resources needed to accomplish these goals. Once a student enters a laboratory, the institution does not relinquish its responsibility for that student's education to the principal investigator; rather, the responsibility is now shared.
Commentary On
This case highlights two important issues that often arise in academic research. On the surface, the case concerns the ownership of ideas and assignment of credit to specific individuals for work performed in a group situation. But the deeper and more fundamental issue regards the adviser-student relationship and the unequal power distribution among members of the research laboratory.
We can surmise from this case that the professor, Glen, and the student, Sarah, have different views on how authorship and inventorship are determined. In fact, clear conventions in these areas currently are being debated. The majority of biomedical journals have adopted guidelines for authorship put forth by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), which state:
All persons designated as authors should qualify for authorship. . . . Authorship credit should be based only on substantial contributions to 1) conception and design, or analysis and interpretation of data; and to 2) drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and on 3) final approval of the version to be published. Conditions 1, 2, and 3 must all be met.
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Annals of Internal Medicine 126 (1997): 36.
In contrast, laws regarding inventorship on patents, as described in the U. S. code and related case law, present substantially different and arguably looser qualifications for coinventor status, declaring that:
Inventors may apply for a patent jointly even though 1) they did not physically work together or at the same time, 2) each did not make the same type or amount of contribution, or 3) each did not make a contribution to the subject matter of every claim in the patent.
35 US Code 116.
The comparison between authorship and inventorship has recently been argued eloquently by Ducor
What concerns us most in this case is that it appears that Sarah and Glen never communicated their expectations to each other. When we read that Sarah told all her friends about her first patent, we can see that she certainly expected to be named as a coinventor in addition to being listed as an author on the forthcoming manuscript. While Glen's expectations are less apparent, judging from his defensive comment accusing Sarah of misappropriating his work, he certainly never considered making Sarah a coinventor.
Both Sarah and Glen exhibit morally questionable behavior. As Sarah's thesis adviser, Glen should have reviewed with her the policies of the laboratory and the university regarding manuscript authorship and patent inventorship. Assuming Glen, who holds the rank of tenured professor, has advised students previously, he should have anticipated Sarah's unfamiliarity with standard policy and guided her, rather than coming across as naïve himself.
Sarah must also accept some responsibility for failing to enunciate her expectations for assignment of credit. Since Sarah has been in Glen's laboratory for over three years, one would expect that the two would have established some communication, even if only on a professional level.
In addition to Sarah and Glen, the governing body of the university is partially to blame for this situation, as it does not appear that the university had any sort of checks and balances to ensure that graduate students were informed and therefore protected. This situation is all too common in the scientific research community today. A single individual, the adviser, has almost total power over the professional career of his or her student. The faculty member and the student, however, will almost always have different needs and obligations, which pits them against each other.
Commentary On
This case examines some ethical issues that arise from the open exchange and development of ideas that is essential for the continued advancement of science and engineering. Many departments host a seminar series as a method of broadening the knowledge base of their graduate students through exposing and discussing the work of other graduate students, post-docs and the faculty. These discussions encourage questioning and examination of the topics to improve the quality of the work of the presenter, as well as providing a forum for graduate students to gain confidence in questioning the work of others. However, a problem is associated with maintaining control of the ideas disseminated during seminar. Any idea presented can be taken and utilized for one's own gain without recognizing or acknowledging the originator.
In reading this case, one may be tempted to focus on the utilization of knowledge gained in a seminar session to promote one's career in industry, automatically assuming that Ackley has obtained his understanding in an ethical manner. In reality, the ethical question of Ackley's actions should initially center more on his acquisition of the information than how he ultimately used it.
A few inferences about Ackley are required to evaluate whether he is acting ethically. First, Ackley's apparent understanding of Phillips's work and ability to participate actively in the seminar seems to indicate that the two graduate students, Ackley and Phillips, are probably working on different projects within the same field of study, possibly having the same adviser. Unlike a graduate student whose main focus is elsewhere, Ackley understands the importance of this work and has a working knowledge from which to formulate more in-depth questions.
One hint of impropriety stems from the fact that Ackley has already accepted employment at Trees-R-Us Paper Company. That means that he may have an idea of the type of projects he will be working on and his new company's expectations regarding publishing and production of work. Ackley's exposure to the ideas and insights from Phillips's presentation will give him an unfair advantage over the university for developing and patenting ideas extending from this work. This advantage stems from the dedication of time and resources Ackley will have available at a research lab over the university system, which relies on graduate students to perform most of the research over an extended time period.
The combination of Ackley's knowledge of the subject and his impending employment at a research lab performing related work indicates that his attendance at the seminar is unethical. Ackley should have excused himself from the presentation, citing potential conflict of interest. The department also should have been aware of the conflict and requested that he leave, or not attend, this particular seminar. Ackley's attendance is not unethical, however, if he alerts the department to the potential conflict of interest and the department still allows him to attend. Another option may have been to have Ackley sign a nondisclosure agreement before attending the seminar.
With the assumption that Ackley has obtained the knowledge in an ethical manner, the issue turns to his use of the knowledge. The question is whether the knowledge he gained at seminar is truly being shared for the further education of all, or does hypocrisy exist in the form that no one is supposed to actually use the information gleaned from these meetings? Most departments traditionally tout seminar as an opportunity to further one's knowledge; therefore, it is not an ethical violation for Ackley to develop the new test method at his new job.
Phillips's water-based test method was a starting point, and many modifications would be required for Ackley to establish the new test method. Ackley should be praised for his achievement as a scientist in developing the new test method. Any public or company publications should cite Phillips's master's thesis as the original idea from which Ackley generated his new test method, but unless Phillips or Phillips's adviser have consulted on the development of Ackley's method, neither deserves to be recognized as a co-author of Ackley's paper. Ackley's selection of this work, however, may be questionable, since Phillips's adviser probably would want to expand Phillips's work in this area. This possibility raises a quandary for any graduate student: How much of the different ideas and experiences they have been exposed to is free game for them to utilize and develop when they enter the workforce?
If Ackley had accepted an academic post at university, instead of entering the industrial sector, that would change everything. Ackley's academic position at a competing university should limit his use of the ideas and knowledge he was exposed to as a graduate student. It is debatable as to what ideas he may utilize to start his own research program, but clearly the use of Phillips's thesis work would be an unethical infringement upon a colleague's work at another university.
Seminar serves as a vital tool to expose graduate students to a variety of ideas in areas in their fields. Ethical questions will always arise as students graduate and take their knowledge to industrial research jobs or other academic institutions. The ethical use of the knowledge gained from seminar, as well as other graduate experiences, will always have to be determined on a case by case basis, since there is a fine line between impinging on another's idea and having original insights utilizing others' ideas.
