For Engineering and Science
Anonymous
Commentary On
Question 1
This case deals with Deborah's multiple obligations and the conflicts of interest these obligations create. To fully understand the issues of this case, it is first necessary to catalog Deborah's obligations. While this step will not automatically distinguish which obligations are most important, it will help to clarify the problem. The following is a list of parties to whom Deborah has some obligation:
Rev. Howard and the Board -- Rev. Howard and the Board are Deborah's clients. She has a responsibility to act in their best interest, to help educate and inform them in the area of her expertise, and to be sensitive to their cultural needs as expressed by the Preservation Code of Ethics. She also clearly has a responsibility to research and record her findings to the best of her ability and to recommend a preservation plan that is consistent with her unbiased professional judgment.
The Smiths and Henry -- As their interviewer, Deborah has a responsibility to accurately report the Smiths' responses to her questions. As an interviewer she must also respect their privacy, not coercing or tricking them into answering questions they do not want to answer. In addition, she must not mislead them about the use of the taped interview.
The public -- As a preservationist, Deborah has a professional responsibility to accurately portray the historical nature of the house, clearly indicating what is original, new, restored, or simply unknown.
Church members -- The resources for the acquisition of the house as well as the restoration come from the church members. Deborah has a responsibility to wisely use the money with which she has been entrusted.
A larger African-American community -- Preservationists have had a somewhat unpleasant historical relationship with many African-Americans. In many instances, preservation legislation has lead to the destruction of African-American communities as historic downtowns have been gentrified. In addition, preservationists have historically focused on the more accessible histories of European-Americans, leading many people to view preservation as the documentation of white history exclusively. As a preservationist, Deborah should consider these historical issues and attempt to mitigate and/or rectify the harm that has occurred.
Other preservationists -- As a member of a profession, Deborah has an obligation to uphold the integrity of the field. Beyond performing her job honestly and following ethical guidelines, that means that she should address all of these parties tactfully. Whatever action she chooses should be carried out in a way that represents the field in a professional manner.
From this list of Deborah's obligations it appears that there is a distinct conflict of interest between her obligations to the Henry and to the Board. She must choose between including and not including Henry's comment. While her obligations to the other parties listed are very important, they will most likely inform, but not dictate, Deborah's course of action.
Questions 2 and 3 focus more specifically on Deborah's obligation to Henry and to the Board. By analyzing these obligations further using theories of moral philosophy, it is possible to decipher the relative importance of each of these obligations.
Question 2
During the interviews, Deborah asked permission to tape-record her conversations with the Smiths. When they gave permission, there was a very clear spoken contract that what they said during the interview would be recorded, transcribed and used in the final report. The spoken contract concerning the tape recorder also has an inverse implicit contract: The Smiths do not give permission to use their unrecorded comments without further consent. This agreement is made explicit when Henry refuses consent. In fact, it appears that Henry may have chosen to discuss his memory of his mother's comment after the interview, specifically because the tape recorder would no longer be on.
One could argue that there was no contract obligating Deborah to remain silent, therefore she should include Henry's comment. That would be taking a very narrow and technical view. It would probably not pass the "New York Times" test, which states that one should consider the reactions of a reasonable public before pursuing a questionable action.
Henry has a right to have his request honored, to expect Deborah to keep their verbal contract. From the standpoint of respect for persons, therefore, it appears that Deborah has an obligation to respect Henry's request and not to include his comments about the second story in her report.
Question 3
Deborah has an obligation to the Board of Directors and their representative Rev. Howard to help them make informed choices about their property. Like Deborah's obligation to Henry, her obligations to the Board can be framed in terms of respect for persons. Respect for the moral agency of the Board members means that she must not hinder them in making free and informed choices about both their money and their property. This line of reasoning dictates that Deborah should inform the Board of Henry's off-the-record comment.
Respecting the Board's right to make their own informed choices should also lead Deborah to realize that many of her concerns about consequences are misdirected. While it is possible that the Smiths will become angry and refuse to work with the Board if Deborah discloses Henry's comment, Deborah's responsibility is to inform the Board of these perceived consequences. The right to make the decisions about the house and about a future relationship with the Smiths should be the Board's, not Deborah's.
From the preceding two questions, it becomes clear that both Henry and the Board have a valid claim. These claims must be compared to assess the importance of each. Philosopher Alan Gewirth has organizes the rights of the individual (and organizations) into three tiers. The first and most fundamental tier is that necessary for survival. As quoted in Engineering Ethics, the first tier of rights is "life, physical integrity, and metal health."
From this analysis, it appears that the Board has stronger claims than Henry, and it appears that Deborah should tell the Board about Henry's comment. This disclosure will violate Henry's rights, and everything should be done to lessen the impact.
Question 4
While the preceding two questions were based on respect for persons, we should also look at a utilitarian view. Using a utilitarian argument, we need to look at the consequences of Deborah's actions and pick the solution that creates the greatest good. If Deborah keeps Henry's comment to herself, Henry and the Smiths will not have to witness the partial demolition of their childhood home. Henry will also feel that he is respecting his mother. Unfortunately, this action will mean that the church members spend money restoring and maintaining the second story. This money will not be available to be used for other benefits to the local community and the public at large. Additionally, the public will not see the most accurate representation that Deborah can give of Stewart's history.
If Deborah chooses to inform the Board of Henry's comments, Henry will feel betrayed. He may not trust Deborah or preservationists in general. However, in light of the negative impacts if Deborah does not inform the Board, Henry's mistrust seems less important. From the utilitarian approach, it appears that the greater good will be served if Deborah does inform the Church.
Question 5
Using both the utilitarian and respect for person approaches, it appear that Deborah should choose to tell the Board of Henry's comments. This argument is based on Deborah's view that there are only two alternatives. In fact, this view limits many other alternatives that Deborah should consider before resorting to telling the Board. A better approach would be to follow a contingency plan like the one outlined below.
First, Deborah should privately explain to Henry the consequences of keeping his comments a secret. She could discuss the fact that the church will spend money on an unnecessary part of the restoration and the church's right to make decisions about the property. If he is receptive, she could also discuss how his mother's actions and attitude have resulted in a loss of history for many people and ask him to help rectify this wrong. If she can convince Henry to come forward, she can honor all her obligations. This would be the best solution.
If it is not possible to convince Henry to come forward, Deborah should attempt to expand her search. She should attempt to find historic pictures of the house or other residents of the town who might have a recollection of the original house, research biographical accounts, and look for an increase in the house's recorded worth in deeds, censuses, and other historic records during the first year that the Smiths owned the house. If surviving relatives of Jesse Stewart are still living, they should also be interviewed. Finally, Deborah should do a further detailed inventory of the materials that make up the second story. It may be possible to find some physical evidence that confirms a later construction date.
