Anonymous

This case study highlights several unique challenges posed by conducting social science research on the Internet. Human subjects research generally is governed by those rules contained in 45 C.F.R. § 46 as well as the Belmont Report. In addition, the Office for Human Research Protections of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services provides a set of flow charts to help principal investigators and IRB administrators determine which regulations apply to a particular research project. Researchers should examine the potential consequences of alternative research designs in terms of their duty to uphold the values of respect, beneficence and justice endorsed in the federal standards.

However, these general principles may not always provide sufficient guidance for researchers who explore the emerging and important area of human behavior in online venues. Some commentators suggest that traditional ethical interpretations may no longer be relevant for Internet research due to technological progress. Others contend instead that existing rules simply need to be updated and augmented by context-specific guidelines. In fact, research in different virtual environments may present different ethical implications, which then require different ethical analyses. As a result, each of the following examples of computer-mediated communication may invoke different fact-specific ethical outcomes:

• Blogs
• Chatrooms
• Computer-supported collaborative workspaces
• E-mail
• Instant messaging
• Listservs
• Massively multiplayer gaming environments
• Newsgroups
• Online communities
• Podcasts
• Webcams and video chat
• Web sites

In 2002 the Ethics Working Committee of the Association of Internet Researchers (AOIR) prepared a set of recommendations to help inform the ethical study of online human interactions. The AOIR code of ethics constitutes a set of professional norms that Internet researchers can consult in conjunction with other ethical guidelines adopted by specific academic disciplines. Since emerging technologies will continue to produce unanticipated ethical challenges, Internet researchers are encouraged to develop an enhanced sense of good judgment to resolve new ethical dilemmas encountered online. Often this means identifying specific points of conflict involved in a particular situation, and then choosing among two or more legitimate yet competing value systems to craft a workable ethical solution.

For example, in Part 1 of this case study Dr. McIntosh views the NFF community as a public arena, while Roger regards it as a private space. Dr. McIntosh initially suggests lurking in the online forum to gather research data. Such behavior presumably would not involve interaction or intervention with living individuals to obtain individually identifiable information. Therefore this version of the project might not be considered human subjects research under 45 C.F.R. § 46 and informed consent might not be needed. Alternatively, even if this project does constitute human subjects research, it may simply involve observing public behavior or collecting existing data. Those activities may qualify for a federal exemption under 45 C.F.R. § 46.101(b)(2) or (b)(4).

Roger nonetheless could argue that some sensitive posted messages might include individually identifiable information. However, gathering individually identifiable information is not considered human subjects research if that material already is public. Thus any ethical analysis must assess whether such messages were considered private when initially posted. In this case it is not stated whether the NFF community web site provides an explicit announcement to members and guests regarding whether it constitutes a private or public space.

Federal regulations indicate that individual participants, rather than researchers, should establish the relevant public/private distinction on a personal basis. According to 45 C.F.R. § 46.102(f)(2):

Private information includes information about behavior that occurs in a context in which an individual can reasonably expect that no observation or recording is taking place, and information which has been provided for specific purposes by an individual and which the individual can reasonably expect will not be made public (for example, a medical record).

However, several commentators have noted that the Internet realm problematizes the traditional division between public and private spaces since an online environment arguably can perform both functions simultaneously. It therefore may be difficult to apply the C.F.R. standards in this complex situation. For example, qualifying for an exemption under 45 C.F.R. § 46.101(b)(4) requires that pre-existing data sources be publicly available, which may not be easy to determine with respect to archived discussion group postings.

A survey of participants’ attitudes in the NFF forum may reveal that it functions as a public sphere. Accordingly, Dr. McIntosh and Roger’s project may be exempt from federal regulation. However, the researchers might apply for IRB approval anyway. For instance, some academic institutions require IRB clearance for all university-affiliated research, even if a project technically does not meet the federal threshold for human subjects research. Moreover, IRBs increasingly are developing expertise in working with Internet researchers. IRB administrators can provide guidance based on past experience with other online projects, such as identifying potential ethical issues implicated by particular research designs. Conversely, researchers may help educate IRB members regarding the complexities of Internet-based research.

As an example, the Belmont Report addresses whether vulnerable populations can comprehend research risks in order to provide voluntary informed consent. In the absence of the face-to-face contact associated with traditional research activities, Dr. McIntosh and Roger’s efforts to screen NFF forum members in order to exclude vulnerable participants might benefit from IRB suggestions based on prior virtual research projects. Alternatively, Dr. McIntosh and Roger could help IRB members develop standards for online informed consent that could apply to future Internet research studies as well.

In Part 2 of the case study, Dr. McIntosh and Roger must evaluate several potential research designs in terms of their obligations to protect the interests of NFF forum participants. According to the federal guidelines, researchers must weigh the risks of each approach against the benefits it offers for participants as well as the general welfare. Online researchers recognize, however, that research methods such as discourse analysis, participant observation, and social network analysis may increase the risk of disclosing identifiable participant information due to the rich descriptions contained in their narrative reports.