Commentary On
With the increased use of computers and innovative technology, access to information is more readily available. This case highlights the ethical issues surrounding the use of this new technology in research to gain access to information and possible infringements on the rights of study subjects. In research involving human subjects, complete data are important. Hence, researchers' ability to reach study participants to verify or gain complete information is crucial. Over the course of time, the potential for losing contact with the participants increases, and the completeness of data becomes jeopardized. Along with greater access to computers, the development of the super highway of information (world wide web) has enabled people who were once lost to research, friends, family, etc., to be located. To help evaluate this case, it is important to consider the Belmont Report, which provides the ethical principles and guidelines that govern research with human subjects research; the Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970; and the Code of Fair Information Practices (Johnson, 1994).
The first part of the case deals with Bob, a manager for a health study, who is trying to locate some study participants to follow up on incomplete data. Even though the consent form stated that future contact was possible, it did not mention the method(s) that the researchers would use to locate the participants. Further, the protocol for locating subjects after the study's end was never discussed with the IRB. It is quite likely that some study participants would have declined participation if they had known that a credit bureau would be used to contact them. However, this strategy was the last resort, and the number of queries sent to the credit bureau was minimal. The researchers did try to plan for attrition by asking the participants to provide the names, addresses, and phone numbers of friends or relatives who would know how to contact them two or three years later, but some of the participants did not provide this information. Another question is whether the participants who chose not to give a friend's or relative's contact information did not want to be contacted in the future. In that case, use of the credit bureau to locate these subjects may not have been justified.
It is important to know that the information collected and maintained by the credit bureau is legal, and rights to the information is available to others with a fee. Many banks, department stores, car dealerships, etc. use credit bureaus to verify the financial status of their prospective customers. However, it is important to note that customers give the stores and dealerships permission to check their credit. The research study did not inform the subjects or get their permission to search their credit reports for updated phone numbers or addresses.
The first principle listed in the Belmont Report is respect for persons. This principle refers to deception in research. The subjects were deceived in assuming that future contact would be established using the information they had already provided. It is clear that the researchers did not intend to deceive the subjects, given that the researchers did try to get additional information to help with contacting the subjects in the future.
Bob struggles to locate study subjects using various indirect methods such as directory assistance and the contact information provided by some of the subjects. Despite his efforts, these methods produced little new information. Bob lost sight of the principles listed in the Belmont Report by failing to consider the principles of respect for persons, beneficence and justice. He was so eager to use this new technology that he failed to consider the risks involved. Bob could have jeopardized the trust of the participants if they had found out about the tracing. He should have consulted the IRB, since the use of a credit agency was a change in the study's approved protocol.
In conducting human subjects research, all information collected from the subjects must be kept confidential. The consent form informs the subjects that only the immediate study staff will have access to information about them; that information will be released only be for the purpose of research; and that it will not have any identifying information attached or obtainable. By sending information to the credit bureau, Bob violated the confidentiality rules.
A second risk was to the subjects' credit ratings. The subjects should have been told that a credit bureau would be used to locate them in the event that other methods were not productive. The use of Social Security numbers was not fair, since that information was not requested from or given by the participants.
This final part of the case highlights the use and misuse of access to information when Bob learned of another credit-reporting company that provides software for independent credit searches. If the use of a credit bureau is ethical for research purposes, Bob should have ordered the software and restricted the use of the computer and software to authorized study personnel. This step would have preserved the confidentiality of the data and protected the subjects from harm. Searching someone's credit, even if only to find a telephone number, could adversely affect an individual's credit rating. Bob should have consulted with the IRB and weighed the pros and cons of using this resource.
Bob should not have tried to remove his company's name from the report because that was dishonest. The Credit Reporting Act of 1970 requires credit agencies to make their records available to subjects and to allow for corrections to credit reports. This Act would have allowed the study participants to remove the research company's name and reduce the risk of an adverse effect on their credit ratings.
Cross-Cultural Informed Consent
Overview
This case was designed to highlight some of the complexities involved in obtaining informed consent from human subjects participating in clinical trials. Since this case takes place in a resource-poor area of the world and among peoples with different cultural meanings of disease and treatment, other issues present themselves more acutely than when research is conducted in the United States (for example, the difficulty of communicating the nature of the study so that enough meaningful information is conveyed for the individual to make an informed decision whether to participate). Moreover, community permission was sought and obtained for this research. Therefore, the case also raises questions of seeking individual informed consent after, and in addition to, informed consent that has been received from the community as a whole. Finally, difficult issues arise when the research group is principally from the United States, although a collaborative relationship exists with the local university. In summary, this case is intended to review the current regulations regarding informed consent as established both in the United States and internationally, to enhance discussion regarding certain complications and dilemmas that may arise with respect to gaining individual consent, and finally to raise broader and more difficult questions about cross-cultural research.
Informed Consent
The informed consent process is a primary component of protecting the rights and welfare of individuals involved in research. This protection is grounded in the concept of the right to autonomy or self-determination, which is understood as an ethically necessary means of demonstrating genuine respect for human integrity and dignity. All of the influential international and national documents governing medical research involving human subjects begin from the ethical principle of respect for persons to justify the doctrine of informed consent, including the Nuremberg Code, The Declaration of Helsinki, International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects and the Belmont Report. The Belmont Report is typical in its description of the informed consent process as necessary to ensure respect for persons. It understands individuals as autonomous agents "capable of deliberation about personal goals and acting under the direction of such deliberation."
Respect for Persons
Respect for persons, according to the Belmont Report, is itself based on "two ethical convictions: first, that individuals should be treated as autonomous agents, and second, that persons with diminished autonomy are entitled to protection." This approach requires researchers to ensure that potential subjects voluntarily decide whether to participate in research and that they have enough information to make an informed choice. In this case, Ellen has questions regarding both requirements. Because of the earlier agreement that her community elders made with the research study, it is not clear that Sebena has provided consent freely and voluntarily. For example, in a large smallpox vaccination research study in five areas of West Africa, other researchers have documented that obedience to tribal leaders was the strongest factor that influenced the populations' receptivity to the program.
The full ramifications of community consent for Sebena's decision are unclear. One would need more information about the type of community she lives in, the nature of the power that a community decision has over her actions, and finally how the elders introduced and explained the study to her.
Notwithstanding the paucity of information, it is clear that one of Ellen's possible courses of action would be to find some way to communicate with Sebena and ascertain the voluntariness of her decision. Ellen has an obligation to herself to ensure that she behaves with integrity, to Sebena to protect her rights as a research subject, and to the project to ensure it upholds to the rules and regulations governing medical research with human subjects. It may be of interest to speculate on what Sebena may have related to Ellen, and the ethics of then pursuing some course of action. Nevertheless, the one wrong action in this situation is clear: for Ellen to do nothing to ensure that SebenaÀs participation is truly voluntary.