This additional research will be costly. Deborah should first explain that she believes that the second story was not original and discuss the extent of her further research with the Board. As discussed in Question 3, the Board should be allowed to make informed decisions about the use of their money.
If further research does not bring new evidence to light, Deborah must decide whether to tell the Board of Henry's comment. However, this action should be approached cautiously. Simply including Henry's comment in a report that she hands to the Board and the Smiths seems to be a fairly tactless approach. It does not seem to respect the fact that her actions violate Henry's rights. Nor does it seem to hold up her professional obligations. Most importantly, this course of action would damage relations between the Board and the Smiths. It would not be in the best interest of the Board, nor allow them to be in control.
A better approach would be to relate Henry's comment to the Board privately before the report is written. The Board could then decide whether they want to keep this information confidential (possibly to be used after Henry's death) and/or whether to go ahead and demolish the second story. The Board may suggest that Deborah leave out the comment but still recommend demolition. If this happens, Deborah should inform the Board of the preservationist guidelines and of her responsibilities to uphold the integrity of her profession. As a preservationist, she cannot recommend demolition without thoroughly documenting that historic fabric is not being destroyed. Finally, if the Board decides that she should include the comment, Deborah should discuss the decision with Henry. She should show her concern for his rights and make him aware that she did not make the decision lightly. In every way possible, she should attempt to retain the good will of the Smiths.
Question 6
Deborah's situation is a result of her inability to foresee the possibility of conflicts of interests. In hindsight, Deborah should have been more careful about promising a copy of the report to the Smiths. While it may have seemed like a friendly gesture at the time, it clearly led to a difficult situation. She should have discussed with the Board and the Smiths other alternatives such as giving the Smiths a copy of the interviews or having a plaque hung in the museum to honor the Smiths' contributions. Additionally, Deborah should have made it very clear to the Smiths and especially to Henry that her obligations rested with the church. She could have let the Smiths know that what they said during the interview, whether on the record or off, was "fair game."
Finally, the preservation community may be able to take actions to alleviate these types of situations. The preservation code of ethics, while addressing the responsibility to one's employer, does not discuss responsibility to the public or to others involved in the documentation process. The profession should probably discuss these obligations and formulate policies to use when conflicts of interest arise. The profession also might formalize the interview process. They could look to other professions such as psychology and anthropology for insight into dealing ethically with research participants. This research may lead to formalized consent forms and prescribed procedures or it may lead to profession guidelines. In either case, the result would help preservationists avoid situations such as this case discusses.
References
- The preservation code clearly indicates that unalterable changes should not be recommended unless there is clear evidence showing that possible historic fabric is not being unnecessarily destroyed. Using this guideline, Deborah does not have enough evidence to recommend demolition.
Commentary On
The basic issue addressed in this case is the integrity of the researcher: Under what conditions does changing a model violate that integrity? The case also touches on the conflict that sometimes arises between the client's wishes and the engineer's responsibility to the first canon of the Engineering Code of Ethics. ("[H]old paramount. . . the welfare of the public).
Most scientists and engineers recognize that fabricating data is clearly dishonest, and they rarely encounter clients who ask them to falsify or modify data outright. When they are confronted with such a client, they generally recognize the ethical issues involved and make choices with knowledge of right and wrong.
However, in a world where models are used to represent and predict reality, the line between what is right and what is wrong can be more blurred. It may not always be clear that one model is superior to another one, or that a particular model does not represent reality. Of course, it would be nice to verify all models by experimental results, but that may not always be possible.
Models are a scientist's best attempt at representing or predicting reality. They are only as good as the data that is fed into them and the assumptions used to create them. They are also only as good as the motives and purposes of the researchers creating them.
Is it wrong to change a model? It depends. If the purpose in changing the parameters or operation of a model is to better reflect reality, then it seems clear that there is no dilemma. However, it is a different matter if the purpose is to mold the model to predict a pre-determined conclusion.
It is bad science to create or modify a model or process specifically to predict a desired conclusion. That violates the integrity of the scientific process, which allows evidence or experiments to point scientists to truth, and ultimately violates the integrity of the researcher making the changes. Imagine a world in which all researchers followed such practices. No one would ever be able to trust models' predictions.
Even after noting the potential practice of bad science, it changing the model still may be justified. A question that goes unanswered in the text of this case is what the true purpose of the model is. Is it to predict the location with the greatest need? Is it to predict the location with the lowest building and operating cost? Clearly, models for those two purposes could result in different predictions. Much of the time, both purposes cannot be served simultaneously; the modeler must decide which purpose is more important and how much so. Is the purpose of the model to predict the best location? If so, who defines what "best" means? That is something that needs to be worked out by the researcher and client. Once the definition of "best" has been determined, the researcher should have some flexibility to work within that definition.
A second issue that arises in the case is the potential conflict between the engineering code of ethics and the client's wishes. A code of ethics that is bent or broken at will based on the client's wishes is not much use as a code of ethics.
However, Landers should still be careful about interpreting the first canon too liberally. If she has traditional liberal leanings, she may want to locate the transit station in the poorer community with the most need for it, regardless of the cost. She should not let her research results be biased by personal views, however. Does this option best serve the welfare of the public? Who defines the public? What is the "welfare" of the public in this situation? Adherence to the code is important, but there are many cases where its application may not be clear-cut.
Potential future projects or grants should never influence one to make a wrong decision over a right decision. A good test may be to examine the potential decisions given that there are no future grants or money-making opportunities to hazard, and see whether a decision still seems like a viable option. Of course, given two "equally ethical" possibilities, future projects may be one factor among others to use in making a decision.
Certainly as a researcher, even one involved in seemingly innocuous activities like mathematical modeling, Landers bears responsibility for the outcome of her recommendations. All scientists, engineers, mathematicians, etc., should consider what potential benefits or harm their research can produce. Holding "paramount" the safety and welfare of the public should always be a consideration, as well as practicing "good science."
As Landers makes her decision, she should keep several things in mind. She should attempt to practice good science. In this case, that can be interpreted to mean not changing a process to arrive at a pre-determined conclusion. She should also consider the welfare of the public. However, this ambiguous term does not always have clear interpretations. Probably meeting with the mayor would yield more insight into the purpose of the model and how the public can best be served. Once she has determined the best model (and the corresponding location of a transit facility), she should not be swayed by such influences such as money for the department.
As a guide in making her decision, she can continue to ask herself, "Would I want to live in a world where everyone made decisions based on these principles?" Just imagine - if everyone in a community believed in both practicing good science and "holding paramount" the welfare of the public, wouldn't we all want to live there?