The AOIR guidelines suggest a conservative approach that respects forum participants’ assumptions regarding online privacy even though such perspectives may be mistaken or unrealistic. Variables such as the size of the online community involved, as well as the potentially sensitive nature of conversational topics, also may affect participants’ privacy expectations and thus influence the ethical analysis. As a result, IRB feedback could be valuable during this assessment, or perhaps might help generate alternative scenarios that may be more ethically advantageous. However, some commentators contend that IRB members sometimes do not fully understand the complex nature of online research. In fact, in some cases IRBs may seek to impose unreasonable constraints upon Internet researchers.

Since the Internet increasingly is a global environment, online research also may involve cross-cultural perspectives. For example, individual online participants may possess different cultural attitudes regarding the nature and scope of personal privacy. In such cases the question arises as to whose views should govern the analysis.

U.S. regulations such as the Belmont Report and 45 C.F.R. § 46 apply a utilitarian cost/benefit calculus. In contrast, other cultural traditions adopt a more deontological position which asserts that fundamental human rights, including the right to privacy, simply cannot be violated. Furthermore, international regulatory standards such as the European Commission’s Directive on Data Protection potentially may conflict with U.S. mechanisms for protecting the privacy of research participants. As a result, Dr. McIntosh and Roger must address the status of any non-U.S. participants in the NFF online community when considering their responsibilities as researchers.

In Part 3 of the case study, Dr. McIntosh and Roger propose a participatory research design that empowers NFF forum participants as stakeholders in the research process. At the same time, they must decide whether to engage in overt research as opposed to (1) deceptive research with a debriefing component; (2) complete nondisclosure of research activities; or (3) incomplete disclosure of the true nature of their research. In many ways an online environment can facilitate covert research options due to the lack of face-to-face communication. This approach may be advantageous for certain research goals, but must be justified on an ethical basis under the federal guidelines.

The case study indicates that messages posted in the NFF virtual forum are publicly available and searchable. However, forum moderator Wayne confirms that most participants view such messages as private despite their actual public nature. If Dr. McIntosh and Roger offer guarantees of confidentiality, they must then protect the digital data they collect against unauthorized access. For example, they might encrypt data while in transit and also restrict access via a system of passwords. They may choose to store raw data files on a non-networked computer and safeguard individual identifiers on a different machine. In addition, they could develop trustworthy data retention and destruction policies and explain them to participants.

If Dr. McIntosh and Roger include detailed quotes from forum participants in any published materials, they should recognize that readers might be able to use current or future search engine technologies to identify the NFF forum as the source of such information. Thus it may be important not only to shield individual identities by using pseudonyms, but also to mask the online community’s true identity as well. One alternative is to provide an additional layer of anonymity by creating “double pseudonyms” rather than merely relying upon participants’ own online pseudonyms.

Another option is to modify the specific language of quoted material in a manner that reduces the likelihood that it could be traced back to the NFF forum through online search techniques. Of course, this risk must be balanced against the goal of presenting participants’ statements accurately and respectfully through direct quotes. In addition, some participants may view their posted messages as published works subject to copyright protection, which might limit the researchers’ ability to alter or redistribute such original communications in scholarly publications unless they obtain the explicit permission of those authors.

Finally, negotiating consent at the group level to conduct research in the NFF online community may raise the issue of whether basic concerns for individual respect, beneficence and justice have been fully addressed. A simple majority vote limited to current members might not represent the interests of all participants in an inclusive manner. For example, some participants may not fully understand the risk of public exposure of sensitive online discussions, particularly since there could be no opportunity for face-to-face conversations to resolve potential ambiguities in the informed consent process. Moreover, Dr. McIntosh and Roger must decide how best to treat the posted messages of NFF participants who choose not to join the research project or do not complete an informed consent form. Consulting IRB administrators could produce a better strategy for developing a shared dialogue regarding informed consent that is sufficiently efficient yet protects individual rights. Prior IRB experience with documenting or waiving informed consent in online environments also may influence whether the board will accept digital signatures in lieu of handwritten versions.

Internet research challenges principal investigators and IRB members to apply current ethical rules within an online environment that continues to be transformed by socio-technical developments. Dr. McIntosh and Roger may decide to review the AOIR recommendations for guidance in conducting ethical research in virtual communities, and to consult the professional norms established by sociologists within their community of practice as well. Since no guidelines can keep pace with emerging technologies, however, Dr. McIntosh and Roger should interpret 45 C.F.R. § 46 and the Belmont Report in an adaptive manner that upholds the essential principles of both documents. In addition, they should leverage the expertise of IRB administrators to translate federal regulatory requirements in a meaningful way to reflect the ethical realities of the contemporary networked world.