This situation also raises questions about the guideline that researchers must ensure that participants have enough information to make an informed choice. This issue, however, is somewhat more complicated given the nature of working in a resource-poor region of the world where a wide gap exists between types of knowledge, cultural values and beliefs. Communicating enough information may require something quite different for a patient in a middle-class clinic in a suburb of a large metropolitan city in the United States and a woman living in an isolated small town in sub-Saharan Africa. What is immediately apparent in this case is that the informed consent form, although it may have been adequate for the purposes of passing regulations in the United States, may be wholly inappropriate in the present circumstances.
Unfortunately, no clear guidelines exist for explaining complex terminology and concepts in clinical, virologic and research methodology. Even in the United States, it has been found that receiving more information on abstract concepts like randomization does not increase participants' understanding of the concept.
Moreover, some researchers have suggested deviating from the traditional form of informed consent forms to make them easier for participants to understand, e.g., putting some aspects in point form and including pictures. However, these techniques have not been demonstrated to increase understanding above the level achieved with the traditional forms. What we do know is that understanding increases when there is a collegial process of obtaining consent, including maintaining good communication with the participant.
It may be appropriate to provide more training for Tefera and to conduct the process in a less intimidating environment. It might also be helpful to involve the community in designing an appropriate informed consent form. It is clear that collaboration ought to occur in such a situation, particularly when other work is not providing clear guidelines about the best procedures for obtaining informed consent.
One way to ensure that the individual is truly capable of making an informed decision is to bring in another party. In this case, bringing in the community serves this purpose to some extent. The community elders provide another level of assurance that the research is ethical and beneficial to the community and its participants and that a reasonable decision is made that balances the risks versus the benefits of participating.
Nevertheless, as Ellen notices, community consent has a negative side: It may bias individuals' decision whether to participate. This issue may require some further discussion with the participant. It is likely that in this study, as in medical research in general, participation is kept strictly confidential. One option for Ellen would have been to review this requirement with Sebena so that she understood that her decision would be kept confidential and that the community and the elders would have no means of knowing what her choice was.
Beneficence
In addition to respect for persons, the Belmont Report discusses another major principle that is intended to guide medical research involving human subjects - beneficence. It is imperative that research minimizes risks and maximizes benefits. One of the risks of a research study - particularly a clinical trial - is the augmentation of a standard of care that individuals are entitled to when they are not participating in a study. In all clinical research studies in the United States, it is now a part of the process to ensure that subjects receive the same standard of care they would have received had they not been participating in a research study.
This commitment to ensuring that access to care is not compromised by participation in a clinical trial sometimes means that for certain groups of individuals the standard of care actually increases if they are research subjects. That is particularly the situation in the present case, where the researchers are providing a standard of care that is comparable to that given in the United States in a resource-poor area where such medical care is prohibitively expensive and where the needed technology and expertise are not available. Most scholars regard this situation as ethical conduct in international research.
On the other hand, many have argued that introducing a U. S. standard of care is inappropriate for both scientific and ethical reasons. Arguments that support this view rest on the premise that if the research is being undertaken to provide evidence for the practice in these areas, then the work needs to take account of the environment in which findings will be implemented. It is clear that even though a research study may find a beneficial effect of some intervention, that does not necessarily mean that the benefit will exist outside the conditions of the research study. Therefore it may not be appropriate to test interventions designed for care in the host community using standards of care that do not exist there. Finally, providing a level of care above that available in the host country also risks coercion. The host community may not turn it down even though they may have some serious questions about it. In this case, the researchers have built a new medical facility for the community and are training local practitioners in laboratory and clinical work that would not be accessible to them otherwise. At an individual level, this situation may also unduly influence Sebena decision to participate. These are complicated dilemmas to resolve but may be of interest to discuss given their significance to recent international dedication to provide support to resource-poor areas of the world, including research help.
Justice
The Belmont Report also discusses researchers' ethical obligation to conduct research in accordance with justice. This requirement most immediately applies to this case with two competing ethical obligations. The first is to ensure that the research subjects are not being asked to take on an unfair burden of the research. In this case the intervention is designed specifically for this community and is intended to benefit the research subjects and others in this community. Therefore this study does not specifically entail complicated deliberations with respect to this concept of ethical conduct of research.
On the other hand, research should also be undertaken to provide just distribution of new knowledge and techniques. Researchers have an obligation to ensure that no person is deprived of the opportunity to participate in research, and consequently to benefit from knowledge and understanding gained therefrom. To conduct research in accordance with the principle of justice, the medical research community has an obligation to study diseases that occur primarily in resource-poor areas of the world. This case would be an example of a research study that is being pursued in accordance with dictates of justice. That is not always the case, and historically the principle of justice has been disregarded with tragic human consequences.
Cross-Cultural Informed Consent
The concept of autonomy is rooted in Western enlightenment thinking where one school of thought holds that individuals ought to be treated as ends in themselves and not simply as means. Concepts such as respect for persons, voluntary choice and informed consent are justified on the basis of this idea. Persons have the right to choose what happens to themselves, and this decision is free only if it is made with knowledge of the situation. (The alternative would be deceit.)
However, other ethical theories, including utilitarianism and feminism, understand autonomy differently. If one were to follow these theories in this situation, one might reach different conclusions with respect to what autonomy means in the context of informed consent. The paramount respect for individualism inherent in informed consent has been questioned recently regarding whether it is truly respectful of people of all cultures. Is it right for some societies to insist that their ethical standards are applied elsewhere? These are difficult philosophical questions, which rest to some extent on beliefs in relative as opposed to universal ethical principles. However, complexity does not preclude the need for thoughtful deliberation.
References
- Angell, M. "The Ethics of Clinical Research in the Third World," New England Journal of Medicine 337 (1997): 847-849.
- Annas, G. J., and Grodin, M. A. "Human Rights and Maternal-fetal HIV Transmission Prevention Trials in Africa." American Journal of Public Health 88 (1998): 560-563.
- Barry, M. "Ethical Considerations of Human Investigation in Developing Countries." New England Journal of Medicine 319 (1999): 1083-1086.
- Brennan, T. A. "Proposed Revisions to the Declaration of Helsinki: Will They Weaken the Ethical Principles Underlying Human Research?" New England Journal of Medicine 341 (1999): 527-531.
- Davis, T. C.; Holcombe, R. F.; Berkel, H. J.; et al. "Informed Consent for Clinical Trials: A Comparative Study of Standard versus Simplified Forms." Journal of the National Cancer Institute 90 (1998): 668-674.
- Davis, T. C.; Holcombe, R. F.; Berkel, H. J. "A Polio Immunization Pamphlet with Increased Appeal and Simplified Language Does Not Improve Comprehension to an Acceptable Level." Patient Education and Counseling 33 (1998): 25-37.
- Edwards, S. J. L.; Lilford, R. J.; Thornton, J.; Hewison, J. "Informed Consent for Clinical Trials: In Search of the Best Method." Social Science and Medicine 47 (1998): 1825-1840.