Commentary On
This case attempts to raise issues related to publishing habits and standards. Indirectly, it points to topics such as mentoring and student concerns with professors. As the number of scientific journals increases, the effort required to track publications also increases. Most beginning graduate students almost immediately become acquainted with the "publish or perish" mentality. Publishing is crucial to academic survival in many ways:
- It is a means of demonstrating one's competence as a scientist.
- It is used as a criterion by funding sources such as private foundations and government agencies.
- In some cases, students must publish in order to complete their graduate degrees.
- Potential employers consider one's publication record after the graduate degree is completed.
Stevens, like most graduate students, is looking to his adviser for advice, which may be offered verbally or communicated to Stevens through actions. Stevens hopes to obtain guidance that will enhance his career possibilities, but his adviser's actions could also taint Stevens' view of the scientific and academic processes. To some extent, Stevens may feel betrayed by his adviser's misrepresentation.
Question 1 is intended to address the issue of multiple publications of the same data. This issue will increase in importance as scientists from different disciplines come together to perform research. That has been in case in instances where biology and medicine merge with engineering and physics, for example. More recently, fields such as human factors may involve educators, psychologists, and engineers. In research that relies on the expertise of all disciplines involved, would it be acceptable for the scientists from each group to publish the same paper in their respective journals? Some scientists argue that a researcher should know where to find relevant papers and that data should be published only once. Others argue that publishing in different journals is the only mechanism for informing those outside a possibly small subset of a given discipline.
Question 5 probes the responsibility of the student and the professor. Stevens may be guilty of not knowing the rules of the publication process. One thing is sure: At a minimum, Stevens should have discussed the incident with other graduate students or faculty. It is not clear if he did. One would hope that eventually he would have a discussion with his adviser about the expectations for publishing. Professor Cordage's reasoning or motivation behind publishing the paper a second time is also not clear. Cordage may believe that he is acting in the best interest of his student by filling his resume with publications, or it could be the method by which he padded his own CV, and he figures it will help with future promotions. Either way, Cordage is setting a poor example for students by being dishonest with the students, journals, and possibly even his peers.
Commentary On
The main issue raised in this case is the conflict between friendship and personal relationship on the one hand and professional responsibility on the other and how that conflict can lead to an uncomfortable situation or even result in unfairness.
Did Mike ask a reasonable favor from Lisa? That question is hard to answer. As we learned from the case, Mike and Lisa are good friends; honestly revealing your thoughts or wishes to a friend should not be a problem in itself. What I find disturbing is Mike's final decision about using Lisa's work without giving her credit. When Lisa tells him to do whatever he thinks is right, I see her as an honest and caring friend, who lets Mike choose, but at the same time suggests that he think about the right decision. Mike is responsible for treating Lisa fairly. I do not approve of Mike's action, because the case does not present any ambiguity about the significance of Lisa's contribution. Moreover, it is clear that Mike knows very well what he is asking for, and he understands that his decision to withhold authorship credit from Lisa is not justified. His decision is based on selfishness, which he hopes will be forgiven by a friend.
Another detail that I find even more disturbing is that Mike tries to deceive Lisa, and somehow make their adviser partly responsible for his decision. His statement that their adviser wants Mike to be the single author on the paper conveys that impression. Even though Mike doesn't lie, he misrepresents the facts. His statement may affect Lisa's relationship with her professor. So, Mike is doubly wrong: First, he makes an unfair decision about Lisa's credit for authorship, and second, he tries to blame this decision on someone else.
It is clear that the professor's advice would not be appropriate if he knew that Mike was not the only one working on the project. However, was he responsible for inquiring about every detail of the work? As a group leader, he should have suspected that Mike was not capable of undertaking the experimental part of the project alone. But it is also understandable that he trusted his post-do, assuming Mike would not try to mislead him.
Thinking about Lisa's options, an obvious question occurred to me: Why doesn't Lisa talk to her adviser? Why doesn't she explain the situation and ask the reason for his advice to Mike? Is there anything wrong with attempting to clarify the situation, given that the professor participated in a decision that concerns her? At first glance, it seems that talking to the professor is a very reasonable way to solve Lisa's problem. However, I think it would not be appropriate for Lisa to have an open conversation with her professor and to express her disappointment after she has given free rein to Mike. If she had an ongoing dispute with Mike about the authorship issue, then arbitration by the professor would be warranted.
The authorship of scientific papers is one of the primary criteria for evaluating scientists' contributions to their fields. This issue is important and sensitive because people's careers and reputations depend on authorship. In an ideal world, contribution to human knowledge should be the only thing that matters, but that is hard to measure; the most objective way to evaluate scientists is reviewing their publications.
In the scientific community it is understood that contributors to a project are given credit by shared authorship; if their help was not a significant part of a project, it is simply acknowledged. However, personal biases, subjectivity in determining the significance of a contribution, or personal relationships may distort this picture. Hence, it would make things easier and clearer if there were a clear understanding between parties about their lever of involvement and responsibilities at the beginning of a project. Of course, these things may change during the project, but initial agreement should be discussed and a consensus reached.
Given this case, Lisa has done nothing wrong. She was open with her suggestions and ideas, willing to share her knowledge and ready to help her friend. However, she could have avoided all this hassle if she made things clear from the beginning, i.e., she told Mike that her work on this project should be recognized by authorship credit on the paper.
Commentary On
"In Need of a Helping Hand" presents a scenario that individuals may commonly encounter in a research setting. The case itself does not present a specific ethical dilemma, but rather highlights situations that could lead to serious ethical concerns surrounding issues, such as adviser-advisee relationships, conflict of commitment, and authorship.
A successful research environment fosters the development of strong working relationships among individuals, including but not limited to the principal investigator, research technicians, postdoctoral fellows, and graduate students. The success of young investigator is highly dependent upon the success and guidance of their research advisers, who may or may not be their mentors. For example, the postdoctoral period traditionally is considered to be an additional "training" period in which individuals ideally have the opportunity and freedom to pursue their own ideas, while securing a solid foundation for their careers and contributing intellectually to the laboratory and to the research endeavor. The career development of the postdoctoral fellows requires both the advisers (in this case Cook and Black) and the advisees (in this case Doug and Maria) to play an active role. This case is meant to bring some of the issues involving scientists-in-training to light and to serve as a stimulus for a healthy discussion of these issues.
Part 1
The case begins with Doug working on a project that is closely related to his dissertation research. This situation allows Doug ample time to become familiar with the new lab and to gain confidence in a new setting. Later, Cook asks Doug to undertake a more difficult and challenging project, which Doug agrees to do. However, Doug chooses not to disclose his hesitation and makes no attempt to discuss his feelings with Cook. At the same time, Cook makes no attempt to determine Doug's ability to undertake the new project. This point is where some of the problems begin, since Doug does not indicate his lack of expertise in purifying proteins to Cook and Cook makes no effort to evaluate Doug's knowledge and abilities in the area of protein purification.