Selected Bibliography

• Allen, C. 1996. “What’s wrong with the ‘golden rule’? Conundrums of conducting ethical research in cyberspace,” The Information Society, 12(2), 175-187.
• Association of Internet Researchers Ethics Working Committee. 2002. Ethical decision-making and Internet research. Retrieved on October 14, 2005, from http://www.aoir.org/reports/ethics.pdf.
• Bakardjieva, M., & Feenberg. A. 2001. “Involving the virtual subject,” Ethics and Information Technology, 2(4), 233-240.
• Bassett, E. H., and O’Riordan, K. 2002. “Ethics of Internet research: Contesting the human subjects research model,” Ethics and Information Technology, 4(3), 233-247.
• Berry, D. M. 2004. “Internet research: privacy, ethics and alienation: An open source approach,” Internet Research, 14(4), 323-332.
• Binik, Y. M., Mah, K., & Kiesler, S. 1999. “Ethical issues in conducting sex research on the Internet,” Journal of Sex Research, 36(1), 82-90.
• Boehlefeld, S. P. 1996. “Doing the right thing: Ethical cyberspace research,” The Information Society, 12(2), 141-152.
• Bromseth, J. C. H. 2002. “Public places—public activities? Methodological approaches and ethical dilemmas in research on computer-mediated communication contexts,” in A. Morrison (Ed.), Researching ICTs in context. Inter/Media Report 3/2002. Oslo: University of Oslo. Retrieved on October 14, 2005 from http://www.intermedia.uio.no/konferanser/skikt-02/docs/Researching_ICTs_in_context-Ch3-Bromseth.pdf.
• Brownlow, C., & O’Dell, L. 2002. “Ethical issues for qualitative research in on-line communities,” Disability & Society, 17(6), 685-694.
• Buchanan, E. A. 2002. “Internet research ethics and institutional review boards: New challenges, new opportunities,” in E. D. Garten & D. Williams (Eds.), Advances in Library Administration and Organization, 19 (pp. 85-99). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
• Buchanan, E. A., Ed. 2003. Readings in virtual research ethics: Issues and controversies. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.
• Bruckman, A. 2002. “Studying the amateur artist: A perspective on disguising data collected in human subjects research on the Internet,” Ethics and Information Technology, 4(3), 217-231.
• Capurro, R., & Pingel, C. 2002. “Ethical issues of online communication research,” Ethics and Information Technology, 4(3), 189-194.
• Cavanaugh, A. 1999. “Behaviour in public? Ethics in online ethnography,” Cybersociology, 6. Retrieved on May 24, 2005, from http://www.socio.demon.co.uk/magazine/6/cavanaugh.html.
• Childress, C. A., & Asamen, J. K. 1998. “The emerging relationship of psychology and the Internet: Proposed guidelines for conducting research,” Ethics and Human Behavior, 8(1), 19-35.
• Elgesem, D. 2002. “What is special about the ethical issues in online research?” Ethics and Information Technology, 4(3), 195-203.
• Ess, C. 2002. “Introduction: Special issue on Internet research ethics,” Ethics and Information Technology, 4(3), 177-188.
• Ess, C. 2003. “The cathedral or the bazaar? The AOIR document on Internet research ethics as an exercise in open source ethics,” in M. Consalvo et al. (Eds.), Internet research annual vol. 1: Selected papers from the Association of Internet Researchers conferences 2000-02 (pp. 95-103). New York: Peter Lang Publishing.
• Eysenbach, G., & Till, J. E. 2001. “Ethical issues in qualitative research on Internet communities,” British Medical Journal, 323(10), 1103-1105.
• Flicker, S., Haans, D., & Skinner, H. 2004. “Ethical dilemmas in research in Internet communities,” Qualitative Health Research, 14(1), 124-134.
• Frankel, M. S., & Siang, S. 1999. Ethical and legal aspects of human subjects research on the Internet: A report of a workshop. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
• Hakken, D. 2003. “An ethics for an anthropology in and of cyberspace,” in C. Fluehr-Lobban (Ed.), Ethics and the profession of anthropology: Dialogue for ethically conscious practice (2nd ed., pp. 179-95). Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
• Herring, S. 1996. “Linguistic and critical analysis of computer-mediated communication: Some ethical and scholarly considerations,” The Information Society, 12(2), 153-168.
• Hudson, J. M., & Bruckman, A. 2004. “‘Go away’: Participant objections to being studied and the ethics of chatroom research,” The Information Society, 20(2), 127-139.
• Jacobson, D. 1999. “Doing research in cyberspace,” Field Methods, 11(2), 127-145.
• Johns, M. D. 2005. “Unique and ordinary problems in Internet research: Research ethics, the law, and power politics in institutional review,” Iowa Journal of Communication, 37(1), 87-101.
• Johns, M. D., Chen, S. S., & Hall, J. G., Eds. 2004. Online social research: Methods, issues, and ethics. New York: Peter Lang.
• Jones, R. A. 1994. “The ethics of research in cyberspace,” Internet research: Electronic networking applications and policy, 4(3), 30-35.
• Keller, H. E., & Lee, S. 2003. “Ethical issues surrounding human participants research using the Internet,” Ethics & Behavior, 13(3), 211-219.
• King, S. A. 1996a. “Researching Internet communities: Proposed ethical guidelines for the reporting of results,” The Information Society, 12(2), 119-127.
• King, S. A. 1996b. “Commentary on responses to the proposed guidelines,” The Internet Society, 12(2), 199-201.
• Kleinman, S. S. 2002. “Methodological and ethical challenges of researching a computer-mediated group,” Journal of Technology in Human Services, 19(2/3), 49-63.
• Kraut, R., Olson, J., Banaji, M., Bruckman, A., Cohen, J., & Couper, M. 2004. “Psychological research online: Report of the scientific affairs advisory group on the conduct of research on the Internet,” American Psychologist, 59(2), 105-117.
• Mann, C., & Stewart, F. 2000. Internet communication and qualitative research: A handbook for researching online. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
• Mathy, R. M., Kerr, D. L., & Haydn, B. M. 2003. “Methodological rigor and ethical considerations in Internet-mediated research,” Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 40(1-2), 77-85.
• Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R. 2002. “E-research: Ethics, security, design, and control in psychological research on the Internet,” Journal of Social Issues, 58(1), 161-176.
• Office for Human Research Protections, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2004. Human subject regulations decision charts. Retrieved on October 14, 2005, from http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/decisioncharts.htm
• Pittenger, D. J. 2003. “Internet research: An opportunity to revisit classic ethical problems in behavioral research,” Ethics & Behavior, 13(1), 45-60.
• Reid, E. 1996. “Informed consent in the study of on-line communities: A reflection on the effects of computer-mediated social research,” The Information Society, 12(2), 169-174.
• Schrum, L. 1995. “Framing the debate: Ethical research in the information age,” Qualitative Inquiry, 1(3), 311-326.
• Schrum, L. 1997. “Ethical research in the information age: Beginning the dialog,” Computers in Human Behavior, 13(2), 117-125.
• Sharf, B. F.  1999. “Beyond netiquette: The ethics of doing naturalistic discourse research on the internet,” in S. Jones (Ed.), Doing Internet research: Critical issues and methods for examining the Net (pp. 243-256). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
• Sixsmith, J., & Murray, C. D. 2001. “Ethical issues in the documentary data analysis of Internet posts and archives,” Qualitative Health Research, 11(3), 423-432.
• Stern, S. R. 2003. “Encountering distressing information in online research: A consideration of legal and ethical responsibilities,” New Media & Society, 5(2), 249-266.
• Thomas, J. 1996. “Introduction: A debate about the ethics of fair practices for collecting social science data in cyberspace,” The Information Society, 12(2), 107-117.
• Thomas, J. 1996. “When cyberresearch goes awry: The ethics of the Rimm ‘cyberporn’ study,” The Information Society, 12(2), 189-198.
• Walther, J. 2002. “Research ethics in Internet-enabled research: Human subjects issues and methodological myopia,” Ethics and Information Technology, 4(3), 205-216.
• Waskul, D., & Douglass, M. 1996. “Considering the electronic participant: Some polemical observations on the ethics of on-line research,” The Information Society, 12(2), 129-139.
• White, M. 2002. “Representations or people?” Ethics and Information Technology, 4(3), 249-266.

