Anonymous

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

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

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

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

Richard could do nothing.

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

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

Richard could inform Lisa.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion Questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Part 1

Part 2

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

Part 1

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

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

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

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

Back to Top

Part 2

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

Possible benefits

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

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

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

Back to Top

Potential repercussions

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

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

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

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

Back to Top

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This case is intended to focus discussion on the responsibilities of research advisers and graduate students in regard to completing work related to research. Most graduate students will do whatever an adviser asks in the research arena. A huge power differential exists between the graduate student and the adviser, who largely decides when a student has completed enough work to graduate and will be asked to write recommendations for the duration of the student's career. In this case, an argument can be made that Joe is being taken advantage of in preparing a presentation that his adviser will be making. Whether or not Joe's perception of the situation is accurate, he is definitely left with the feeling that he is completing Smith's work over the weekend at the expense of completing his own research. If Smith had a legitimate reason for not working on Saturday, this would have been an excellent time to share it with Joe. There are certainly legitimate reasons why Smith may not be able to work over the weekend, but he needs to respect Joe's time and effort enough to explain the situation to him.

Research advisers have a responsibility to be aware of what goes on in their lab. That includes being aware of workloads students are carrying, their general schedules, etc. It is definitely acceptable to expect students to carry out work at the direct request of the research adviser, but there is a huge difference between working for/with an adviser, and working instead of the adviser. Open communication between the adviser and the students is essential to maintaining a productive research environment.

Graduate students also have a responsibility to make certain that their advisers are aware of what they are doing. The communication must be both adviser-to-student and student-to-adviser. Joe bears some responsibility for Smith's taking advantage of him: He could have told Smith that he always works on Saturdays, that he had plans that weekend to start his last set of experiments, etc.

The second large question raised by this case is the murky issue of authorship. Research advisers should have a carefully thought out idea of how authorship is established and how the order of authors is decided. It is important to make sure that graduate students and collaborators are aware of these policies as well. Authorship issues often are not discussed openly because they are awkward and uncomfortable. It is worth it to face the discomforts of openly discussing these issues, however, to avoid situations like Joe's, where the student and adviser clearly have different ideas of what authorship should be. The students who have left the program should also have an opportunity to review the presentation if their names and data are included.

Overall, the research adviser is ultimately responsible for establishing the policies and norms that will be followed in the laboratory, whether by active participation and awareness of what goes on in their labs or by the default of nonparticipation. It is impossible for research advisers to avoid this responsibility. Better to craft the environment they want than to send the default message that there are no policies or standards for conducting research in the lab.

Working with advisers and other faculty on research studies is an integral part of the graduate school experience. It is an excellent opportunity for students to be mentored and guided as novice researchers. As we all know, the dissemination of study findings through publications and presentations is key to the success of labs and departments in most academic settings. However, professors and students often find themselves grappling with the rules, or lack of rules, when it comes to authorship. The purpose of this case study is to generate discussion about the typical pitfalls that both students and professors encounter in sorting out issues of authorship.

Although authorship is the key to academic success, it is rarely discussed during the planning stages of a study. When is the best time for researchers to discuss this issue? Jane and David discussed it at the outset of the study. During the planning stages they divided their responsibilities and decided that Jane would receive first authorship. This approach could avoid problems at the closure of a study when it is time to publish and both researchers may feel they deserve first authorship. Jane and David had an understanding at the beginning that David's contributions would be less than Jane's, and therefore she would be listed as first author.

The most obvious disadvantage to having a discussion about authorship at the outset of the study played out here in this case. David didn't follow through with the original plan that he would conduct the data analysis. In fact, his contributions to the study were minimal, at best. However, he and Jane had already agreed that he would be second author. How should Jane have handled this situation? Although not legally bound to include David as a second author, is she bound professionally to honor the agreement originally made? Was David ever told that Mark stepped in and completed his work? Mark was not told whether Jane informed David that a third party was brought in to do his work. Furthermore, Mark was never informed whether David insisted on remaining second author. It's hard to speculate about Jane's motives here. Why would she choose to jeopardize the integrity of her relationship with Mark in order to keep peace with David?

Friends collaborate daily in academic settings, and this scenario is not unusual. Professors, like students, seem to be unsure about how to handle the issue of authorship, especially when collaborators fail to do their part. Jane and David handled it well by discussing authorship early in the research process, but they failed to continue the discussion throughout. Unfortunately, Jane chose to handle the situation by avoiding it. She went so far as to exclude Mark from the writing of the manuscript in order to justify his placement as third author. How could Mark possibly argue that he deserved second authorship when he didn't contribute to the manuscript? Did Jane deceive Mark by excluding him from the writing of the manuscript? Absolutely. Regardless of her intentions, she failed to inform Mark that she would be writing the manuscript without him. Furthermore, Mark's contributions in the data analysis earned him the right to publish his findings. Even though Jane originally offered him the opportunity to do so, she failed to keep her word. The price that Jane paid here to avoid confrontation with David was considerable and unnecessary.

The second issue of this case is who should be included in the discussion of authorship. Jane approached Mark at the beginning of the study and asked him to participate. She was very clear with Mark regarding his responsibilities; however, she failed to inform him that an agreement had already been made regarding authorship. Mark might not have agreed to work on the study had he known that he had no chance of being listed as first or second author. Fortunately, for Jane, Mark was the typical graduate student who was flattered just to be asked.

Why wasn't Mark included in the discussion? The answer to this question brings up the issue of those responsibilities that lend themselves to receiving credit through authorship versus those that do not. It is common knowledge that some responsibilities, such as survey development and data analysis, are typically considered to be more important than other responsibilities, such as mailing surveys and keying data. Mark may not have been included in the discussion because he was originally responsible for mailing surveys and data entry. Jane and David may not have regarded his contributions to the study as significant.

The final issue in this case is Mark's responsibility to himself. Should Mark accept what his adviser tells him, or can he take further action to ensure that he receives proper credit for his hard work? Mark is in a difficult situation because he is not considered to be a colleague or a peer, but a subordinate. He was hired to do a job, not to be a collaborator or a major contributor on the project. If he chooses to confront his adviser, who is in a position of power, he may have difficulty throughout the remainder of his graduate school career. However, Mark should take responsibility for becoming informed about how to best handle issues of authorship in the future. Although Jane did not bring up the issue of authorship when she asked Mark to work on the study, perhaps Mark should have. There are no rules that say students can't ask. Students have a responsibility to themselves to become informed about university and department policies regarding ethical conduct in research, including authorship.

The Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (1995) recommends that frank and open discussion regarding the division of credit within a research group occur as early as possible in a study. Furthermore, they suggest that authorship criteria be explicit among all collaborators, as well as giving students and research assistants appropriate credit if they make an intellectual contribution to the research project. Jane was faced with a few situations here that required open and direct communication. Unfortunately, she missed a valuable opportunity to teach her student the best way to handle some tough issues with regard to authorship.

References

• Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. On Being a Scientist: Responsible Conduct in Research. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1995.