Cook has given Doug ample time and opportunity to get used to the laboratory and feels that he is ready for a more challenging project. He cannot know that Doug has hesitations, if Doug does not express his concerns. However, as the situation develops and Doug grows increasingly frustrated, Cook does not seem to have time for Doug. Cook appears to be willing to talk with Doug but repeatedly postpones their conversations to an undetermined time. Cook appears to have a conflict between his commitments to the lab and to the class that he teaches. Cook fails to see Doug's hesitation and does not spend enough time with Doug to discuss his project and career goals.
In any adviser-advisee relationship, it is imperative for both parties to maintain open communication. At the beginning of Doug's post-doctoral appointment, Doug and Cook should have discussed their expectations and goals. Doug should be honest with Cook in saying that he has little experience with protein purification, but that he is willing to pursue the project with adequate resources and guidance. At the same time, Cook should ask Doug whether he is comfortable with the project and provide ample resources. In addition, the adviser and advisee should meet periodically to assess progress.
With the adviser-advisee relationship comes certain responsibilities that both parties must meet. Doug has a responsibility to be honest and to work toward the goals of the lab, while Cook has a responsibility to advise Doug on his research efforts and to provide a stimulating research environment that will allow Doug to grow as a scientist. Cook seems to have a conflict of commitment since his teaching responsibilities seem to be taking precedence over his responsibilities to the lab. Whether Doug should have taken on the project is debatable. In my opinion, Doug should have agreed to the project but mentioned that he would need guidance since he would be working in an unfamiliar area. Both Cook and Doug are failing to fulfill their responsibilities in this adviser-advisee relationship.
Part 2
In Part 2 of the case, Doug begins to seek assistance from another post-doc, Maria. Maria is willing to help Doug, but along the way she begins to feel that she is providing too much assistance. Her own work begins to suffer as a result of her altruistic efforts. Due to Doug's unwillingness to be realistic about his abilities, he has created a situation in which he becomes reliant on another post-doc for advice and guidance. Maria should inform Black of her contributions to Doug's project and ideally Doug, Maria, Cook, and Black should meet to discuss relative contributions to the project and authorship of any papers that involve Maria's contributions.
This situation has the potential of becoming increasingly complicated if it is not handled appropriately. On one hand, Doug does not seem inclined to acknowledge Maria's contributions and is merely preoccupied with completing the protein purification project and impressing Cook. However, due to his preoccupation with the project, Doug may not have considered discussing authorship issues with Maria. As a result, Maria should confront Doug and insist that they discuss the project and her contributions with their advisers. Given this scenario, several outcomes can be imagined: 1) Cook does not understand why Doug went to others outside of the lab for assistance and becomes angry with Doug. 2) Black is not as sympathetic as Maria and reprimands Maria for her contributions to Doug's project. 3) Both Cook and Black are pleased with the collaborative efforts between laboratories and commend Doug and Maria for taking the initiative to work together.
This case represents a situation that could affect anyone working in a collaborative research setting. It is important to be open and honest from the beginning, making sure people are thinking along the same lines and expectations are mutually understood. It is easy to see that if these things are not done subtle actions could lead to serious ethical dilemmas and even breeches of scientific conduct.
Commentary On
This complicated case raises multiple questions that do not have straightforward answers. The case primarily concerns ethics of authorship and publication, but it is also about relationships among scientists in the same workplace and the same field but in different phases of their careers. The fact that the apparent instigator is a student simply makes the story more troublesome, for we usually encounter exploitation by the dominant party. Nevertheless, the underlying principles for discussion remain the same: In order for science to truly advance, we need openness, collaboration, data sharing, scholarship and peer review.
Of primary importance is the apparent miscommunication and/or lack of communication between Abbott and Mary. The relationship between student and professor entails a number of very important elements: power, fairness, equality and scholarship. It is expected that the adviser/faculty member will prepare the student not only scholastically but academically and emphasize the special needs the relationship should address and foster in the student, who is a future adviser him- or herself. It is also expected that the faculty member (due to age difference, experience and academic responsibilities) will facilitate communication between the two. Often, however, the faculty member does not realize the distinction between mentoring and advising. It is useful to discuss their differences in order to attune students to what they may expect or strive to get from their adviser in terms of quality relations. It is also useful to stress that oftentimes one's character interferes with his/her ability to maintain adequate or proper communication.
A second point for discussion is Abbott's failure to supervise her laboratory adequately. It is likely that the problems presented by this case may have been avoided if data ownership practices had been clearly articulated. Not only should laboratory policies be known to all co-workers but the departmental, school and institutional policies should be known to all faculty, post-docs, students and technicians. Because the institution is the primary owner of data, patents and legal rights in most instances, students can only benefit from knowing their rights in terms of the research performed. For example, could a former laboratory co-worker copy or use data produced in that laboratory when no longer working there?
It is useful to discuss Jonas's rules in conjunction with Abbott's failure to establish clearly articulated and ethically accepted practices. What action is one to undertake in case of inadequate or absent practices, and how would one recognize the absence of standards? Is there a difference in the response based on who poses the question (a student, a post-doc, a technician)? Although it is expected that academicians will achieve an adequate balance among teaching, research and publication, there is an inherent dilemma of commitment - even a conflict of interest - in the very nature of academia. The competitiveness of maintaining a tenure-track faculty position helps distort priorities and results in the use or abuse of students and post-docs.
Why are these standards necessary? To protect the integrity of the scientific process; to maintain the self-correcting attitude of the scientific community; to ensure the practice of sharing materials upon request; and to assure proper allocation of credit.
Despite the fact that ethics cases do not often conclude in clear judgments, in this case we can label Mary's actions as undoubtedly wrong. Her verbal agreement, in addition to her multiple obligations toward her former adviser, dictates that she communicate her intentions and seek advice and collaboration for publication of her results. Her action betrayed fundamental scientific principles about collaboration and data sharing and their necessity for the advancement of science. It also undermines trust in her as a fellow scientist and the importance of peer fellowship.
How should Abbot respond? She could speak to Mary; she could speak to Jonas, or she could ask advice from a third party. She could submit a written complaint to the conference organizers, requesting that they remove the abstract. Finally, she could approach Jonas's dean. Should she do that after she has sought communication with Mary, Jonas, both, neither?
The strained relationships Abbott's action may create should be considered in light of her position as a not-yet-tenured faculty member, a scientist in need of publications and a woman-scientist.