- Gostin, L. O. "Informed Consent, Cultural Sensitivity, and Respect for Persons." Journal of the American Medical Association 274 (1995): 844-845.
- Henderson et al. "Assessment of Vaccination Coverage, Vaccination Scar Rates and Smallpox Scarring in Five Areas of West Africa." Bulletin WHO 84 (1975): 183-194.
- Leach, A.; Hilton, S.; Greenwood, B. M.; et al. "An Evaluation of the Informed Consent Procedure used during a trial of a Haemophilus influenzae Type B Conjugate Vaccine undertaken in The Gambia, West Africa." Social Science and Medicine 48 (1999): 139-148.
- Michielutte, R.; Bahnson, J.; Dignan, M. B.; Schroeder, E. M. "The Use of Illustrations and Narrative Text Style to Improve Readability of a Health Education Brochure." Oncology Nursing Forum 19 (1992): 1523-1528.
- The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. Washington, D. C.: Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 1979.
- Olweny, C. "Bioethics in Developing Countries: Ethics of Scarcity and Sacrifice." Journal of Medical Ethics 20 (1994): 169-174.
- Woodward, B. "Challenges to Human Subject Protections in U. S. Medical Research." Journal of the American Medical Association (1999): 282: 1947-1952.
Commentary On
Offering financial incentives to increase participation in clinical studies raises a series of ethical issues. For example, participation should be on a voluntary basis, inspired by the desire to help, and not for the money. In addition, when financial incentives are offered, there is a tendency to recruit from vulnerable groups such as the poor, students, intravenous drug users, alcoholics, etc. It is more likely that these marginalized people will lie about their lifestyle in order to qualify to participate and receive money.
In this case, the volunteer was using an herbal remedy, and he did not disclose that information. If the incentive is great enough, it is even more likely that candidates who are users of illegal narcotics will try to qualify. How will the interviewers guarantee that they can exclude drug users, who are unlikely to admit to drug use during the interview process?
Given these considerations, one can also question the scientific validity of such a study. Clinical investigators must be aware that by offering financial incentives they are recruiting from a population that is not representative of the general population. Therefore, the results are biased. Despite this fact, it is quite common to pay clinical study participants.
In addition, these issues raise the question of how to go about proper screening of candidates for clinical trials. It is essential to design screens in order to minimize the likelihood that a situation such as the one described in this case study occurs. It is evident that the investigators must be extremely rigorous in their questioning of potential participants, especially if they are offering cash incentives. If they fail to screen properly, are they committing the ethical equivalent of scientific fraud?
In this case, financial desperation drove the graduate student to take risks with his own health in order to pay for his studies. One may question what obligations universities have to graduate students to continue funding through the studentsÀ careers. In addition, there is a seeming discrimination, which most universities display in providing more assistantships for students in the natural sciences than students in the social sciences and humanities.
Commentary On
This case raises several issues regarding the multiple, complex, and often competing, roles a scientist must play. In addition to responsibility to herself and her career in science, Alice is also responsible for protecting public health and safety in her role as an environmental geologist employed by the Toxic Waste Disposal Administration. As a student, Alice has taken on an additional role, which poses a potential conflict of interest with her job. We will examine each of these responsibilities in turn as we evaluate the ethical questions raised during a typical day in the life of a federal scientist.
Funding Research
Alice's first ethical problem arises from her position as a federal employee. Acting as an agent of the federal government, Alice must evaluate the adequacy of research proposals to answer questions about the safety of a potential toxic waste disposal site. In conducting research on which to base recommendations to protect public health, scientists working in environmental science are faced with difficult decisions. For example, Alice's recommendations could expose future generations to potentially disastrous environmental consequences. In order to make these recommendations, scientists and engineers are being asked to predict the behavior of natural and engineered systems many generations in the future, which raises ethical as well as technical issues. In fact, the social ramifications of application of technology often are more difficult to solve than the technical conundrums. However, Alice knows that decisions on these societal issues must be based on sound science. The results of this scientific research will be used as input to the decision to site a toxic waste site or abandon the site. In either case, the decision will be litigious and controversial.
Decisions on what research to fund and how to use research data are difficult, but they must be based on honest communication on all aspects of scientific technique and application. As funding becomes more difficult to obtain, researchers are under more pressure to oversell their expertise and techniques. The Toxic Waste Disposal Administration is paying Alice and von Wegner for their professional judgment. In order to be able to rely on their judgment, the agency must have confidence in the results of the research, which includes trust in the honesty in the descriptions of the method, its applications and limitations, and the ultimate validity of the results obtained from the method. If any one of these steps is at issue, the chain of confidence in the scientific credibility of the process is lost. Professional scientists and engineers have unique knowledge, skills, and expertise; therefore, their judgment is sought and believed.
Public Perception of Risk
The second ethical conundrum that confronts Alice is the role of the media in shaping public opinion and the use of science to further a political agenda (in this case, an environmental group that opposes toxic waste siting and uses science to justify that opposition). In our complex technological society, the public relies on scientists to give us objective facts about risk. The media play a critical role in communicating these facts to us. Scientists' responsibility goes beyond the development of theory and the correct use of technique; they also have a responsibility to explain the results and implications of their research to the public. As Harris, Pritchard and Rabins state, "The doctrine of informed consent implies that engineers have a responsibility to promote the conditions in which individuals can give informed consent to risks they encounter as a result of technology. They must do what they can to ensure that the public understands the risks associated with technology and can consent to those risks, especially when they are unusual."
Although we are increasingly skeptical about the veracity of information we get from the media, the fact remains that they are our primary source of information. Under pressure to sell papers and advertising time, our national media have become more and more focused on controversy, complex applications, and perceived risks from science. Although our modern lives are actually much safer than they were 50 years ago, the complexity of this technology means that life is no longer simple.
Conflict of Interest
Alice's final ethical quandary concerns a potential conflict of interest between her federal job and her role as a student at the university. In general, these two roles would not result in conflict; however, Alice has been asked to review a research proposal from a professor at the university that is directly related to her responsibilities at the agency. Also, the research topic is closely related to Alice's area of academic interest and could form the subject for her dissertation research. The ethical dilemma exits because Alice's interests may be in conflict: as a federal scientist, she could recommend funding that would benefit her at the university. Scientists are expected to render impartial professional judgements based on a critical objective review of the evidence;
Kovac discusses three ways to avoid conflicts of interests: 1) to avoid them; 2) to divest yourself of the external influence; and 3) to publicly reveal the influences.
Commentary On
Question 1
This case deals with Deborah's multiple obligations and the conflicts of interest these obligations create. To fully understand the issues of this case, it is first necessary to catalog Deborah's obligations. While this step will not automatically distinguish which obligations are most important, it will help to clarify the problem. The following is a list of parties to whom Deborah has some obligation:
Rev. Howard and the Board -- Rev. Howard and the Board are Deborah's clients. She has a responsibility to act in their best interest, to help educate and inform them in the area of her expertise, and to be sensitive to their cultural needs as expressed by the Preservation Code of Ethics. She also clearly has a responsibility to research and record her findings to the best of her ability and to recommend a preservation plan that is consistent with her unbiased professional judgment.