Compared to industry, many demands compete for Principal Investigators' (PIs') time on college campuses: They have teaching, administrative and laboratory responsibilities. Their ability to juggle all of these responsibilities is the subject of this case study, which illustrates how a PI's various roles affect the graduate and undergraduate students working in his lab.

Professor Hopkin is swamped by academic and teaching responsibilities. He asks Ryan, a senior graduate student in the lab, to help advise Laura with her undergraduate honors thesis. This situation happens frequently in academia and can be mutually beneficial: The graduate student gains mentoring experience, and the PI is able to free some time. The situation goes awry when too much of the PI's responsibility is pushed onto the graduate student.

Although Ryan enjoyed the time he spent helping Laura, he did not feel he was getting due credit. Instead of talking things out, however, he ignored the problem. The situation blew up when he found out that Laura and Hopkin were thinking of publishing the study. One important point to note is that the time to speak up about inconsistencies in practice is sooner, rather than later. The problem might have been avoided if Ryan had raised the issue a lot sooner than he did.

The other glaring problem in the case study is Laura's taking more credit than she deserves. She might not have realized the inappropriateness of her actions. After all, she is an undergraduate with minimal lab experience. If that is the case, then Ryan could have used the opportunity to educate her on research norms. If she deliberately overstated her role in the experiment, then she needs to be educated. One of the hallmarks of good research mentors is that they are able to guide their advisees through the research process, informing them about good research practices and norms.

The case study also brings up PIs' responsibility to their undergraduate and graduate students. Should the PI hold both classes of students to the same standards? Surely not. Undergraduates and graduate students should be held to different standards in terms of laboratory responsibilities and the extent of independent thinking expected of them, due to their different backgrounds. But how much work can a PI expect graduate students to do when it is not directly related to their own work?

This case study brings up lots of interesting questions for discussion. Is the PI being fair when he excludes Ryan from the author list? Ryan did contribute quite a lot in the early conceptualization stages and in helping to set up the experiment.

How should the PI handle a situation that pits an undergraduate's opinions against those of a graduate student? Should Hopkin take Ryan's comments at face value? What if Laura still insists that she did all the work?

Finally, should it matter that a publication would help Ryan's graduate career more than Laura's undergraduate career? Would it matter if Laura were going into business after graduation rather than academia? What if Ryan were going into business?

This case may lead to several areas of discussion, for example, the use of computers in the work place, the implications of strict computer use policies, or even co-worker interactions. The case identifies some of the common conflicts that can arise in the workplace with regard to the use of computers.

At first glance, it may be tempting to lead the review in a direction that aims to define pornography; it is the writer's hope that the case will instead lead to a discussion of how computer use in the workplace can affect the work environment. It is hoped that the discussion will focus on how the questionable use of computers in the workplace affects co-workers and the institution's image. The case should also lead to consideration of how policies governing the use of computers can affect workers and how these policies would be implemented and enforced.

In this case study, three people have been immediately affected by the situation. Frank and Jessica have been placed in an awkward position, while Mark has been pinned as a suspect, which could affect his interoffice/lab relationships and lead to questions about his professionalism. Jessica and Frank may or may not be opposed to pornography, just as they may or may not be opposed to Mark looking at airfare quotes, religious sites or neo-Nazi sites. This point relates to the first question: Would it have mattered if other potentially controversial material had been viewed? Suppose Mark had been using his lunch hour or a Saturday evening to get some air fare quotes for a trip to Aruba. Would that have been an abuse of office/lab equipment? The problem is that we don't always agree on the boundaries of what is permissible to view at work. While it is difficult to agree on appropriate computer use in the workplace, it is important to have guidelines. The use of computers has a broad impact because it is possible for cyber-fingerprints to be traced, which could affect an institution as a whole.

In analyzing this case, it is important to identify the individuals and institutions immediately affected by this situation (Jessica, Frank and Mark) as well as those who may be affected later (other co-workers, the head of the lab, the dean of the college, the university's image). Next, one should consider what course of action would be best. In devising a course of action, it is imperative to identify who will be affected by the course of action and what long- and short-term effects will result.

A comprehensive review should address the pros and cons of several courses of action. For example, it may be best for Jessica and Frank to approach Mark about his actions. In doing so, they will limit the exposure of this incident, and they may avoid further tarnishing Mark's reputation. Additionally, Jessica and Frank will reduce the probability that they will be required to testify publicly about their discovery. Unfortunately, this approach may not resolve the situation, and it may adversely affect the dynamics of the lab's social environment. Mark may feel he has been wrongfully accused, or he may feel awkward around his colleagues after such a confrontation.

An alternative approach is for Jessica and Frank to discuss the situation with their lab head. In this case, they may request anonymity, which may be comforting with respect to the social dynamics of the lab. A downside is that the lab head may view Jessica and Frank as being poor at problem solving and incapable of handling social issues. Another possibility is that the lab head may not believe the students or may trivialize the matter; these outcomes are possible if the suspect carries a higher rank in the lab than the whistle blower.

As one can see, many avenues of action are available, with different effects to consider. This case may lead to discussions about the ethical use of computers in the workplace and the dynamics of colleague interactions.

This case is meant to raise issues involved in determining whether scientific misconduct has been committed. Recently, a uniform definition for scientific misconduct has been proposed for all federal funding agencies.The Federal Register, October 14, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 198), pp. 55722-25. http://onlineethics.org/reseth/misc.html. In the current proposal, research misconduct is defined as fabrication, falsification or plagiarism in proposing, performing or reviewing research, or in reporting research results. Fabrication is making up results and recording and reporting them; falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record; and plagiarism is the appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results or words without giving appropriate credit, including those obtained through confidential review of others' research proposals and manuscripts. It is important to note that research misconduct does not include honest error or honest differences of opinion.

In this case study, Brighton is concerned that her data are being falsified. In contrast, Gilligan feels he is presenting the data in a favorable manner. As scientists we are influenced by our working hypotheses, but we need to be aware of the possibility of self-deception or delusion when interpreting our results. Gilligan feels that standards for presenting data vary among formats, i.e., grants, publications, etc. Undoubtedly, many scientists would agree. When writing a grant proposal, spin doctoring or salesmanship may be needed to convince the reviewers of the importance and feasibility of a project. But when does a "positive spin" become falsification of data?

According to the proposed definition of misconduct, changing and omitting data in the research record are not permitted. The research record is defined as the record of data or results that embody the facts resulting from scientific inquiry, and includes, for example, laboratory records, both physical and electronic, research proposals, progress reports, abstracts, theses, oral presentations, internal reports and journal articles. This list suggests that high standards must be applied in all formats for data recording/presenting.

The second set of questions is designed to generate discussion of institutional and government policies for reporting misconduct. Reporting scientific misconduct is obviously a sticky situation for all scientists; however, students and post-docs are in a difficult, tenuous position when they feel their adviser/mentor is falsifying or misinterpreting data. Consult institutional policies for reporting misconduct before presenting this case study. Additionally, consult the following websites for government misconduct regulations: http://www.ori.dhhs.gov; http://www.nsf.gov/oig/resmisreg.pdf; http://ori.hhs.gov/misconduct/index.shtml.