References
- Association of American Medical Colleges, Teaching the Responsible Conduct of Research through a Case Study Approach (Washington, D.C.: Association of American Medical Colleges, 1994).
- Bebeau, M. J. et al., Moral Reasoning in Scientific Research: Cases for Teaching and Assessment. Bloomington: Indiana University, 1995.
- Bulger, R. E. Scientific Ethics and the Responsible Conduct of Research: An Introduction, in Research Integrity: A Professional, Ethical and Social Obligation. Proceedings, University of Texas-Houston Health Science Center, 1999.
- Bulger, R. E., Heitman, E., and Reiser, S. J., eds. The Ethical Dimensions of the Biological Sciences. Melbourne: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
- Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, On Being a Scientist: Responsible Conduct in Research. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1995.
- Elliott, D. and Stern, J. E., eds., Research Ethics: A Reader. Hanover, N.H.: University Press of New England, 1997.
- National Academy of Sciences, Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process, Vol. 1. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1992.
- Weil, V., Owning and Controlling Technical Information. In James A. Jaksa and Michael S. Pritchard, eds. Responsible Communications: Ethical Issues in Business, Industry and the Professions. Cresskill, N.J.: Hampton Press, 1996.
Commentary On
"A Young Woman's Struggle for Peace" may be read on two levels. First, it is a case of an individual's personal moral dilemma. Ann must weigh her duties as a student and her desire to become a researcher in light of the wisdom of her developing conscience. Regardless of the basis of her dilemma, the realm of professional ethics includes resolution of conflicts that may arise between personal convictions and professional activities. Questions 1-7 are roughly contained within this framework. I have outlined approaches to these questions in some detail.
Ann's dilemma does not exist in a vacuum, but necessarily rests upon more fundamental issues. The second reading of this case, therefore, addresses the basis of Ann's dilemma, primarily by questioning the ethics of developing military technology and the related notion of the just war. These underlying matters lie beyond the immediate scope of professional ethics, for they appeal to more basic philosophies. Dismissal of such questions, however, silences discussion of the very issues that give rise to practical problems and consequently squanders the wisdom that can be gleaned from earnest deliberation. Progress in professional ethics, therefore, requires consideration of basic questions, even if consensus cannot be reached. In this spirit, Questions 8-13 investigate broad issues that surround Ann's situation. I make no attempt to answer them systematically. I sincerely hope the reader finds these questions engaging, and that they will inspire thought and dialogue that will inform the consciences of engineers and scientists as they choose to participate in various research activities.
Discussion Questions
1. Characterize Ann's dilemma. Is it a conflict of interest or a personal moral dilemma? Depending on Ann's course of action, does Doe have a conflict of interest? (See Question 7.)
The purpose here is to distinguish between a personal moral dilemma and a professional conflict of interest.
Clearly, Ann has a personal moral dilemma. If she has a conflict of interest, then it is necessary to identify vested interests and show them to be in opposition. "Interests," in the professional sense, correspond to duties associated with employment, contractual obligations or financial interests.
It is not clear that Ann has any interests in this sense. Perhaps she has duties as a student, but as yet they are not directly related to her research. Ann's conscience is not regarded as an interest. Therefore, this case does not present a conflict of interest. As a point of reference, Harris, Pritchard, and Rabins note that a person's objection to developing military technology is regarded as a personal moral dilemma.
As for Doe, he clearly does have duties to his students and to agencies that fund his research. He could conceivably have a conflict of interest if Ann begins to work on the Air Force project and later determines that she cannot continue the work.
2. Does Ann's dilemma change if she is Jewish? Muslim? Buddhist? Hindu? Humanist? If so, how?
The purpose here is to acknowledge that Ann's dilemma is not dependent on her Christianity, but could arise in a variety of faiths and belief systems. Adherents of particular belief systems are encouraged to consider this case from their own perspectives.
3. Identify Ann's goals and purpose as she matures and progresses. To what extent do Ann and Doe perceive differently the relevant applications, goals, or purposes of the research?
Here the reader is asked to critically consider the basis of the attitudes of Ann and Doe. Ann's intellect and conscience are both developing. Initially, her goals are based on her zeal for science and her desire to become a scientist. While she attaches some sense of purpose to her scientific work (sustainable energy), the science is an end in itself. Later, as a result of her budding understanding of nonviolence, she begins to attach greater importance to the military application of the science rather than the science itself. We can only conjecture how her views will develop in the future.
The text does not elaborate on Doe's character. One possibility is that he has not considered ethical issues surrounding the application of science and is therefore oblivious. He may be happy simply to conduct research irrespective of its source of funding. On the other hand, he may have thought very critically about such issues, and perhaps is even a devout Christian who supports a notion of just war. In this case, he may have determined that the research he is conducting is acceptable, and even necessary. Either way, he does not appear to consider that Ann may be sensitive to issues beyond rote science.
4. Does Ann have responsibilities to know and understand the applications of her work? How might these responsibilities depend upon the stage of her education or career?
Professional ethics asserts that each person, as part of his or her professional duty, is called to act as a moral agent. That means that professionals must be sensitive to ethical concerns in their working environments and must be able to make informed judgments to solve or prevent ethical problems. In this light, two basic questions emerge concerning Ann's situation:
- Does the domain of moral agency include the objectives and premises of professional activities?
- As a graduate student, is Ann a professional, and thereby required to act as a moral agent?
A reasonable answer to the first question is "yes." Moral agency is not confined to the ethics of conduct within a profession, such as conventions of authorship, confidentiality, data reporting, informed consent, etc. Vigilant moral agents may legitimately question the basic objectives and premises of their professions. Imagine that a new version of the Tuskegee study is devised to study untreated HIV. Perhaps the study is scientifically sound and provides for informed consent of the participants. Surely a clinician would be justified in questioning the premise of the study if he or she felt that it targets poor people who cannot afford treatment.
However, not all ethical problems are necessarily problems in the professional sense. In Ann's case, one basis of analysis rests on understanding the ambient system of law. One may presume that Ann is working in a nation whose constitution authorizes the power to declare war, and in which subsequent laws have provided for the systemic development of military technology. Therefore, Ann's potential objection to military research per se is not an issue of professional ethics, but is rather a personal moral dilemma. (Of course, this case could be modified to examine the specific nature of the research and analyzed with reference to additional criteria, such as international law and conventions of warfare. In some instances, Ann could object to certain types of military research on professional grounds.)