This list includes the name, affiliation, website, and comments from each of the participants in the Synthetic Biology and Engineering Ethics Workshop conducted at the National Academy of Engineering 500 Fifth Street, NW, Washington DC, September 30, 2010.

SYNTHETIC BIOLOGY

Kristala Jones Prather, Assistant Professor of Chemical Engineering at MIT,
(Website)

Bruce Rittmann, Director of the Center for Environmental Biotechnology in the Biodesign Institute at Arizona State University,
(Website; Comments) 

Brian Pfleger, Assistant Professor of Chemical and Biological Engineering at the University of Wisconsin-Madison,
(Website; Comments)

James Kealey, Director of the Molecular Biology Department, Amyris Biotechnologies
(Website; Comments)

ENGINEERING ETHICS

Deborah Johnson, Anne Shirley Carter Olsson Professor of Applied Ethics in the Department of Science, Technology, and Society in the School of Engineering and Applied Science of the University of Virginia, 
(Website; Comments)

Carl Mitcham, Professor at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, Colorado School of Mines
(Website; Comments)
 

Michael Loui, Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at the University of Illinois – Urbana, 
(Website; Comments)

Mariachiara Tallacchini, Professor of Philosophy of Law at the Law Faculty of the Catholic University of Piacenza (Italy),
(Website; Comments)

Research Questions

Participants in the workshop were asked to consider the following questions.  The "Comments" listed below include each participant's pre-workshop responses to these questions.