Lying, cheating and stealing are examples of behaviors that most members of our society would deem unethical in most situations. It follows that many young scientists may think of such behaviors when asked to discuss ethics. For example, it is unethical to fabricate data; it is unethical to copy someone elseÀs answers during an exam; and it is unethical to plagiarize. Each action is a relatively unambiguous example of unethical conduct, and scientists can easily define the behaviors that make each action unethical. Many of the ethical quandaries faced by scientists are not so straightforward. This case study is designed to illustrate a subtler ethical dilemma: conflicting commitments and obligations.

Conflicts of obligations are those situations where competing obligations prevent honoring both obligations effectively.Werhane, Patricia, and Doering, Jeffrey. "Conflicts of Interest and Conflicts of Commitments." Professional Ethics 4 (3 and 4, Spring/Summer 1995): 47-81. Young scientists are faced with conflicting obligations and commitments the minute they step into the laboratory. New graduate students certainly have obligations to their advisers/mentors, who are offering their expertise and affording environments in which students can pursue research. Students may also be obligated to assist other graduate students in laboratory or department. They may act as teaching assistants and therefore have obligations to undergraduate students. Outside academia, graduate students may have obligations to their families, who may have sacrificed so that the students could pursue higher education. The list can continue on and on.

While many graduate students feel that life becomes golden upon graduation, obligations seemingly loom larger. As professors, the scientists now have obligations to whole laboratories and all their players from student workers to technical assistants to graduate students. Professors also have obligations to their superiors, funding agencies, university committees, professional societies and families. Vesilind devotes an entire chapter to this juggling act in his book So You Want to Be a Professor.Vesilind, P. Aarne. "The Academic Career" in So You Want to Be a Professor. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications, Inc., 2000, pp. 173-80.

Unfortunately, very few scientists are professional jugglers by training. With so much promised to so many people, something has to give. When these obligations conflict and scientists are forced to honor one obligation over another, they may find themselves in an ethical pickle.

In this case, there should be no bad guy. Jones may come off as naive, and McCleary may seem a little aggressive, but one would be hard-pressed to determine where to place the blame. Certainly no one has committed any act that needs to be reviewed by a judiciary board. It is simply a case where commitments have been made to several different parties and the two major parties involved have a different hierarchy as of commitments.

Question 1: To whom is Jones obligated, and what does he owe them? What about McCleary?

Ideally, students will come up with a variety of answers to this question. Jones is certainly obligated to McCleary, who has funded him at least partially throughout his work, afforded him a laboratory with equipment and technicians. McCleary has also lent Jones his expertise and reputation in pursuing funding and provided an environment in which Jones can freely pursue the science that interests him. Jones is obligated to keep McCleary informed of his results and allow him to share in the credit for his successes at some level. Jones is also obligated to share in the responsibility of disseminating his research findings.

Jones is also obligated to the funding agencies that supported his work, one of which is a nonprofit organization devoted entirely to raising money to defeat Kruese's disease. Jones is responsible to the funding agencies for honestly pursuing his hypotheses and reporting his findings to them.

Jones may also have familial obligations and obligations to those who gave him technical support throughout the work. Students can continue in this same vein in trying to determine McCleary's obligations.

Question 2: In what ways do any of these obligations conflict?

Students can weave a complicated web trying to determine which obligations conflict. For example, Jones feels an obligation to the scientific community and recognizes that patents may hinder other scientists building on his work. The patents, however, would partially satisfy Jones's obligation to McCleary by letting him share in their successes. The patents also would add prestige and perhaps revenue to McCleary's lab, fulfilling in part the professor's obligations to his laboratory. McCleary, however, in an attempt to market the patent in a manner that brings profit to the lab, may make the test much more expensive than the Society for the Prevention of Kruese's disease would desire. Considering Jones's obligations to his family, it may be in his best interest to be part of the patent and make a little profit from his work.

Question 3: Which (if any) of these obligations are more important or stronger than others? Why?

The real ethical quandary develops when students are asked to determine which obligations are more important than others. Having to choose one obligation over another will push students to consider the ethics surrounding obligations. Why is it so bad to break promises?

Question 4: What are some of scientists' obligations to society? Are any of these obligations "special"? Why?

The first three questions are designed to encourage each individual to decide which obligations should receive priority in this particular situation. The fourth question is designed to encourage students to think of the bigger picture: our obligations to society as scientists. As research scientists, we spend years becoming experts in our fields. In many situations, what we research and how our results are used affect an enormous number of people. To say that we have "special" obligations may be pretentious. An assembly line worker has as great an obligation to society in ensuring that a car's braking system is properly assembled. The development of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, however, is one example of scientists being the most knowledgeable in their fields and seemingly failing in their obligations to society. The result has proved disastrous for several generations.

As members of society most knowledgeable in our fields, we certainly must define our obligations to society. At present, progress is exploding in the field of biotechnology. The technologies being developed could go far to alleviate human suffering but could also prove calamitous if misused. Most scientists agree that we have an obligation to society to be honest in our discoveries, but how far do these obligations extend? Do we have obligations to society to ensure that these technologies are not misused? These are decisions each scientist will have to make individually. What are our obligations? How far do scientists' obligations extend? How can we adequately honor all of our obligations?

This case study deals with a situation that can easily occur given a few seemingly reasonable institutional policies. The policies regarding the financing of graduate students can create various ethical problems if other policies are not already in place to resolve them. In this situation, first-term graduate students are being asked to be teaching assistants in undergraduate classes; their training is concurrent with their assuming teaching responsibilities.

The secondary issue is that of Mike, a student with a special-learning waiver. While handling such situations may not be considered difficult, the fact that this situation has arisen during Laurie's first (untrained) experience as a TA can create several ethical problems that may not be realized until later. A tertiary issue is the role of the professor who is teaching the class. In this case study, the professor is largely absent. This possibility is realistic; if no standards or requirements specify the appropriate level of oversight by the professor, then the level of involvement can vary dramatically.

Part 1 focuses primarily on a generic problems-between-partners issue, which allows the introduction of Laurie, Fred and Mike before the issue of the special-learning waiver is introduced. Given that Laurie has not been informed about the waiver, this part is reported primarily from her point of view.

Question 1 focuses on the uncertainties of the untrained TA, Laurie. She would certainly like to help resolve problems, but is not sure how to do so. To a very limited degree, however, this is the same problem as personally working to stop world hunger or war, or to save the environment. People know they should help, but they are limited by means and/or motivation. Laurie knows that it is important for the students to learn how to work with partners they do not enjoy working with, given the likelihood of this experience in the workplace. She also believes that Fred is doing an unfair amount of the work. Ethically, what is the balance point, if one exists?

Question 2 introduces the possibility of going to an authority figure to resolve the issue, given the small likelihood that any solution will be provided. However, Laurie is being short sighted here; she is under the impression that the only solution is allowing Fred and Mike to change partners. The position of a TA, however, does require some degree of independence and the use of personal judgment. Is a full policy regarding the extent of problem solving between the professor and TA necessary or even useful?

Question 3 focuses on other resources that might be available for Laurie. However, the need to protect Mike's privacy will impact some of the ideas brought up in discussion.