Regarding the second question, Ann is a junior student and is clearly not a professional. She is not expected to master any of the dimensions of her work, whether they are research techniques, mathematical skills, or ethical reasoning. Furthermore, just as beginning students enter with varied technical skills, they enter with different backgrounds in ethics. While loose ethical standards can be expected of all students (in the general area of academic integrity), it is my own experience that beginning and even advanced students lack a full conception of moral agency. Given this climate, I contend that Ann is not responsible for understanding or affirming the wider applications of her thesis work at its outset.
The assertion that a graduate student is free from the full obligation of moral agency is perhaps less than satisfactory. The argument that relieved Ann from considering the applications of her thesis work rested not on philosophy, but rather on an estimation of the current norms among graduate students. As ethics education is implemented at the undergraduate level, these norms will change. Students will become more responsible for acting as moral agents before they become full professionals.
5. Is Doe obligated to reveal the applications of the research to his advisees and the corresponding funding agencies? Does he have a responsibility to be aware of ethical concerns that others may have about his work, even if he does not share those concerns?
This question is a companion to Question 4. Doe is clearly a professional and therefore has the duty to act as a moral agent in the course of his work, including research, teaching, and advising. Based on the arguments given in Question 4, Doe is clearly responsible for understanding and affirming the applications of his research.
As an adviser, Doe has the duty to help his students become aware of information that is pertinent to their career development, in order that they will learn to think independently and make informed decisions. Therefore, he must be prepared to engage his students in both technical and ethical matters. In particular, Doe is obliged to discuss with them the applications and funding of his research, for the following reasons:
- In Question 4, the argument is made that moral agency includes the possibility of questioning the basic purpose or premises of one's work. Doe cannot assume that his students are unconcerned about the applications of their research. Reticence on their part may be due to their fear of raising sensitive issues. He must actively create an environment in which his students have the freedom to investigate their ethical concerns. To this end, he has a responsibility to be reasonably aware of ethical matters that students might raise, even in cases in which he personally disagrees.
- Even if his students do not have ethical concerns about the applications of their research, Doe must raise their consciousness to include these concerns as part of their ethical thinking. As professionals, they will be asked to devote their time and energy toward achieving certain goals in accordance with the norms of their fields. As students prepare for professional service, they must realize that they are not merely developing technical skills to qualify for employment; they are actively choosing how they wish to participate in society, a choice for which they will ultimately bear responsibility. I submit that ethics education must reveal the interests and objectives of the various professions in order that students may make informed, deliberate career choices.
- The solicitation of research funding requires justification of the proposed work. Doe should discuss with his students the current interests and trends in their fields and which agencies are likely to provide support. That is especially important for students who decide to pursue research careers.
Special Note. I contend that researchers in engineering and science have a special obligation to consider the motivations and applications of their work. In his essay Target Equals City, Thomas Merton argues that during warfare in which new technologies are applied, ethical principles shift very quickly, and yield to "practical dictates."
6. How is the funding agency related to the application of the research? Does Ann's dilemma change if
- she pursues the same basic research with funding from NSF or DOE?
- she pursues research that has no direct military application but is funded by the Air Force?
This is a line-drawing problem.
- It is unlikely that the NSF or DOE would be funding research specifically for the purpose of designing a new weapons system. However, Ann may still wish to determine whether the research has clear military applications.
- The Air Force and other military branches do fund basic research that is not directly related to weapons systems and in fact may be far from technological development. Ann must consider whether she is an accomplice to the development of weaponry even if she is not directly involved.
7. Consider the extent to which Ann and Doe have entered into a contractual relationship (written, verbal, implicit). It may help to draw upon your own experience as a student or faculty member.
- Is Ann bound by this contract if she discovers information that contradicts the initial premises of the contract? Is she obligated to reveal her own attitudes, which may conflict with her research?
- What risks does Ann take if she voices her objections? What risks does she take if she decides to change her research course?
- Does Doe have responsibilities to Ann if Ann determines that she cannot participate in the research, given its intended purpose?
This situation may vary according to institution and individual faculty-student relationships.
- Ann has not yet begun any research. If she is certain of her convictions, now is the time to raise them. This strategy is in the best interests of her credibility as well as Doe's research program. A stickier situation occurs if she realizes her dilemma in the midst of her research, or if she is uncertain of her convictions at the beginning of her research. That could happen if she is not certain of her convictions at the beginning of her research. In such a case, she is advised to raise the issue and seek a mutually acceptable arrangement with Doe.
- Ann may at least perceive a risk that she will be labeled "uncooperative" if she changes her research course based on a nontechnical issue. Depending on the availability of other research projects in her department, it is conceivable that she risks working in an area that interests her less. In the long term, she may risk losing employment opportunities in research if her objections are perceived to conflict with general conventions of research in her field.
- Doe has a right to sponsor research that may not meet Ann's approval, and may reasonably determine that she cannot work in his lab. However, his duty as a mentor requires him to respect Ann's convictions and at least try to find common ground. Perhaps he can find an alternative source of funding or help to establish a position for her with another faculty member.
While Doe may have to reveal information about Ann's convictions as he helps her find a satisfactory position, it is ultimately Ann's responsibility to report her convictions to her associates as they are relevant. It would be unethical for Doe to discuss Ann's moral convictions with colleagues indiscriminately. His faithfulness to this duty will help to prevent some of Ann's fears from being realized.
For Further Thought and Investigation
The following questions are very broad and may serve as the basis of discussion in a range of settings, including academic, professional, and religious. I have only a couple of comments here.
11. University teaching, especially at the graduate level, is influenced by faculty research. Research is typically funded by external organizations that have their own agendas (corporations, government agencies, nonprofit institutions).
- To what extent is the relationship between basic research and research sponsorship discussed in teaching settings? In research settings?
- To what extent do the values and interests of the research sponsors bias the teaching of basic science? Are students aware of these biases? Is objectivity compromised?
- What can be done within the educational system to convey to students the need to understand the applications and implications of science and technology? Can social responsibility be "taught?"
I believe that these questions are centrally important in modern education and apply to issues beyond military technology. Another example to consider is the relationship between genetic engineering and large agricultural corporations that produce food.
13. The medical profession is generally agreed that the advancement of knowledge -- even with the intent of extending and enhancing life -- is unethical if research deliberately compromises human life or health. Guidelines to govern research on human subjects emphasize protection of the individual. This philosophy may be generalized as follows: It is unethical to enhance the life or lifestyle of certain individuals at the expense of the basic health, will, or dignity of other individuals.
Consider now that civilian technology (transportation systems, computers, etc.) has historically been developed as a result of military endeavors. Given the generalization stated above,
- Is it ethical to choose to develop civilian technology in tandem with military technology, especially weapons technology?
- It it ethical to commit certain acts of violence with the intention of ensuring the safety of others?