• FOR EXPERTS IN ENGINEERING ETHICS
  • After reading the one-pager, can you come up with two questions focused on ethical issues that seem key to developing socially responsible synthetic biology?
  • Can you also formulate one personal reflection about the shape that collaborations between engineering ethics and an emerging technology like synthetic biology should take?
  • What activities and materials should have priority in ethics training in synthetic biology?
• FOR EXPERTS IN SYNTHETIC BIOLOGY
  • After reading the one-pager, can you come up with two ethics-related questions that seem key or unaddressed, or that you have encountered while practicing bio-engineering/synthetic biology?
  • Can you also formulate one personal reflection about the shape that collaborations between experts in synthetic biology and experts in engineering ethics should take?
  • What activities and materials should have priority in ethics training in synthetic biology?

Collection of human samples in epidemiological studies has increased over the years, especially with the emergence of biomarkers as clinical indicators of outcomes (in this case pregnancy). This case is a good one for new students who may not know whether researchers should inform research participants of their test results. The case is designed to provoke discussion regarding the release of test results to participants, the use of consent forms, and the problem of conflict among committee members.

The case begins by introducing the basics of the study, but only for the female participants. Deliberately, the first paragraph mentions the female role in the study, but subsequent paragraphs gravitate back to the couple. Even the first two questions use the word "couples" instead of female participant. Keep this distinction in mind when discussing the case.

Question 1. Should Wilma notify the couples about their pregnancy test values? Does Wilma have an obligation to inform all participants of their results, as Ready suggests?

Immediately, most new students will say that this is an easy question. Of course the couples should be notified about their test results. Re-emphasize that these test results will be coming to the participants at least a year after the fact. Ask how the results should be reported to the participants: as quantitative values? as qualitative values? What kind of explanation should accompany the results? Then start to play on emotions here. What about couples that had pregnancy losses? How will you inform them and explain their results? Should discussions with these couples differ from discussions with couples who had successful pregnancies?

Next, direct discussion away from the couple to the female participant. "What if the female participant does not want to know her results? Do we send them to her anyway?" At this point, the role of the consent form should be considered. Help the students come to an understanding that on the consent form, a box can be checked off specifying whether the participant wishes to receive test results. This box should be preceded by a paragraph describing the testing procedures that clearly informs that participants what kind of results will be available.

Another discussion can arise from this question: "What if the female participant does not want to know her test results, but her husband or partner does? Does he have a right to the test results?" Again, this question points out the ambiguity of a study based on couples in which individuals provide data.

Question 2. Is there any medical benefit in informing couples of their pregnancy results?

Most couples experiencing infertility receive a recommendation to see a specialist after 12 months of unsuccessful attempts at conception. The research results would be beneficial for the doctor, especially if an early spontaneous loss occurred. This result would indicate to the doctor that the couple is able to conceive, but is having problems maintaining the pregnancy.

Question 3. How should Wilma handle the conflicting opinions of her committee members?

When researchers work together, conflicting opinions may appear. However, conflicting opinions among committee members can cause panic for students. The following are some suggestions based on one institutional perspective. Adapt the discussion to your own institutional practices.

Deliberately, the case does not indicate that Knowledge offered an opinion. He is Wilma's adviser, and Wilma should utilize him when conflicts of this nature occur. Wilma and her adviser should discuss the opinions of her committee members and make a decision together. Ultimately, establishing a compromise, as suggested with the check-off box on the consent form, will help in Wilma's situation. What if Ready is not willing to reach a middle road, but still believes that all participants should get a copy of their test results no matter what? Again, the student should ask the advice of her adviser. Knowledge needs to back his student.

Ultimately, the committee is composed of individuals chosen by the student. The student has a right to dismiss anyone from his or her committee. This step is recommended only as a last resort.

This case is intended to have a two-fold utility. First, it provides a framework for discussion of ethical decision making between science faculty members and prospective graduate students. Second, it places the glut of graduate students in science, a topic that might otherwise be taboo, in a forum where both faculty and students can address concerns. The topic has been gaining in importance as more graduate students seem to be entering various fields, even as job opportunities seem to be scarce. The problem seems clear, yet the responsible parties are not as evident. The topic raises a variety of issues that may be difficult to discuss in an open exchange involving both students and their faculty advisers. Focusing on the case may allow them to address their concerns more comfortably and openly in an nonthreatening setting.