Question 4 has two sides. First, Laurie is giving Mike an opportunity to air his concerns. Second, Mike fails to mention the special-learning waiver at this point. If readers have not read Part 2, the discussion will be limited to refining the issues discussed in Question 3 to include Mike's opinion of his performance.

Question 5 directly addresses the impact of the school's financing and training policies on Laurie. Frequently, fiscal limitations or timing constraints cause people and institutions to cut ethical corners when creating such policies. In this case, what ethical issues have been overlooked? What happens to the students who need first-term funding if they are not able to serve as TAs during that time? Should TAs be trained before they are allowed to work with undergraduates? Are mentorship programs a viable alternative, if enough experienced graduate students are available? Trials by fire are a common occurrence in the workplace; should academic institutions be held to a higher standard?

Part 2 introduces the special-learning waiver, which specifically requires special consideration for Mike in reading-based tests. The conflict here arises because of the nature of this lab; a hands-on practical test does not fall into the same category as a reading-based test. This difference sets up a conflict between Laurie's personal judgment that this difference is both logically and ethically correct and Mike's concern about his ability to pass the test. Fred's concerns in Part 1 are important to remember here; both Fred and Laurie know that Mike has not been using the equipment enough to become familiar with it. Is it possible that this knowledge may bias Laurie against Mike? Could she be inappropriately limiting his extra time on the test to 10 minutes because of bias?

Question 6 reflects on Question 4 in that the issue of personal responsibility would have required that Mike inform Laurie about the waiver earlier than the end of the term. Apparently, he has not relied on her knowing about the waiver, as he does eventually tell her after the test has been written. Should this issue be covered by policy? Should the professor have informed Laurie about the waiver before it had become obviously relevant?

Questions 7 and 8 again address an untrained TA's development of personal judgment. The existence of the waiver implies the existence of an office that issued the waiver; Laurie has not used this resource. Is it ethical for her to fail to ask for guidance from this office, given what appear to be explicit instructions on the waiver? Is it possible for her to determine how much extra time is reasonable without such guidance? What would be required of Laurie to ensure fairness to Mike?

Part 3 Both new TAs and experienced professors might misjudge the length of time required for a given exam. A common resolution to this problem is to curve the grading scale to prevent this misjudgment from affecting the students' grades. Does Laurie's misjudgment apply unequally to Mike as compared to the rest of the class? Part 3 also returns to the issue of dealing with learning disabilities -- even disabilities considered minor -- in the classroom; Laurie may feel vindicated that Mike demonstrated a lack of understanding of the hardware, as she may have expected, but her lack of effort to do everything she could have done to help Mike can still provoke strong reactions in the discussion group.

Questions 9-10 create a parallel between the allotment of extra time for Mike and the other student (who did not have a known learning disability) who failed the exam. While issues of fairness for learning disabilities are discussed, the definition of the extent of a disability is not in Laurie's hands. Suppose the other student had a migraine on the day of the exam. Would that be a good reason to allow extra time? To what extent do considerations for a specific learning disability (reading, in this case) apply to other applications (e.g., use of equipment)? Who is responsible for making these decisions (e.g., the office that issued the waiver, the university, the professor, the TA, the student)?

Question 11 addresses the perceived impact of special considerations on other students. What would happen if Fred had just managed to pass the exam, after doing more than 90 percent of the work in the lab, and Mike managed to pass the exam (with extra time) after doing only 10 percent of the work in the lab? What could be the impact on the profession that these two students will enter? What could be the impact on the reputation of the university with respect to the quality of the engineers it graduates, or with respect to how it treats students with learning disabilities?

At first glance, this case appears to be about authorship. But it is really about the responsibilities of graduate students, graduate advisers and graduate institutions.

We do not know Alyssa's scientific background and experience, why she decided to work in Swift's laboratory and what, if anything, she was told about the lab and what was expected of her. We do not know about Swift's relationship with the other six graduate students, his background or why he agreed to have Alyssa work in his lab. We are aware that Alyssa and Swift do not agree on what is expected of each of them in relation to the other.

Graduate students entering into a new program may not be aware of what it "means" to be graduate students. They may have no idea what is expected of them. In some cases students may not even have laboratory experience. If we assume that that was the case with Alyssa, who was responsible for making sure Alyssa knows what is required of her as a graduate student in Swift's laboratory?

In the graduate school setting, it is too often assumed that a Ph.D. confers the ability to teach and train students. Although some institutions do train their faculty to be effective instructors, some do not; contrary to popular belief, there is no universal "scientific method" that all research groups follow. Research groups vary greatly due to discipline, institution, department and especially the personality of the research group director.V. Weil and R. Arzbaecher, "Ethics and Relationships in Laboratories and Research Communities," Professional Ethics: A Multidisciplinary Journal 4: 83-125, 1995.

Let's assume that Swift was never trained to teach. Therefore, it is possible that Alyssa was aware of her responsibilities but was not being trained effectively to accomplish the goals set out for her.

Several institutions have developed their own graduate student bill of rights and responsibilities, and some have included the faculty's responsibilities to the students. Many of these are accessible via the Internet.Graduate Student Bill of Rights and Responsibilities, 1999. http://eddiw.ucdavis.edu/gspub/dean/r&r.htm.Guidelines for Good Practice in Graduate Education, 1999. http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~gradsch/guidelines/html. Although these guidelines cannot change an individual's work ethic or ability to learn or train, they do define roles and the responsibilities that come with them, thereby eliminating an element of confusion from an inherently stressful environment.

Due to the decentralized nature of research, it is essential that graduate institutions have rules and regulation that clearly define the roles and responsibilities of graduate students and advisers. Without these guidelines, it is not safe to assume that all students in an institution are being trained effectively or comparably. They should also outline the responsibilities each has to each other, the laboratory, the institution and the scientific community. The institution should also make available the resources needed to accomplish these goals. Once a student enters a laboratory, the institution does not relinquish its responsibility for that student's education to the principal investigator; rather, the responsibility is now shared.

This case highlights two important issues that often arise in academic research. On the surface, the case concerns the ownership of ideas and assignment of credit to specific individuals for work performed in a group situation. But the deeper and more fundamental issue regards the adviser-student relationship and the unequal power distribution among members of the research laboratory.

We can surmise from this case that the professor, Glen, and the student, Sarah, have different views on how authorship and inventorship are determined. In fact, clear conventions in these areas currently are being debated. The majority of biomedical journals have adopted guidelines for authorship put forth by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), which state:

All persons designated as authors should qualify for authorship. . . . Authorship credit should be based only on substantial contributions to 1) conception and design, or analysis and interpretation of data; and to 2) drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and on 3) final approval of the version to be published. Conditions 1, 2, and 3 must all be met.International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Annals of Internal Medicine 126 (1997): 36.

In contrast, laws regarding inventorship on patents, as described in the U. S. code and related case law, present substantially different and arguably looser qualifications for coinventor status, declaring that:

Inventors may apply for a patent jointly even though 1) they did not physically work together or at the same time, 2) each did not make the same type or amount of contribution, or 3) each did not make a contribution to the subject matter of every claim in the patent.35 US Code 116.