- Why might medical research be especially concerned with the welfare of the individual at the potential risk of the general population? Why might these factors not apply to warfare?
- Medical practitioners and researchers generally have face-to-face contact with individual patients and subjects. The encounter with a person's face is very compelling and naturally engenders feelings of love and respect. Nonviolent objectors and just war theorists alike can agree that modern methods of warfare -- bombing civil infrastructure form a distance -- remove the face of the victim from the vision of the attacker. It is much easier to lose love and respect for one's fellows when they are referred to as "collateral damage," and not as "Bushra" or "Vicktor." To use force from a distance is to reject the elements of just ware theory that argue fo the restriction of force to protect innocent civilians.
Commentary On
Case Point 1: The Instructor's Grading Decision
Case Point 2: The Committee and Its Decision
Case Point 3: The Dean's Involvement
Case Point 4: The Adviser's Involvement
This commentary is organized by a general discussion of the entire case followed by several Case Points. In addition to the outlined case points, many other points are raised by this case. They are left to the reader for further discussion.
General Discussion
Based on the facts of the case, it is evident that at least one person -- either Josh or Robert -- is guilty of cheating on the examination. It is possible that Josh and Robert conspired to cheat, and that they simply reacted very differently to being caught. Given these basic facts, this case appears to be a straightforward instance of cheating, deserving complete investigation and disciplinary action according to university policy.
The situation is made significantly more complex by the decision of the course instructor to punish both students equally for cheating. This issue is discussed in Case Point 1. When the instructor's decision is appealed, the college dean chooses to resolve the conflict by appointing a committee to investigate the incident. The selection of committee members and the committee's decision are easily criticized and discussed in Case Point 2.
The dean then arranges to have informal, "off-the-record" meetings with each of the participants. In these meetings, the dean appears to have conveyed different impressions to the parties concerning his under-the-table plan to resolve the situation. Case Point 3 addresses the dean's behavior. The dean plans to have Zilch dissuade Josh from completing his degree, while remaining neutral toward Robert in his degree progress. The issues facing Zilch, with particular regard to the dean's requests, are discussed in Case Point 4.
Finally, we learn that Josh leaves the university without his intended degree. It is noted that the dean's long-range intentions are fulfilled with the adjustment of Robert's transcript. It would appear that Josh was the immediate victim of the injustice demonstrated by this case, but Zilch is not unscathed during the process, as pointed out in Case Point 4. While the instructor can be criticized for his initial decision, it would appear that at least the dean and one faculty member were united behind the decision. Finally, the dean, who consistently made ethically questionable decisions, is allowed to continue unchallenged in his role at the university.
Case Point 1: The Instructor's Grading Decision
The instructor must determine grades for Josh's and Robert's examination. Her options can be summarized as follows: 1) defer the grading decision pending more information or further counsel; 2) assign grades that selectively punish one student; 3) assign grades that punish both students to varying degrees; 4) assign grades that punish neither student. Each option is discussed below. The reader is encouraged to explore other options available to the instructor.
Option 1: Defer the grading decision pending more information or further counsel.
Referring the decision and seeking counsel is reasonable, especially given the nature of the infraction and potential consequences, which could include Josh's and Robert's expulsion from the university. However, this course of action may allow others to criticize Zilch's ability to function as a professional and to manage difficult classroom issues. The faculty might conclude that she is incompetent. She would be wise to move beyond such self-involved concerns and to seek justice for Josh and Robert and the other students in the class.
Option 2: Assign grades that selectively punish one student.
Selectively punishing one student in the absence of convincing evidence would be an unjustified, immoral decision. Not only would it be unacceptable to the students, it would be an abuse of the instructor's power.
Option 3: Assign grades that punish both students to varying degrees.
This action considers both Josh and Robert to be guilty, even in the absence of evidence of conspiracy. This form of justice is in contrast to that revered in the United States where innocence is presumed until guilt is established. Ideally, the enforcement of ethical and legal standards in academia should parallel those of society. The instructor chose this course of action, which is inconsistent with the system of justice in the United States. For this reason, this option is not the preferred course of action.
Option 4: Assign grades that punish neither student.
In the face of an obvious ethical infraction failing to locate a "smoking gun" and issuing suitable discipline is less than satisfying. Additionally, disciplining neither student may send the inappropriate message that cheating is permissible and/or is not a punishable offense. This action may leave the instructor feeling that she is unable to administer justice in the classroom. Despite these considerations, the prevailing system of justice in our society allows innocence to prevail until guilt is proven. Therefore, by societal standards, this is an acceptable course of action.
Summary:
Deferring the decision for further evaluation and/or punishing neither student (Options 1 and 4) are the two most ethically defensible options available to the instructor. The reader is encouraged to evaluate other alternatives. The instructor's decision to punish both students adds significant complexity to an already difficult situation. By deciding to award each student the minimum passing grade for the course, the instructor potentially eliminates both students' ability to successfully compete for future fellowships and awards. The decision may even place both students on academic probation in their department.
Case Point 2: The Committee and Its Decision
The dean assembles a faculty committee to review Robert's appeal. Unfortunately, the dean does not exhibit good judgment in the selection of committee members, as both the dean and the other faculty member are colleagues and presumably friends with Bell and Zilch. With these relationships in mind, it is difficult to conceive that the committee is sufficiently disinterested to discern and administer justice. On one hand, they could overturn Bell's autonomous decision, perhaps introducing new conflicts among the faculty. Alternatively, if they determined guilt and voted to expel one or both of the students, Zilch would lose a student just before her tenure review. As the committee has many obvious conflicts of interest, the dean would have been wiser to choose committee members completely removed from the situation, perhaps even selecting faculty members who had no interaction whatsoever with Bell and Zilch. It would be preferable to have a faculty committee of peers, rather than including a dean who may exert undue political influence. As the dispute is a straightforward cheating issue and not a technical grading detail specific to the field, even selecting committee members outside the academic discipline would have been reasonable.
The committee's alternatives are similar to those described in Case Point 1. Given the decision that the committee actually made, it would appear that they, like the instructor, failed to grasp the ethical consequences of their actions. Perhaps the conflicts of interest facing the committee overrode any desire to overturn or alter the instructor's decision. Zilch is dissatisfied with the committee's decision, but she is probably not interested in developing new conflicts with the dean and department faculty prior to her tenure review.
The committee's decision to informally share its unsubstantiated opinions with Bell and Zilch introduces issues of confidentiality and hierarchical compromise. This type of behavior raises suspicions of a "good ol' boy" network that makes decisions independent of the outcome of formal proceedings. Furthermore, with compromise of confidentiality, Zilch may be rightfully suspicious that any disclosed information may eventually be manipulated to her detriment. Zilch may somberly realize that her dissent could lead the dean to conclude that she is not a team player, thereby jeopardizing her future in the department, even though she had no involvement with the cheating episode whatsoever.