Because the case involves a variety of parties who have very different rights and responsibilities, it might be enlightening to discuss the case within the framework of relational ethics. Within this framework, each character (or group, institution, etc.) should be addressed in terms of the rights that they have (or should have) and their responsibilities to the groups with which they have a relationship. Ethical decision making by the various participants involves the balancing of all characters' rights, while honoring their responsibilities. In many cases analyzed in this way, a solution may be reached that maximizes the likelihood that responsibilities will be met. What may be most frustrating (and therefore interesting) about this case is that it may become evident that it is impossible for some of the characters to honor all of their responsibilities, and therefore a quick fix may not be apparent.

In this case, the main players are Steve Hill, Mike Bowman, Alice Devorak and Butz. The other, less obvious players might include the department faculty, the university, the scientific community, granting agencies and professional societies.

To highlight the importance of examining ethical decision making in terms of rights and responsibilities associated with an individual's relationships, I will briefly discuss some of Hill's decisions.

At a simplistic level of analysis, Hill has the following relationships, which are accompanied by specific responsibilities:

Relationship with: Mike Bowman

Responsibilities: To make an honest assessment of his potential in graduate school and beyond. To treat him fairly, without bias based on race, religion, etc.

Comments: Although these responsibilities may seem clear, it is not difficult to think of situations where Hill's responsibilities may actually infringe on Mike's rights. For example, perhaps one would argue that it was wrong for Hill to deceive Mike with regard to the status of his proposal; the correct action would have been to be honest from the outset. Therefore the right action for Hill would be to explain his misgivings and turn Mike down.

Perhaps, however, Hill sees potential in Mike and does not want to dissuade him entirely from science and graduate school, but instead wants to discourage his entering Hill's research program. Hill would have the best perspective on whether his research program was fruitful in terms of his graduate students finding employment. Although Hill's actions are paternalistic, perhaps he is in an appropriate position to act in such a way.

Relationship with: The department and university

Responsibilities: To maintain an active research program that brings both prestige and a consistent source of income to the institution. To mentor graduate students.

Comments: Although Hill's responsibilities to the institution are far more complex, this may be an appropriate starting point. The case explains that Hill has enjoyed a successful career and therefore perhaps his mere presence at the university affords the institution a source of prestige. Contrast this situation with that of Devorak, a junior faculty member. If prestige is gained through productivity and publications, how would her status in the department affect her decisions about staffing her lab?

Hill has received a favorable review regarding a pre-proposal he submitted. This response is a strong indication that his project will be funded. Assume that the proposal has sufficient funding (and research needs) to support a new graduate student. Hill feels, however, that he has become disjointed from the science, and is not satisfied with simply writing proposals and manuscripts, while the graduate students and technicians carry out the research. (He shares Devorak's concerns.)

Although he knows that he could get the funding and add a graduate student, he does not feel comfortable with the situation, and therefore does not pursue the funding. Has he violated his responsibility to the university? Based on Butz's comments, he has clearly violated his responsibilities to his department. But what are Hill's rights? Is he in an autonomous position to decide whether he should take on the funding?

It is clear that when we fold in the university's relationship to its graduate students, the situation becomes exceedingly complex. If the university educates graduate students, is it appropriate to view them in the context of cheap labor? Does the university have responsibilities to the graduate students beyond that of education? Or do all of these questions lead back to the responsibility of the prospective graduate students to recognize the limitations in the job market and their role in the university system?

Of course, the case may be approached in many ways. In order to get a feel for the frustration of the participants, a relational framework seems to work well, however. The above analysis is merely a jumping off point. In order to fully explore the appropriate actions of Hill and Devorak, all of the relevant relationships need to be considered. It may be especially important to consider the role of the scientific community and the granting agencies. Remember that researchers' status in the community and with the various granting agencies relies heavily on their perceived productivity. Emphasis on quantity over quality may threaten the fabric of good science.

This case is not intended to focus on the policies and procedures of viewing student records. Different institutions undoubtedly have specific policies about obtaining this kind of information while maintaining student privacy. Faculty and students should be aware of those policies and follow them.

Rather, the case is intended to focus on professors' responsibilities for helping their students deal with deficiencies in understanding and knowledge. Each course has a specific body of information that is intended to be transmitted to the student. If a chemistry professor noticed that a student had a problem understanding physics, he would send that student to the physics department. If he discovered a deficiency in computer programming, no one would expect him to do anything more than send the student to the computer science department for further study.

Teaching responsibilities become less clear when a student in a chemistry course does not understand mathematical tools that are utilized in the course. It is easy to say that Dr. Franklin should teach Jim the necessary math to complete the course assignments, but that would be done at a cost to the other students in the class, the graduate students Franklin is advising, and the other departmental responsibilities he carries. The huge amounts of time he has already spent with Jim have prevented other students from having their questions answered. This type of situation also arises for graduate student instructors who have teaching responsibilities on top of their own course work and research responsibilities.