The comparison between authorship and inventorship has recently been argued eloquently by DucorDucor, Philippe. "Coauthorship and Coinventorship," Science 289 (2000): 873-75. and several others (see the published debate responses at www.sciencemag.org), and it is likely to remain a volatile issue for the foreseeable future.

What concerns us most in this case is that it appears that Sarah and Glen never communicated their expectations to each other. When we read that Sarah told all her friends about her first patent, we can see that she certainly expected to be named as a coinventor in addition to being listed as an author on the forthcoming manuscript. While Glen's expectations are less apparent, judging from his defensive comment accusing Sarah of misappropriating his work, he certainly never considered making Sarah a coinventor.

Both Sarah and Glen exhibit morally questionable behavior. As Sarah's thesis adviser, Glen should have reviewed with her the policies of the laboratory and the university regarding manuscript authorship and patent inventorship. Assuming Glen, who holds the rank of tenured professor, has advised students previously, he should have anticipated Sarah's unfamiliarity with standard policy and guided her, rather than coming across as naïve himself.

Sarah must also accept some responsibility for failing to enunciate her expectations for assignment of credit. Since Sarah has been in Glen's laboratory for over three years, one would expect that the two would have established some communication, even if only on a professional level.

In addition to Sarah and Glen, the governing body of the university is partially to blame for this situation, as it does not appear that the university had any sort of checks and balances to ensure that graduate students were informed and therefore protected. This situation is all too common in the scientific research community today. A single individual, the adviser, has almost total power over the professional career of his or her student. The faculty member and the student, however, will almost always have different needs and obligations, which pits them against each other.

This case examines some ethical issues that arise from the open exchange and development of ideas that is essential for the continued advancement of science and engineering. Many departments host a seminar series as a method of broadening the knowledge base of their graduate students through exposing and discussing the work of other graduate students, post-docs and the faculty. These discussions encourage questioning and examination of the topics to improve the quality of the work of the presenter, as well as providing a forum for graduate students to gain confidence in questioning the work of others. However, a problem is associated with maintaining control of the ideas disseminated during seminar. Any idea presented can be taken and utilized for one's own gain without recognizing or acknowledging the originator.

In reading this case, one may be tempted to focus on the utilization of knowledge gained in a seminar session to promote one's career in industry, automatically assuming that Ackley has obtained his understanding in an ethical manner. In reality, the ethical question of Ackley's actions should initially center more on his acquisition of the information than how he ultimately used it.

A few inferences about Ackley are required to evaluate whether he is acting ethically. First, Ackley's apparent understanding of Phillips's work and ability to participate actively in the seminar seems to indicate that the two graduate students, Ackley and Phillips, are probably working on different projects within the same field of study, possibly having the same adviser. Unlike a graduate student whose main focus is elsewhere, Ackley understands the importance of this work and has a working knowledge from which to formulate more in-depth questions.

One hint of impropriety stems from the fact that Ackley has already accepted employment at Trees-R-Us Paper Company. That means that he may have an idea of the type of projects he will be working on and his new company's expectations regarding publishing and production of work. Ackley's exposure to the ideas and insights from Phillips's presentation will give him an unfair advantage over the university for developing and patenting ideas extending from this work. This advantage stems from the dedication of time and resources Ackley will have available at a research lab over the university system, which relies on graduate students to perform most of the research over an extended time period.

The combination of Ackley's knowledge of the subject and his impending employment at a research lab performing related work indicates that his attendance at the seminar is unethical. Ackley should have excused himself from the presentation, citing potential conflict of interest. The department also should have been aware of the conflict and requested that he leave, or not attend, this particular seminar. Ackley's attendance is not unethical, however, if he alerts the department to the potential conflict of interest and the department still allows him to attend. Another option may have been to have Ackley sign a nondisclosure agreement before attending the seminar.

With the assumption that Ackley has obtained the knowledge in an ethical manner, the issue turns to his use of the knowledge. The question is whether the knowledge he gained at seminar is truly being shared for the further education of all, or does hypocrisy exist in the form that no one is supposed to actually use the information gleaned from these meetings? Most departments traditionally tout seminar as an opportunity to further one's knowledge; therefore, it is not an ethical violation for Ackley to develop the new test method at his new job.

Phillips's water-based test method was a starting point, and many modifications would be required for Ackley to establish the new test method. Ackley should be praised for his achievement as a scientist in developing the new test method. Any public or company publications should cite Phillips's master's thesis as the original idea from which Ackley generated his new test method, but unless Phillips or Phillips's adviser have consulted on the development of Ackley's method, neither deserves to be recognized as a co-author of Ackley's paper. Ackley's selection of this work, however, may be questionable, since Phillips's adviser probably would want to expand Phillips's work in this area. This possibility raises a quandary for any graduate student: How much of the different ideas and experiences they have been exposed to is free game for them to utilize and develop when they enter the workforce?

If Ackley had accepted an academic post at university, instead of entering the industrial sector, that would change everything. Ackley's academic position at a competing university should limit his use of the ideas and knowledge he was exposed to as a graduate student. It is debatable as to what ideas he may utilize to start his own research program, but clearly the use of Phillips's thesis work would be an unethical infringement upon a colleague's work at another university.

Seminar serves as a vital tool to expose graduate students to a variety of ideas in areas in their fields. Ethical questions will always arise as students graduate and take their knowledge to industrial research jobs or other academic institutions. The ethical use of the knowledge gained from seminar, as well as other graduate experiences, will always have to be determined on a case by case basis, since there is a fine line between impinging on another's idea and having original insights utilizing others' ideas.

With the increased use of computers and innovative technology, access to information is more readily available. This case highlights the ethical issues surrounding the use of this new technology in research to gain access to information and possible infringements on the rights of study subjects. In research involving human subjects, complete data are important. Hence, researchers' ability to reach study participants to verify or gain complete information is crucial. Over the course of time, the potential for losing contact with the participants increases, and the completeness of data becomes jeopardized. Along with greater access to computers, the development of the super highway of information (world wide web) has enabled people who were once lost to research, friends, family, etc., to be located. To help evaluate this case, it is important to consider the Belmont Report, which provides the ethical principles and guidelines that govern research with human subjects research; the Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970; and the Code of Fair Information Practices (Johnson, 1994).

The first part of the case deals with Bob, a manager for a health study, who is trying to locate some study participants to follow up on incomplete data. Even though the consent form stated that future contact was possible, it did not mention the method(s) that the researchers would use to locate the participants. Further, the protocol for locating subjects after the study's end was never discussed with the IRB. It is quite likely that some study participants would have declined participation if they had known that a credit bureau would be used to contact them. However, this strategy was the last resort, and the number of queries sent to the credit bureau was minimal. The researchers did try to plan for attrition by asking the participants to provide the names, addresses, and phone numbers of friends or relatives who would know how to contact them two or three years later, but some of the participants did not provide this information. Another question is whether the participants who chose not to give a friend's or relative's contact information did not want to be contacted in the future. In that case, use of the credit bureau to locate these subjects may not have been justified.