The Smiths and Henry -- As their interviewer, Deborah has a responsibility to accurately report the Smiths' responses to her questions. As an interviewer she must also respect their privacy, not coercing or tricking them into answering questions they do not want to answer. In addition, she must not mislead them about the use of the taped interview.
The public -- As a preservationist, Deborah has a professional responsibility to accurately portray the historical nature of the house, clearly indicating what is original, new, restored, or simply unknown.
Church members -- The resources for the acquisition of the house as well as the restoration come from the church members. Deborah has a responsibility to wisely use the money with which she has been entrusted.
A larger African-American community -- Preservationists have had a somewhat unpleasant historical relationship with many African-Americans. In many instances, preservation legislation has lead to the destruction of African-American communities as historic downtowns have been gentrified. In addition, preservationists have historically focused on the more accessible histories of European-Americans, leading many people to view preservation as the documentation of white history exclusively. As a preservationist, Deborah should consider these historical issues and attempt to mitigate and/or rectify the harm that has occurred.
Other preservationists -- As a member of a profession, Deborah has an obligation to uphold the integrity of the field. Beyond performing her job honestly and following ethical guidelines, that means that she should address all of these parties tactfully. Whatever action she chooses should be carried out in a way that represents the field in a professional manner.
From this list of Deborah's obligations it appears that there is a distinct conflict of interest between her obligations to the Henry and to the Board. She must choose between including and not including Henry's comment. While her obligations to the other parties listed are very important, they will most likely inform, but not dictate, Deborah's course of action.
Questions 2 and 3 focus more specifically on Deborah's obligation to Henry and to the Board. By analyzing these obligations further using theories of moral philosophy, it is possible to decipher the relative importance of each of these obligations.
Question 2
During the interviews, Deborah asked permission to tape-record her conversations with the Smiths. When they gave permission, there was a very clear spoken contract that what they said during the interview would be recorded, transcribed and used in the final report. The spoken contract concerning the tape recorder also has an inverse implicit contract: The Smiths do not give permission to use their unrecorded comments without further consent. This agreement is made explicit when Henry refuses consent. In fact, it appears that Henry may have chosen to discuss his memory of his mother's comment after the interview, specifically because the tape recorder would no longer be on.
One could argue that there was no contract obligating Deborah to remain silent, therefore she should include Henry's comment. That would be taking a very narrow and technical view. It would probably not pass the "New York Times" test, which states that one should consider the reactions of a reasonable public before pursuing a questionable action.
Henry has a right to have his request honored, to expect Deborah to keep their verbal contract. From the standpoint of respect for persons, therefore, it appears that Deborah has an obligation to respect Henry's request and not to include his comments about the second story in her report.
Question 3
Deborah has an obligation to the Board of Directors and their representative Rev. Howard to help them make informed choices about their property. Like Deborah's obligation to Henry, her obligations to the Board can be framed in terms of respect for persons. Respect for the moral agency of the Board members means that she must not hinder them in making free and informed choices about both their money and their property. This line of reasoning dictates that Deborah should inform the Board of Henry's off-the-record comment.
Respecting the Board's right to make their own informed choices should also lead Deborah to realize that many of her concerns about consequences are misdirected. While it is possible that the Smiths will become angry and refuse to work with the Board if Deborah discloses Henry's comment, Deborah's responsibility is to inform the Board of these perceived consequences. The right to make the decisions about the house and about a future relationship with the Smiths should be the Board's, not Deborah's.
From the preceding two questions, it becomes clear that both Henry and the Board have a valid claim. These claims must be compared to assess the importance of each. Philosopher Alan Gewirth has organizes the rights of the individual (and organizations) into three tiers. The first and most fundamental tier is that necessary for survival. As quoted in Engineering Ethics, the first tier of rights is "life, physical integrity, and metal health."
From this analysis, it appears that the Board has stronger claims than Henry, and it appears that Deborah should tell the Board about Henry's comment. This disclosure will violate Henry's rights, and everything should be done to lessen the impact.
Question 4
While the preceding two questions were based on respect for persons, we should also look at a utilitarian view. Using a utilitarian argument, we need to look at the consequences of Deborah's actions and pick the solution that creates the greatest good. If Deborah keeps Henry's comment to herself, Henry and the Smiths will not have to witness the partial demolition of their childhood home. Henry will also feel that he is respecting his mother. Unfortunately, this action will mean that the church members spend money restoring and maintaining the second story. This money will not be available to be used for other benefits to the local community and the public at large. Additionally, the public will not see the most accurate representation that Deborah can give of Stewart's history.
If Deborah chooses to inform the Board of Henry's comments, Henry will feel betrayed. He may not trust Deborah or preservationists in general. However, in light of the negative impacts if Deborah does not inform the Board, Henry's mistrust seems less important. From the utilitarian approach, it appears that the greater good will be served if Deborah does inform the Church.
Question 5
Using both the utilitarian and respect for person approaches, it appear that Deborah should choose to tell the Board of Henry's comments. This argument is based on Deborah's view that there are only two alternatives. In fact, this view limits many other alternatives that Deborah should consider before resorting to telling the Board. A better approach would be to follow a contingency plan like the one outlined below.
First, Deborah should privately explain to Henry the consequences of keeping his comments a secret. She could discuss the fact that the church will spend money on an unnecessary part of the restoration and the church's right to make decisions about the property. If he is receptive, she could also discuss how his mother's actions and attitude have resulted in a loss of history for many people and ask him to help rectify this wrong. If she can convince Henry to come forward, she can honor all her obligations. This would be the best solution.
If it is not possible to convince Henry to come forward, Deborah should attempt to expand her search. She should attempt to find historic pictures of the house or other residents of the town who might have a recollection of the original house, research biographical accounts, and look for an increase in the house's recorded worth in deeds, censuses, and other historic records during the first year that the Smiths owned the house. If surviving relatives of Jesse Stewart are still living, they should also be interviewed. Finally, Deborah should do a further detailed inventory of the materials that make up the second story. It may be possible to find some physical evidence that confirms a later construction date.
This additional research will be costly. Deborah should first explain that she believes that the second story was not original and discuss the extent of her further research with the Board. As discussed in Question 3, the Board should be allowed to make informed decisions about the use of their money.
If further research does not bring new evidence to light, Deborah must decide whether to tell the Board of Henry's comment. However, this action should be approached cautiously. Simply including Henry's comment in a report that she hands to the Board and the Smiths seems to be a fairly tactless approach. It does not seem to respect the fact that her actions violate Henry's rights. Nor does it seem to hold up her professional obligations. Most importantly, this course of action would damage relations between the Board and the Smiths. It would not be in the best interest of the Board, nor allow them to be in control.