It is important for Jim to be made aware of his deficiencies. School is the time when Jim will have the most resources available to learn the material that he needs to master in order to earn a meaningful degree. Institutions have many sources of help in the form of resource centers, tutoring and help sessions, learning centers, etc. Professors and graduate students should be aware of these resources to enable students to receive the help they need. Rather than simply ignoring Jim's lack of understanding, Franklin identified a specific deficiency, helped generate reasonable solutions and ultimately left the student in a position to decide how to proceed to solve the problem.

It is also essential to help students who need special attention without compromising them within the department by gossiping about their problems and difficulties. Other faculty members in the department are likely to encounter students in other courses or asked to write recommendations for them. Discussions about students must be responsible and respectful.

This case is meant to bring to the forefront some issues related to the testing of pharmacologic agents in children. As is stated in the case, children physiologically are not always just smaller versions of adults. Disease states may present and progress differently in children than in adult counterparts. For these reasons, not all therapeutic drugs can be given to children in smaller dosage with the assumption that the pharmacological effects will be the same as in adults. A drug may be more or less efficacious in children than in adults, and the side effect profile may be different or less tolerable to a younger person. These issues can be resolved only by controlled clinical trials in the target population.

Part 1 of this case focuses on the problems associated with inadequate studies in children and concerns with designing trials involving the pediatric population. The first ethical concern is raised by pediatricians using Eradovir in children although the drug has Food and Drug Administration approval only for adult use. This kind of prescribing practice is known as "off-label usage." A pediatrician may be faced with this prescribing situation if the drug of choice has not been studied in children for a specific disease state. Prescribing drugs in children without adequate clinical studies could be detrimental to the patient; however, it also may be extremely beneficial, especially in life-threatening diseases such as AIDS. The agents used to treat AIDS can be very toxic but, given in proper dosages, they can prolong life. Without adequate study, pediatricians may not have information regarding appropriate dosages and therefore can over- or under-medicate the child, increasing risk. On the other hand, patients may be denied potentially life-saving drugs because rigorous tests have not been performed on their specific age group.

Part 1 also deals with protocol design. Cureall scientists are debating the justification of a placebo arm to the trial. For a clinical study to determine whether a therapeutic agent has activity against a specific disease, a control group is needed for comparison of the positive and negative effects of the drug. The control group subjects may be given an inert pill known as a placebo, or, if other drugs are available for use in that disease, the test drug may be compared against the currently used agent, called "standard of care." The problem in this case is that there have been no previous clinical trials with antivirals for AIDS in children, and thus no appropriate therapeutic standard of care has been established. Therefore, Eradovir will need to be tested against a placebo to determine whether it is efficacious. A placebo group in the clinical trial will require that some infected children be given an inactive pill. If Eradovir proves to be effective against AIDS, then the children who received placebo will lose essential treatment time; however, if Eradovir is shown to have untoward effects or to be of little benefit, children in the placebo group will have been spared the risk. American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) guidelines state that a placebo is ethical to use "when there is no commonly accepted therapy for the condition and the agent under study is the first one that may modify the course of the disease process." (American Academy of Pediatrics, 1995a). In the situation described in this case, a placebo group may be ethically and scientifically justified.

The second question Cureall scientists are discussing is whether compensation of study subjects is appropriate. Subjects in many clinical studies receive a small amount of money or gift certificate as compensation for participating. Ethical issues can arise if the amount paid is so high that it may entice people to take risks they would not normally take for the sake of the financial reward. In the Eradovir study, $100 will be given for every month of study completed in addition to free medical checkups. Since the clinical centers that will be conducting the study are urban hospitals, there is a great chance of having a large percentage of subjects from low-income backgrounds. The study design must guard against parents deciding to enroll their child, regardless of the potential risks associated with Eradovir, for the $100 per month and free medical care. An extra $100 per month may not appear to be a large sum of money, but it may be significant for disadvantaged families. Compensation for any study must be carefully evaluated to minimize the risk of subjects enrolling for financial gain regardless of the risks associated with the study.

In addition to determining participants' compensation, the investigators must decide whether the money will go directly to the child or to the parent/guardian. Is it the child's money or the adult's? The parent or guardian is the one providing the overall care for the child and is responsible for getting the child to the physician's office for study participation. They are taking time out of their schedule and could be taking time from work. However, the child's body is the one being used to conduct the experiment. It seems more ethically appropriate for payment to go directly to the child than to the parent/guardian. Of course, writing a check in the child's name will not guarantee that the child will receive the money. Also, to most children mature enough to understand the value of money, $100 is not a trivial amount. Such issues need to be carefully evaluated while developing the protocol.