It is important to know that the information collected and maintained by the credit bureau is legal, and rights to the information is available to others with a fee. Many banks, department stores, car dealerships, etc. use credit bureaus to verify the financial status of their prospective customers. However, it is important to note that customers give the stores and dealerships permission to check their credit. The research study did not inform the subjects or get their permission to search their credit reports for updated phone numbers or addresses.

The first principle listed in the Belmont Report is respect for persons. This principle refers to deception in research. The subjects were deceived in assuming that future contact would be established using the information they had already provided. It is clear that the researchers did not intend to deceive the subjects, given that the researchers did try to get additional information to help with contacting the subjects in the future.

Bob struggles to locate study subjects using various indirect methods such as directory assistance and the contact information provided by some of the subjects. Despite his efforts, these methods produced little new information. Bob lost sight of the principles listed in the Belmont Report by failing to consider the principles of respect for persons, beneficence and justice. He was so eager to use this new technology that he failed to consider the risks involved. Bob could have jeopardized the trust of the participants if they had found out about the tracing. He should have consulted the IRB, since the use of a credit agency was a change in the study's approved protocol.

In conducting human subjects research, all information collected from the subjects must be kept confidential. The consent form informs the subjects that only the immediate study staff will have access to information about them; that information will be released only be for the purpose of research; and that it will not have any identifying information attached or obtainable. By sending information to the credit bureau, Bob violated the confidentiality rules.

A second risk was to the subjects' credit ratings. The subjects should have been told that a credit bureau would be used to locate them in the event that other methods were not productive. The use of Social Security numbers was not fair, since that information was not requested from or given by the participants.

This final part of the case highlights the use and misuse of access to information when Bob learned of another credit-reporting company that provides software for independent credit searches. If the use of a credit bureau is ethical for research purposes, Bob should have ordered the software and restricted the use of the computer and software to authorized study personnel. This step would have preserved the confidentiality of the data and protected the subjects from harm. Searching someone's credit, even if only to find a telephone number, could adversely affect an individual's credit rating. Bob should have consulted with the IRB and weighed the pros and cons of using this resource.

Bob should not have tried to remove his company's name from the report because that was dishonest. The Credit Reporting Act of 1970 requires credit agencies to make their records available to subjects and to allow for corrections to credit reports. This Act would have allowed the study participants to remove the research company's name and reduce the risk of an adverse effect on their credit ratings.

Overview

Informed Consent

Respect for Persons

Beneficence

Justice

Cross-Cultural Informed Consent

Overview

This case was designed to highlight some of the complexities involved in obtaining informed consent from human subjects participating in clinical trials. Since this case takes place in a resource-poor area of the world and among peoples with different cultural meanings of disease and treatment, other issues present themselves more acutely than when research is conducted in the United States (for example, the difficulty of communicating the nature of the study so that enough meaningful information is conveyed for the individual to make an informed decision whether to participate). Moreover, community permission was sought and obtained for this research. Therefore, the case also raises questions of seeking individual informed consent after, and in addition to, informed consent that has been received from the community as a whole. Finally, difficult issues arise when the research group is principally from the United States, although a collaborative relationship exists with the local university. In summary, this case is intended to review the current regulations regarding informed consent as established both in the United States and internationally, to enhance discussion regarding certain complications and dilemmas that may arise with respect to gaining individual consent, and finally to raise broader and more difficult questions about cross-cultural research.

Back to Top

Informed Consent

The informed consent process is a primary component of protecting the rights and welfare of individuals involved in research. This protection is grounded in the concept of the right to autonomy or self-determination, which is understood as an ethically necessary means of demonstrating genuine respect for human integrity and dignity. All of the influential international and national documents governing medical research involving human subjects begin from the ethical principle of respect for persons to justify the doctrine of informed consent, including the Nuremberg Code, The Declaration of Helsinki, International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects and the Belmont Report. The Belmont Report is typical in its description of the informed consent process as necessary to ensure respect for persons. It understands individuals as autonomous agents "capable of deliberation about personal goals and acting under the direction of such deliberation."

Back to Top

Respect for Persons

Respect for persons, according to the Belmont Report, is itself based on "two ethical convictions: first, that individuals should be treated as autonomous agents, and second, that persons with diminished autonomy are entitled to protection." This approach requires researchers to ensure that potential subjects voluntarily decide whether to participate in research and that they have enough information to make an informed choice. In this case, Ellen has questions regarding both requirements. Because of the earlier agreement that her community elders made with the research study, it is not clear that Sebena has provided consent freely and voluntarily. For example, in a large smallpox vaccination research study in five areas of West Africa, other researchers have documented that obedience to tribal leaders was the strongest factor that influenced the populations' receptivity to the program.

The full ramifications of community consent for Sebena's decision are unclear. One would need more information about the type of community she lives in, the nature of the power that a community decision has over her actions, and finally how the elders introduced and explained the study to her.

Notwithstanding the paucity of information, it is clear that one of Ellen's possible courses of action would be to find some way to communicate with Sebena and ascertain the voluntariness of her decision. Ellen has an obligation to herself to ensure that she behaves with integrity, to Sebena to protect her rights as a research subject, and to the project to ensure it upholds to the rules and regulations governing medical research with human subjects. It may be of interest to speculate on what Sebena may have related to Ellen, and the ethics of then pursuing some course of action. Nevertheless, the one wrong action in this situation is clear: for Ellen to do nothing to ensure that SebenaÀs participation is truly voluntary.

This situation also raises questions about the guideline that researchers must ensure that participants have enough information to make an informed choice. This issue, however, is somewhat more complicated given the nature of working in a resource-poor region of the world where a wide gap exists between types of knowledge, cultural values and beliefs. Communicating enough information may require something quite different for a patient in a middle-class clinic in a suburb of a large metropolitan city in the United States and a woman living in an isolated small town in sub-Saharan Africa. What is immediately apparent in this case is that the informed consent form, although it may have been adequate for the purposes of passing regulations in the United States, may be wholly inappropriate in the present circumstances.

Unfortunately, no clear guidelines exist for explaining complex terminology and concepts in clinical, virologic and research methodology. Even in the United States, it has been found that receiving more information on abstract concepts like randomization does not increase participants' understanding of the concept.

Moreover, some researchers have suggested deviating from the traditional form of informed consent forms to make them easier for participants to understand, e.g., putting some aspects in point form and including pictures. However, these techniques have not been demonstrated to increase understanding above the level achieved with the traditional forms. What we do know is that understanding increases when there is a collegial process of obtaining consent, including maintaining good communication with the participant.

It may be appropriate to provide more training for Tefera and to conduct the process in a less intimidating environment. It might also be helpful to involve the community in designing an appropriate informed consent form. It is clear that collaboration ought to occur in such a situation, particularly when other work is not providing clear guidelines about the best procedures for obtaining informed consent.

One way to ensure that the individual is truly capable of making an informed decision is to bring in another party. In this case, bringing in the community serves this purpose to some extent. The community elders provide another level of assurance that the research is ethical and beneficial to the community and its participants and that a reasonable decision is made that balances the risks versus the benefits of participating.