A better approach would be to relate Henry's comment to the Board privately before the report is written. The Board could then decide whether they want to keep this information confidential (possibly to be used after Henry's death) and/or whether to go ahead and demolish the second story. The Board may suggest that Deborah leave out the comment but still recommend demolition. If this happens, Deborah should inform the Board of the preservationist guidelines and of her responsibilities to uphold the integrity of her profession. As a preservationist, she cannot recommend demolition without thoroughly documenting that historic fabric is not being destroyed. Finally, if the Board decides that she should include the comment, Deborah should discuss the decision with Henry. She should show her concern for his rights and make him aware that she did not make the decision lightly. In every way possible, she should attempt to retain the good will of the Smiths.
Question 6
Deborah's situation is a result of her inability to foresee the possibility of conflicts of interests. In hindsight, Deborah should have been more careful about promising a copy of the report to the Smiths. While it may have seemed like a friendly gesture at the time, it clearly led to a difficult situation. She should have discussed with the Board and the Smiths other alternatives such as giving the Smiths a copy of the interviews or having a plaque hung in the museum to honor the Smiths' contributions. Additionally, Deborah should have made it very clear to the Smiths and especially to Henry that her obligations rested with the church. She could have let the Smiths know that what they said during the interview, whether on the record or off, was "fair game."
Finally, the preservation community may be able to take actions to alleviate these types of situations. The preservation code of ethics, while addressing the responsibility to one's employer, does not discuss responsibility to the public or to others involved in the documentation process. The profession should probably discuss these obligations and formulate policies to use when conflicts of interest arise. The profession also might formalize the interview process. They could look to other professions such as psychology and anthropology for insight into dealing ethically with research participants. This research may lead to formalized consent forms and prescribed procedures or it may lead to profession guidelines. In either case, the result would help preservationists avoid situations such as this case discusses.
References
- The preservation code clearly indicates that unalterable changes should not be recommended unless there is clear evidence showing that possible historic fabric is not being unnecessarily destroyed. Using this guideline, Deborah does not have enough evidence to recommend demolition.
Commentary On
The basic issue addressed in this case is the integrity of the researcher: Under what conditions does changing a model violate that integrity? The case also touches on the conflict that sometimes arises between the client's wishes and the engineer's responsibility to the first canon of the Engineering Code of Ethics. ("[H]old paramount. . . the welfare of the public).
Most scientists and engineers recognize that fabricating data is clearly dishonest, and they rarely encounter clients who ask them to falsify or modify data outright. When they are confronted with such a client, they generally recognize the ethical issues involved and make choices with knowledge of right and wrong.
However, in a world where models are used to represent and predict reality, the line between what is right and what is wrong can be more blurred. It may not always be clear that one model is superior to another one, or that a particular model does not represent reality. Of course, it would be nice to verify all models by experimental results, but that may not always be possible.
Models are a scientist's best attempt at representing or predicting reality. They are only as good as the data that is fed into them and the assumptions used to create them. They are also only as good as the motives and purposes of the researchers creating them.
Is it wrong to change a model? It depends. If the purpose in changing the parameters or operation of a model is to better reflect reality, then it seems clear that there is no dilemma. However, it is a different matter if the purpose is to mold the model to predict a pre-determined conclusion.
It is bad science to create or modify a model or process specifically to predict a desired conclusion. That violates the integrity of the scientific process, which allows evidence or experiments to point scientists to truth, and ultimately violates the integrity of the researcher making the changes. Imagine a world in which all researchers followed such practices. No one would ever be able to trust models' predictions.
Even after noting the potential practice of bad science, it changing the model still may be justified. A question that goes unanswered in the text of this case is what the true purpose of the model is. Is it to predict the location with the greatest need? Is it to predict the location with the lowest building and operating cost? Clearly, models for those two purposes could result in different predictions. Much of the time, both purposes cannot be served simultaneously; the modeler must decide which purpose is more important and how much so. Is the purpose of the model to predict the best location? If so, who defines what "best" means? That is something that needs to be worked out by the researcher and client. Once the definition of "best" has been determined, the researcher should have some flexibility to work within that definition.
A second issue that arises in the case is the potential conflict between the engineering code of ethics and the client's wishes. A code of ethics that is bent or broken at will based on the client's wishes is not much use as a code of ethics.
However, Landers should still be careful about interpreting the first canon too liberally. If she has traditional liberal leanings, she may want to locate the transit station in the poorer community with the most need for it, regardless of the cost. She should not let her research results be biased by personal views, however. Does this option best serve the welfare of the public? Who defines the public? What is the "welfare" of the public in this situation? Adherence to the code is important, but there are many cases where its application may not be clear-cut.
Potential future projects or grants should never influence one to make a wrong decision over a right decision. A good test may be to examine the potential decisions given that there are no future grants or money-making opportunities to hazard, and see whether a decision still seems like a viable option. Of course, given two "equally ethical" possibilities, future projects may be one factor among others to use in making a decision.
Certainly as a researcher, even one involved in seemingly innocuous activities like mathematical modeling, Landers bears responsibility for the outcome of her recommendations. All scientists, engineers, mathematicians, etc., should consider what potential benefits or harm their research can produce. Holding "paramount" the safety and welfare of the public should always be a consideration, as well as practicing "good science."
As Landers makes her decision, she should keep several things in mind. She should attempt to practice good science. In this case, that can be interpreted to mean not changing a process to arrive at a pre-determined conclusion. She should also consider the welfare of the public. However, this ambiguous term does not always have clear interpretations. Probably meeting with the mayor would yield more insight into the purpose of the model and how the public can best be served. Once she has determined the best model (and the corresponding location of a transit facility), she should not be swayed by such influences such as money for the department.
As a guide in making her decision, she can continue to ask herself, "Would I want to live in a world where everyone made decisions based on these principles?" Just imagine - if everyone in a community believed in both practicing good science and "holding paramount" the welfare of the public, wouldn't we all want to live there?
Commentary On
This case attempts to raise issues related to publishing habits and standards. Indirectly, it points to topics such as mentoring and student concerns with professors. As the number of scientific journals increases, the effort required to track publications also increases. Most beginning graduate students almost immediately become acquainted with the "publish or perish" mentality. Publishing is crucial to academic survival in many ways:
- It is a means of demonstrating one's competence as a scientist.
- It is used as a criterion by funding sources such as private foundations and government agencies.
- In some cases, students must publish in order to complete their graduate degrees.
- Potential employers consider one's publication record after the graduate degree is completed.
Stevens, like most graduate students, is looking to his adviser for advice, which may be offered verbally or communicated to Stevens through actions. Stevens hopes to obtain guidance that will enhance his career possibilities, but his adviser's actions could also taint Stevens' view of the scientific and academic processes. To some extent, Stevens may feel betrayed by his adviser's misrepresentation.