The case continues with Part 2, describing a scene in a physician's office with a foster mother (Mary), the foster child who has AIDS (Liz) and the physician (Dr. Kid). Dr. Kid, an investigator involved with Cureall's Eradovir protocol, is trying to recruit Liz as a study subject. The first ethical issue is addressed by Question 1: Dr. Kid reassures Mary about Eradovir's potentially serious, even fatal, side effects. Could Dr. Kid's comments be considered coercion? Dr. Kid's responsibilities are to answer accurately all of Mary's questions and concerns regarding the protocol. Although Dr. Kid is correct in telling Mary that the fatal side effects are rare and that none of his patients has ever suffered from them, it is inappropriate to tell her that he is unlikely ever to witness such adverse events in his patients. Dr. Kid has no way to determine if one of his patients will suffer such problems from Eradovir therapy in the future. After downplaying the negative effects, Dr. Kid highlights all the potential benefits of therapy. His behavior would be considered coercive. Dr. Kid should be honest in telling Mary that Liz could develop a serious and potentially fatal complication, no matter how rare. Further, quickly refocusing Mary on the potential benefits of being a patient in the study is a way of enticing her.

This case is made more complex by Mary being Liz's foster mother rather than her biological parent. Whether or not a foster parent can enroll a foster child in a trial depends on the laws of that particular state (Levine, 1991). Unfortunately, children may be orphaned by AIDS. We will assume that this case is taking place in a state that allows foster children to be enrolled in clinical studies.

Question 2 focuses on Mary's decision to allow Liz's participation and whether the decision is easier to make since she is not a biological parent. That is a very difficult issue to address. Mary, like most foster parents, may be as loving to Liz as she is or would be with her biological children. Just because a child is not a biological offspring does not mean that a foster parent cannot provide as good or possibly better care than the biological parent. Both biological and foster parents are capable of providing loving and nurturing environments; however, both groups can provide unhealthy environments as well. It is unfair to assume that Mary is not giving Liz a wonderful home.

Dr. Kid's role here is to evaluate the relationship between Liz and Mary and to try and determine if it is adequate. He definitely needs to take the foster relationship into consideration. How long has Mary been Liz's foster mother? Does Liz appear happy with Mary? Does Mary have a history of providing foster care and, if so, is it a good record? Does Mary have biological children, and, if so, were/are they well cared for? As with all families he encounters, Dr. Kid needs to evaluate how the parent views the child. The child needs to be protected against enrollment in the study for inappropriate reasons (i.e., financial/medical incentives).

Question 3 raises the issue of assent. In the case, Liz is a 3-year-old child and thus too young to intellectually assess the situation and the associated risks and benefits. Typically, assent is sought from children who have an intellectual age of at least 7 years, in addition to parental permission (American Academy of Pediatrics, 1995b). If Liz were a 10-year-old of normal mental capacity, assent should be required for her participation in the study. If she were to decline enrollment it would be unethical to use coercive measures, financial or otherwise, to induce her to participate.

In Question 4, readers are asked to reflect on whether they would allow their own children to enroll in the Eradovir study. Most people would probably agree that there is good medical and scientific reason to study pharmacologic agents in children. However, whose children should be study subjects? If Liz were your offspring, would you allow her to participate in this clinical study knowing she will exposed to the risk of developing severe and possibly fatal side effects? On the other hand, the therapy may extend her life and improve her quality of life. This question really is posed to get the reader to think more personally about research in children. It may seem necessary, as long as the studies do not involve their children.

This case touches on only a few of the ethical issues related to children's participation in research. As difficult as the concerns may be, the knowledge gained from such studies is worth the effort. Carefully devised research protocols aimed at answering questions regarding children's health will allow for better treatment of pediatric populations, but they must guard against unnecessary risk.

References

• American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Drugs. "Guidelines for the Ethical Conduct of Studies to Evaluate Drugs in Pediatric Populations." Pediatrics 95 (1995a): 286-294.
• American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Bioethics. "Informed Consent, Parental Permission, and Assent in Pediatric Practice." Pediatrics 95 (1995b): 314-317.
• Levine, C. "Children in HIV/AIDS Clinical Trials: Still Vulnerable after All These Years." Law, Medicine and Health Care. 19 (1991): 231-237. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Part 1

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

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

Part 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

Student-Mentor Relationship

Rights and Responsibilities

Misconduct vs. Questionable Research Practices

Conclusion

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

Student-Mentor Relationship

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rights and Responsibilities

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

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

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

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

Misconduct vs. Questionable Research Practices

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

References

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

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

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

References

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

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

Mark's options

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

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

Human subjects regulations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Responsibilities of Thomas, Fan Chen and the Institution

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

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

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

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

References

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

Informative Websites

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

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

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

Is there a substantive difference between paper records and Medusa?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

Discussion Questions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion Questions:

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

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

• What should Rosa Rubens do?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion Questions:

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

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

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

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

A sound contract protects all parties, especially WPP.

References

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

Background

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case Study Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

Discussion Question:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion Question:

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

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

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

Discussion Question:

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

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

Discussion Question:

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

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

Discussion Question:

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

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

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

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

References

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

Further Reading

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

Long-term Studies

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

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

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

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

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

This case

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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