Nevertheless, as Ellen notices, community consent has a negative side: It may bias individuals' decision whether to participate. This issue may require some further discussion with the participant. It is likely that in this study, as in medical research in general, participation is kept strictly confidential. One option for Ellen would have been to review this requirement with Sebena so that she understood that her decision would be kept confidential and that the community and the elders would have no means of knowing what her choice was.

Back to Top

Beneficence

In addition to respect for persons, the Belmont Report discusses another major principle that is intended to guide medical research involving human subjects - beneficence. It is imperative that research minimizes risks and maximizes benefits. One of the risks of a research study - particularly a clinical trial - is the augmentation of a standard of care that individuals are entitled to when they are not participating in a study. In all clinical research studies in the United States, it is now a part of the process to ensure that subjects receive the same standard of care they would have received had they not been participating in a research study.

This commitment to ensuring that access to care is not compromised by participation in a clinical trial sometimes means that for certain groups of individuals the standard of care actually increases if they are research subjects. That is particularly the situation in the present case, where the researchers are providing a standard of care that is comparable to that given in the United States in a resource-poor area where such medical care is prohibitively expensive and where the needed technology and expertise are not available. Most scholars regard this situation as ethical conduct in international research.

On the other hand, many have argued that introducing a U. S. standard of care is inappropriate for both scientific and ethical reasons. Arguments that support this view rest on the premise that if the research is being undertaken to provide evidence for the practice in these areas, then the work needs to take account of the environment in which findings will be implemented. It is clear that even though a research study may find a beneficial effect of some intervention, that does not necessarily mean that the benefit will exist outside the conditions of the research study. Therefore it may not be appropriate to test interventions designed for care in the host community using standards of care that do not exist there. Finally, providing a level of care above that available in the host country also risks coercion. The host community may not turn it down even though they may have some serious questions about it. In this case, the researchers have built a new medical facility for the community and are training local practitioners in laboratory and clinical work that would not be accessible to them otherwise. At an individual level, this situation may also unduly influence Sebena decision to participate. These are complicated dilemmas to resolve but may be of interest to discuss given their significance to recent international dedication to provide support to resource-poor areas of the world, including research help.

Back to Top

Justice

The Belmont Report also discusses researchers' ethical obligation to conduct research in accordance with justice. This requirement most immediately applies to this case with two competing ethical obligations. The first is to ensure that the research subjects are not being asked to take on an unfair burden of the research. In this case the intervention is designed specifically for this community and is intended to benefit the research subjects and others in this community. Therefore this study does not specifically entail complicated deliberations with respect to this concept of ethical conduct of research.

On the other hand, research should also be undertaken to provide just distribution of new knowledge and techniques. Researchers have an obligation to ensure that no person is deprived of the opportunity to participate in research, and consequently to benefit from knowledge and understanding gained therefrom. To conduct research in accordance with the principle of justice, the medical research community has an obligation to study diseases that occur primarily in resource-poor areas of the world. This case would be an example of a research study that is being pursued in accordance with dictates of justice. That is not always the case, and historically the principle of justice has been disregarded with tragic human consequences.

Cross-Cultural Informed Consent

The concept of autonomy is rooted in Western enlightenment thinking where one school of thought holds that individuals ought to be treated as ends in themselves and not simply as means. Concepts such as respect for persons, voluntary choice and informed consent are justified on the basis of this idea. Persons have the right to choose what happens to themselves, and this decision is free only if it is made with knowledge of the situation. (The alternative would be deceit.)

However, other ethical theories, including utilitarianism and feminism, understand autonomy differently. If one were to follow these theories in this situation, one might reach different conclusions with respect to what autonomy means in the context of informed consent. The paramount respect for individualism inherent in informed consent has been questioned recently regarding whether it is truly respectful of people of all cultures. Is it right for some societies to insist that their ethical standards are applied elsewhere? These are difficult philosophical questions, which rest to some extent on beliefs in relative as opposed to universal ethical principles. However, complexity does not preclude the need for thoughtful deliberation.

Back to Top

References

• Angell, M. "The Ethics of Clinical Research in the Third World," New England Journal of Medicine 337 (1997): 847-849.
• Annas, G. J., and Grodin, M. A. "Human Rights and Maternal-fetal HIV Transmission Prevention Trials in Africa." American Journal of Public Health 88 (1998): 560-563.
• Barry, M. "Ethical Considerations of Human Investigation in Developing Countries." New England Journal of Medicine 319 (1999): 1083-1086.
• Brennan, T. A. "Proposed Revisions to the Declaration of Helsinki: Will They Weaken the Ethical Principles Underlying Human Research?" New England Journal of Medicine 341 (1999): 527-531.
• Davis, T. C.; Holcombe, R. F.; Berkel, H. J.; et al. "Informed Consent for Clinical Trials: A Comparative Study of Standard versus Simplified Forms." Journal of the National Cancer Institute 90 (1998): 668-674.
• Davis, T. C.; Holcombe, R. F.; Berkel, H. J. "A Polio Immunization Pamphlet with Increased Appeal and Simplified Language Does Not Improve Comprehension to an Acceptable Level." Patient Education and Counseling 33 (1998): 25-37.
• Edwards, S. J. L.; Lilford, R. J.; Thornton, J.; Hewison, J. "Informed Consent for Clinical Trials: In Search of the Best Method." Social Science and Medicine 47 (1998): 1825-1840.
• Gostin, L. O. "Informed Consent, Cultural Sensitivity, and Respect for Persons." Journal of the American Medical Association 274 (1995): 844-845.
• Henderson et al. "Assessment of Vaccination Coverage, Vaccination Scar Rates and Smallpox Scarring in Five Areas of West Africa." Bulletin WHO 84 (1975): 183-194.
• Leach, A.; Hilton, S.; Greenwood, B. M.; et al. "An Evaluation of the Informed Consent Procedure used during a trial of a Haemophilus influenzae Type B Conjugate Vaccine undertaken in The Gambia, West Africa." Social Science and Medicine 48 (1999): 139-148.
• Michielutte, R.; Bahnson, J.; Dignan, M. B.; Schroeder, E. M. "The Use of Illustrations and Narrative Text Style to Improve Readability of a Health Education Brochure." Oncology Nursing Forum 19 (1992): 1523-1528.
• The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. Washington, D. C.: Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 1979.
• Olweny, C. "Bioethics in Developing Countries: Ethics of Scarcity and Sacrifice." Journal of Medical Ethics 20 (1994): 169-174.
• Woodward, B. "Challenges to Human Subject Protections in U. S. Medical Research." Journal of the American Medical Association (1999): 282: 1947-1952.

Brian Schrag

Offering financial incentives to increase participation in clinical studies raises a series of ethical issues. For example, participation should be on a voluntary basis, inspired by the desire to help, and not for the money. In addition, when financial incentives are offered, there is a tendency to recruit from vulnerable groups such as the poor, students, intravenous drug users, alcoholics, etc. It is more likely that these marginalized people will lie about their lifestyle in order to qualify to participate and receive money.