Question 1 is intended to address the issue of multiple publications of the same data. This issue will increase in importance as scientists from different disciplines come together to perform research. That has been in case in instances where biology and medicine merge with engineering and physics, for example. More recently, fields such as human factors may involve educators, psychologists, and engineers. In research that relies on the expertise of all disciplines involved, would it be acceptable for the scientists from each group to publish the same paper in their respective journals? Some scientists argue that a researcher should know where to find relevant papers and that data should be published only once. Others argue that publishing in different journals is the only mechanism for informing those outside a possibly small subset of a given discipline.
Question 5 probes the responsibility of the student and the professor. Stevens may be guilty of not knowing the rules of the publication process. One thing is sure: At a minimum, Stevens should have discussed the incident with other graduate students or faculty. It is not clear if he did. One would hope that eventually he would have a discussion with his adviser about the expectations for publishing. Professor Cordage's reasoning or motivation behind publishing the paper a second time is also not clear. Cordage may believe that he is acting in the best interest of his student by filling his resume with publications, or it could be the method by which he padded his own CV, and he figures it will help with future promotions. Either way, Cordage is setting a poor example for students by being dishonest with the students, journals, and possibly even his peers.
Commentary On
The main issue raised in this case is the conflict between friendship and personal relationship on the one hand and professional responsibility on the other and how that conflict can lead to an uncomfortable situation or even result in unfairness.
Did Mike ask a reasonable favor from Lisa? That question is hard to answer. As we learned from the case, Mike and Lisa are good friends; honestly revealing your thoughts or wishes to a friend should not be a problem in itself. What I find disturbing is Mike's final decision about using Lisa's work without giving her credit. When Lisa tells him to do whatever he thinks is right, I see her as an honest and caring friend, who lets Mike choose, but at the same time suggests that he think about the right decision. Mike is responsible for treating Lisa fairly. I do not approve of Mike's action, because the case does not present any ambiguity about the significance of Lisa's contribution. Moreover, it is clear that Mike knows very well what he is asking for, and he understands that his decision to withhold authorship credit from Lisa is not justified. His decision is based on selfishness, which he hopes will be forgiven by a friend.
Another detail that I find even more disturbing is that Mike tries to deceive Lisa, and somehow make their adviser partly responsible for his decision. His statement that their adviser wants Mike to be the single author on the paper conveys that impression. Even though Mike doesn't lie, he misrepresents the facts. His statement may affect Lisa's relationship with her professor. So, Mike is doubly wrong: First, he makes an unfair decision about Lisa's credit for authorship, and second, he tries to blame this decision on someone else.
It is clear that the professor's advice would not be appropriate if he knew that Mike was not the only one working on the project. However, was he responsible for inquiring about every detail of the work? As a group leader, he should have suspected that Mike was not capable of undertaking the experimental part of the project alone. But it is also understandable that he trusted his post-do, assuming Mike would not try to mislead him.
Thinking about Lisa's options, an obvious question occurred to me: Why doesn't Lisa talk to her adviser? Why doesn't she explain the situation and ask the reason for his advice to Mike? Is there anything wrong with attempting to clarify the situation, given that the professor participated in a decision that concerns her? At first glance, it seems that talking to the professor is a very reasonable way to solve Lisa's problem. However, I think it would not be appropriate for Lisa to have an open conversation with her professor and to express her disappointment after she has given free rein to Mike. If she had an ongoing dispute with Mike about the authorship issue, then arbitration by the professor would be warranted.
The authorship of scientific papers is one of the primary criteria for evaluating scientists' contributions to their fields. This issue is important and sensitive because people's careers and reputations depend on authorship. In an ideal world, contribution to human knowledge should be the only thing that matters, but that is hard to measure; the most objective way to evaluate scientists is reviewing their publications.
In the scientific community it is understood that contributors to a project are given credit by shared authorship; if their help was not a significant part of a project, it is simply acknowledged. However, personal biases, subjectivity in determining the significance of a contribution, or personal relationships may distort this picture. Hence, it would make things easier and clearer if there were a clear understanding between parties about their lever of involvement and responsibilities at the beginning of a project. Of course, these things may change during the project, but initial agreement should be discussed and a consensus reached.
Given this case, Lisa has done nothing wrong. She was open with her suggestions and ideas, willing to share her knowledge and ready to help her friend. However, she could have avoided all this hassle if she made things clear from the beginning, i.e., she told Mike that her work on this project should be recognized by authorship credit on the paper.
Commentary On
"In Need of a Helping Hand" presents a scenario that individuals may commonly encounter in a research setting. The case itself does not present a specific ethical dilemma, but rather highlights situations that could lead to serious ethical concerns surrounding issues, such as adviser-advisee relationships, conflict of commitment, and authorship.
A successful research environment fosters the development of strong working relationships among individuals, including but not limited to the principal investigator, research technicians, postdoctoral fellows, and graduate students. The success of young investigator is highly dependent upon the success and guidance of their research advisers, who may or may not be their mentors. For example, the postdoctoral period traditionally is considered to be an additional "training" period in which individuals ideally have the opportunity and freedom to pursue their own ideas, while securing a solid foundation for their careers and contributing intellectually to the laboratory and to the research endeavor. The career development of the postdoctoral fellows requires both the advisers (in this case Cook and Black) and the advisees (in this case Doug and Maria) to play an active role. This case is meant to bring some of the issues involving scientists-in-training to light and to serve as a stimulus for a healthy discussion of these issues.
Part 1
The case begins with Doug working on a project that is closely related to his dissertation research. This situation allows Doug ample time to become familiar with the new lab and to gain confidence in a new setting. Later, Cook asks Doug to undertake a more difficult and challenging project, which Doug agrees to do. However, Doug chooses not to disclose his hesitation and makes no attempt to discuss his feelings with Cook. At the same time, Cook makes no attempt to determine Doug's ability to undertake the new project. This point is where some of the problems begin, since Doug does not indicate his lack of expertise in purifying proteins to Cook and Cook makes no effort to evaluate Doug's knowledge and abilities in the area of protein purification.
Cook has given Doug ample time and opportunity to get used to the laboratory and feels that he is ready for a more challenging project. He cannot know that Doug has hesitations, if Doug does not express his concerns. However, as the situation develops and Doug grows increasingly frustrated, Cook does not seem to have time for Doug. Cook appears to be willing to talk with Doug but repeatedly postpones their conversations to an undetermined time. Cook appears to have a conflict between his commitments to the lab and to the class that he teaches. Cook fails to see Doug's hesitation and does not spend enough time with Doug to discuss his project and career goals.