In this case, the volunteer was using an herbal remedy, and he did not disclose that information. If the incentive is great enough, it is even more likely that candidates who are users of illegal narcotics will try to qualify. How will the interviewers guarantee that they can exclude drug users, who are unlikely to admit to drug use during the interview process?

Given these considerations, one can also question the scientific validity of such a study. Clinical investigators must be aware that by offering financial incentives they are recruiting from a population that is not representative of the general population. Therefore, the results are biased. Despite this fact, it is quite common to pay clinical study participants.

In addition, these issues raise the question of how to go about proper screening of candidates for clinical trials. It is essential to design screens in order to minimize the likelihood that a situation such as the one described in this case study occurs. It is evident that the investigators must be extremely rigorous in their questioning of potential participants, especially if they are offering cash incentives. If they fail to screen properly, are they committing the ethical equivalent of scientific fraud?

In this case, financial desperation drove the graduate student to take risks with his own health in order to pay for his studies. One may question what obligations universities have to graduate students to continue funding through the studentsÀ careers. In addition, there is a seeming discrimination, which most universities display in providing more assistantships for students in the natural sciences than students in the social sciences and humanities.

This case raises several issues regarding the multiple, complex, and often competing, roles a scientist must play. In addition to responsibility to herself and her career in science, Alice is also responsible for protecting public health and safety in her role as an environmental geologist employed by the Toxic Waste Disposal Administration. As a student, Alice has taken on an additional role, which poses a potential conflict of interest with her job. We will examine each of these responsibilities in turn as we evaluate the ethical questions raised during a typical day in the life of a federal scientist.

Funding Research

Alice's first ethical problem arises from her position as a federal employee. Acting as an agent of the federal government, Alice must evaluate the adequacy of research proposals to answer questions about the safety of a potential toxic waste disposal site. In conducting research on which to base recommendations to protect public health, scientists working in environmental science are faced with difficult decisions. For example, Alice's recommendations could expose future generations to potentially disastrous environmental consequences. In order to make these recommendations, scientists and engineers are being asked to predict the behavior of natural and engineered systems many generations in the future, which raises ethical as well as technical issues. In fact, the social ramifications of application of technology often are more difficult to solve than the technical conundrums. However, Alice knows that decisions on these societal issues must be based on sound science. The results of this scientific research will be used as input to the decision to site a toxic waste site or abandon the site. In either case, the decision will be litigious and controversial.

Decisions on what research to fund and how to use research data are difficult, but they must be based on honest communication on all aspects of scientific technique and application. As funding becomes more difficult to obtain, researchers are under more pressure to oversell their expertise and techniques. The Toxic Waste Disposal Administration is paying Alice and von Wegner for their professional judgment. In order to be able to rely on their judgment, the agency must have confidence in the results of the research, which includes trust in the honesty in the descriptions of the method, its applications and limitations, and the ultimate validity of the results obtained from the method. If any one of these steps is at issue, the chain of confidence in the scientific credibility of the process is lost. Professional scientists and engineers have unique knowledge, skills, and expertise; therefore, their judgment is sought and believed.C. E. Harris, M. S. Pritchard and M. J. Rabin, Engineering Ethics: Concepts and Cases (Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1995), p. 211. Although Alice is also a geologist, as a geochemist, von Wegner has specialized knowledge of a highly specialized method in geochemistry. Von Wegner is a senior principal investigator, a well-established scientist with a strong reputation; Alice is working in a federal bureaucracy, reviewing research proposals. Of course, Alice must be competent and able to understand the general application of the method in order to recommend funding based on that determination; however, von Wegner also has a responsibility to candidly share the potential shortcomings or controversies surrounding his method. "The progress of science as a whole depends on the communication and integration of individual specialized results."Sigma Xi, Honor in Science (Research Triangle Park, N. C.: Sigma Xi, 1991), p. 7. Independent of the results of the research regarding the safety of the site, von Wegner should have indicated the drawbacks of his new method.

Public Perception of Risk

The second ethical conundrum that confronts Alice is the role of the media in shaping public opinion and the use of science to further a political agenda (in this case, an environmental group that opposes toxic waste siting and uses science to justify that opposition). In our complex technological society, the public relies on scientists to give us objective facts about risk. The media play a critical role in communicating these facts to us. Scientists' responsibility goes beyond the development of theory and the correct use of technique; they also have a responsibility to explain the results and implications of their research to the public. As Harris, Pritchard and Rabins state, "The doctrine of informed consent implies that engineers have a responsibility to promote the conditions in which individuals can give informed consent to risks they encounter as a result of technology. They must do what they can to ensure that the public understands the risks associated with technology and can consent to those risks, especially when they are unusual."Harris, Pritchard and Rabins, Engineering Ethics, p. 244.

Although we are increasingly skeptical about the veracity of information we get from the media, the fact remains that they are our primary source of information. Under pressure to sell papers and advertising time, our national media have become more and more focused on controversy, complex applications, and perceived risks from science. Although our modern lives are actually much safer than they were 50 years ago, the complexity of this technology means that life is no longer simple.D. R. Williams, What is Safe? The Risks of Living in a Nuclear Age (Cambridge, Unite Kingdom: The Royal Society of Chemistry, 1998), p. 4. Adding to the complex misinformation that the public must interpret are special interest groups and lobbyists who may use partial truths or modify reports to garner support, as in this case, the environmental group that manipulates estimates of the risk of earthquakes in order to stop the toxic waste site. Engineers and scientists must recognize that the results of their work can be misused by advocates for political agendas. We have a moral obligation to inform the public, and Alice, working through correct channels at her agency, has the responsibility to explain the risks from seismic activity on the toxic waste site in an objective, clear, and understandable way.

Conflict of Interest

Alice's final ethical quandary concerns a potential conflict of interest between her federal job and her role as a student at the university. In general, these two roles would not result in conflict; however, Alice has been asked to review a research proposal from a professor at the university that is directly related to her responsibilities at the agency. Also, the research topic is closely related to Alice's area of academic interest and could form the subject for her dissertation research. The ethical dilemma exits because Alice's interests may be in conflict: as a federal scientist, she could recommend funding that would benefit her at the university. Scientists are expected to render impartial professional judgements based on a critical objective review of the evidence;Jeffrey Kovac, The Ethical Chemist: Case Studies in Scientific Ethics, Case B-4A, rev. ed. (Knoxville: University of Tennessee, 1995). can Alice's judgment be objective if she can gain from her recommendations? Although Alice may be able to provide an objective, impartial review and recommendations based on science and not personal gain, her professional judgment may be biased due to the conflict. Even the appearance of a conflict can be deleterious to science. An added element of conflict is the potential for the successful application of the bacterium to affect the need for a toxic waste site.

Kovac discusses three ways to avoid conflicts of interests: 1) to avoid them; 2) to divest yourself of the external influence; and 3) to publicly reveal the influences.Ibid. Alice would not have to quit her job at the Toxic Waste Disposal Administration or stop taking classes at the university in order to avoid the conflict of interest; less drastic approaches would allow Alice to remain employed and pursue her academic interests. Alice should notify her supervisor and Professor Sharpo of the conflict of interest, and recuse herself from reviewing the university's proposal.​​​