In any adviser-advisee relationship, it is imperative for both parties to maintain open communication. At the beginning of Doug's post-doctoral appointment, Doug and Cook should have discussed their expectations and goals. Doug should be honest with Cook in saying that he has little experience with protein purification, but that he is willing to pursue the project with adequate resources and guidance. At the same time, Cook should ask Doug whether he is comfortable with the project and provide ample resources. In addition, the adviser and advisee should meet periodically to assess progress.
With the adviser-advisee relationship comes certain responsibilities that both parties must meet. Doug has a responsibility to be honest and to work toward the goals of the lab, while Cook has a responsibility to advise Doug on his research efforts and to provide a stimulating research environment that will allow Doug to grow as a scientist. Cook seems to have a conflict of commitment since his teaching responsibilities seem to be taking precedence over his responsibilities to the lab. Whether Doug should have taken on the project is debatable. In my opinion, Doug should have agreed to the project but mentioned that he would need guidance since he would be working in an unfamiliar area. Both Cook and Doug are failing to fulfill their responsibilities in this adviser-advisee relationship.
Part 2
In Part 2 of the case, Doug begins to seek assistance from another post-doc, Maria. Maria is willing to help Doug, but along the way she begins to feel that she is providing too much assistance. Her own work begins to suffer as a result of her altruistic efforts. Due to Doug's unwillingness to be realistic about his abilities, he has created a situation in which he becomes reliant on another post-doc for advice and guidance. Maria should inform Black of her contributions to Doug's project and ideally Doug, Maria, Cook, and Black should meet to discuss relative contributions to the project and authorship of any papers that involve Maria's contributions.
This situation has the potential of becoming increasingly complicated if it is not handled appropriately. On one hand, Doug does not seem inclined to acknowledge Maria's contributions and is merely preoccupied with completing the protein purification project and impressing Cook. However, due to his preoccupation with the project, Doug may not have considered discussing authorship issues with Maria. As a result, Maria should confront Doug and insist that they discuss the project and her contributions with their advisers. Given this scenario, several outcomes can be imagined: 1) Cook does not understand why Doug went to others outside of the lab for assistance and becomes angry with Doug. 2) Black is not as sympathetic as Maria and reprimands Maria for her contributions to Doug's project. 3) Both Cook and Black are pleased with the collaborative efforts between laboratories and commend Doug and Maria for taking the initiative to work together.
This case represents a situation that could affect anyone working in a collaborative research setting. It is important to be open and honest from the beginning, making sure people are thinking along the same lines and expectations are mutually understood. It is easy to see that if these things are not done subtle actions could lead to serious ethical dilemmas and even breeches of scientific conduct.
Commentary On
This complicated case raises multiple questions that do not have straightforward answers. The case primarily concerns ethics of authorship and publication, but it is also about relationships among scientists in the same workplace and the same field but in different phases of their careers. The fact that the apparent instigator is a student simply makes the story more troublesome, for we usually encounter exploitation by the dominant party. Nevertheless, the underlying principles for discussion remain the same: In order for science to truly advance, we need openness, collaboration, data sharing, scholarship and peer review.
Of primary importance is the apparent miscommunication and/or lack of communication between Abbott and Mary. The relationship between student and professor entails a number of very important elements: power, fairness, equality and scholarship. It is expected that the adviser/faculty member will prepare the student not only scholastically but academically and emphasize the special needs the relationship should address and foster in the student, who is a future adviser him- or herself. It is also expected that the faculty member (due to age difference, experience and academic responsibilities) will facilitate communication between the two. Often, however, the faculty member does not realize the distinction between mentoring and advising. It is useful to discuss their differences in order to attune students to what they may expect or strive to get from their adviser in terms of quality relations. It is also useful to stress that oftentimes one's character interferes with his/her ability to maintain adequate or proper communication.
A second point for discussion is Abbott's failure to supervise her laboratory adequately. It is likely that the problems presented by this case may have been avoided if data ownership practices had been clearly articulated. Not only should laboratory policies be known to all co-workers but the departmental, school and institutional policies should be known to all faculty, post-docs, students and technicians. Because the institution is the primary owner of data, patents and legal rights in most instances, students can only benefit from knowing their rights in terms of the research performed. For example, could a former laboratory co-worker copy or use data produced in that laboratory when no longer working there?
It is useful to discuss Jonas's rules in conjunction with Abbott's failure to establish clearly articulated and ethically accepted practices. What action is one to undertake in case of inadequate or absent practices, and how would one recognize the absence of standards? Is there a difference in the response based on who poses the question (a student, a post-doc, a technician)? Although it is expected that academicians will achieve an adequate balance among teaching, research and publication, there is an inherent dilemma of commitment - even a conflict of interest - in the very nature of academia. The competitiveness of maintaining a tenure-track faculty position helps distort priorities and results in the use or abuse of students and post-docs.
Why are these standards necessary? To protect the integrity of the scientific process; to maintain the self-correcting attitude of the scientific community; to ensure the practice of sharing materials upon request; and to assure proper allocation of credit.
Despite the fact that ethics cases do not often conclude in clear judgments, in this case we can label Mary's actions as undoubtedly wrong. Her verbal agreement, in addition to her multiple obligations toward her former adviser, dictates that she communicate her intentions and seek advice and collaboration for publication of her results. Her action betrayed fundamental scientific principles about collaboration and data sharing and their necessity for the advancement of science. It also undermines trust in her as a fellow scientist and the importance of peer fellowship.
How should Abbot respond? She could speak to Mary; she could speak to Jonas, or she could ask advice from a third party. She could submit a written complaint to the conference organizers, requesting that they remove the abstract. Finally, she could approach Jonas's dean. Should she do that after she has sought communication with Mary, Jonas, both, neither?
The strained relationships Abbott's action may create should be considered in light of her position as a not-yet-tenured faculty member, a scientist in need of publications and a woman-scientist.
References
- Association of American Medical Colleges, Teaching the Responsible Conduct of Research through a Case Study Approach (Washington, D.C.: Association of American Medical Colleges, 1994).
- Bebeau, M. J. et al., Moral Reasoning in Scientific Research: Cases for Teaching and Assessment. Bloomington: Indiana University, 1995.
- Bulger, R. E. Scientific Ethics and the Responsible Conduct of Research: An Introduction, in Research Integrity: A Professional, Ethical and Social Obligation. Proceedings, University of Texas-Houston Health Science Center, 1999.
- Bulger, R. E., Heitman, E., and Reiser, S. J., eds. The Ethical Dimensions of the Biological Sciences. Melbourne: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
- Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, On Being a Scientist: Responsible Conduct in Research. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1995.
- Elliott, D. and Stern, J. E., eds., Research Ethics: A Reader. Hanover, N.H.: University Press of New England, 1997.
- National Academy of Sciences, Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process, Vol. 1. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1992.
- Weil, V., Owning and Controlling Technical Information. In James A. Jaksa and Michael S. Pritchard, eds. Responsible Communications: Ethical Issues in Business, Industry and the Professions. Cresskill, N.J.: Hampton Press, 1996.