Case Point 3: The Dean's Involvement
The dean demonstrates questionable insight and judgment in the selection of the review committee members, as noted. In his meetings with the students and Zilch, the dean administers a unilaterally determined version of justice. The dean's actions can be strongly criticized on many grounds. Not only does the dean disregard the discovered facts in the case and arrange these informal "off-the-record" meetings about very serious matters, the dean selects Josh to become the scapegoat and attempts to manipulate Zilch to remove him from her research group. Zilch is placed in a compromising position by the dean's abuse of power. If she rejects the dean's plan, the dean may make an unfavorable tenure decision in her case. Following the dean's plan would be participating in an unethical course of action that may violate her integrity. It would also leave Zilch with one less student for her research efforts and a potential black mark on her tenure review report.
The dean's willingness to alter Robert's official student record suggests other, undisclosed unethical activities. What might the dean do to Zilch if she failed to cooperate? Clearly the dean's decisions and activities are very questionable.
Case Point 4: The Adviser's Involvement
Zilch is an innocent and very vulnerable bystander in this case. She is not involved in the cheating episode, but both of the accused students are her students. As Josh's and Robert's adviser, she is obligated to provide nonpreferential moral support and institutional information to each student. Aside from the events described in the case, her personal considerations must include the integrity of one or both of the students involved with this case. Could her students extend this behavior to research data and future publications?
Zilch clearly does not agree that punishing both students for cheating is appropriate, perhaps a suggestion of the "innocent until proven guilty" paradigm. She expresses this opinion to the review committee. Openly disagreeing with the dean on this issue may be difficult for Zilch, given her tenure review later in the year, yet she disagrees in a manner that does not draw undue attention to herself.
Her role as an adviser changes when the dean actively recruits her involvement in an unofficial plan to remove Josh from the graduate program. As discussed above, the dean's action is ethically inappropriate, as Zilch should have been permitted to continue to be an impartial adviser to both students while they continued to study at the university. The dean's actions dramatically increase the stakes for Zilch, as she cannot passively disagree with the grading decision any longer. Practically speaking, the dean politically forces Zilch to take a stand, either for or against his decisions. Zilch certainly realizes the gravity of the situation and the ethical standards of the dean at this point. She hears the dean's plan, but does nothing to discourage Josh to leave. However, the case does not indicate that Zilch encourages Josh to remain in the program. Ultimately the dean's plan is realized, and Zilch is a passive participant in the master plot.
In this case, Zilch is the only person who is aware of the dean's intentions to alter Robert's student records. What moral obligation does she have to report this compromise in ethics, and at what price? The dean's plan probably could have been averted completely by challenging his actions and/or publicly disclosing his plans. This course certainly would have been detrimental to Zilch's tenure and, by extension, to all of her students, including Josh and Robert. Zilch could await a tenure decision, and then reveal the dean's actions. By that time, however, Zilch would definitely be implicated as a co-conspirator with the dean, and Robert's academic career would again be scrutinized - and all of this after Josh has already left the program. Zilch's least painful course may be silence. The reader is encouraged to discuss Zilch's moral responsibilities in the context of this case.
Commentary On
Sherry's Obligation as Academic Counselor
Sherry's Obligation as Researcher
Contribution Research may make to knowledge vs. cost to the research participant
Are there alternative research designs?
Who has the final ethical responsibility?
This case raises concerns about a researcher's ethical obligations to her research and research participants, and how those obligations can conflict with her responsibilities and obligations toward her employer and clients.
Sherry's primary responsibility is working with students who are experiencing academic difficulty, particularly those on academic probation. These students on probation are facing academic dismissal from college if they do not improve their grades in the current or following term. As she works with these students, she decides that they would probably benefit by taking a course on effective study skills. Because of the large number of students experiencing academic troubles, Sherry feels this strategy will be the most efficient use of her time, providing the students with increased contact with her -- ten hours per term as opposed to 45-60 minutes per term.
Sherry is also in graduate school with only her research thesis left to complete her Master of Science degree. She sees this course on study skills for academically troubled students as an interesting research thesis.
At this point, the tension between Sherry's role as a professional and her role as a researcher becomes apparent. Sherry must consider her responsibilities and obligations to her employer and her moral responsibility for the effect of her work with the students. Yet Sherry as researcher must consider the ethical obligation she has to conduct the best research she possibly can.
Sherry's Obligation as Academic Counselor
Sherry may argue that she has a moral obligation to fulfill the responsibility given her by her employer to help students experiencing academic difficulty improve their grades. That means that she will help students to learn skills that could enable them to improve their academic standing. As she has explored the research literature conducted in traditional college settings that focused on low academically achieving students, she finds that positive results have been observed when those students learn appropriate study skills.
Even though students at this technical college are drawn from a different population than those who attend traditional colleges, Sherry believes that her students would probably benefit as much, if not more, from learning successful study skills. Perhaps because of her review of the research literature, she finds study skills to be the most successful factor in helping students improve their academic standing.
Given Sherry's feeling of responsibility (to her employer and to the students) to help the students improve their grades, it is understandable that she would feel an ethical obligation to provide these students the opportunity to learn successful study skills, increasing their chances of getting off academic probation and eventually earning their college degrees.
Sherry's Obligation as Researcher
Sherry could argue that it is "the initial ethical obligation of psychologists to conduct the best research of which they are capable."
Sherry could agree with her thesis committee's position, allowing for a control group whose members receive no intervention. She has an ethical responsibility to conduct her research in the most rigorous and scientific manner possible. Certainly for the research Sherry is proposing, a control group would be the most sound experimental design, and the knowledge that could be gained from this research might be used to benefit an even greater number of students in academic trouble.
However, Sherry decided before consulting her thesis committee that her research design would not include a control group. She made this decision based on the results she found in her literature search, which indicated that the study skills intervention produced improvement in most students' GPAs in traditional college settings. Her concern about the possible negative effect for students who would not receive the study skills intervention led her to believe that priority must be given to the research participants' welfare rather than the best research design.
Contribution research made to knowledge vs. cost to the research participant
Three principles have been proposed for ethical research involving human participants.
Respect for persons. Respect for persons incorporates at least two ethical convictions: first, that individuals should be treated as autonomous agents, and second, that persons with diminished autonomy are entitled to protection.
Beneficence. Researchers treat persons in an ethical manner not only by protecting them from harm, but also by making efforts to secure their well-being. Beneficence here is understood in a strong sense, as an obligation. Two general rules have been formulated as complementary expressions of beneficent actions in this sense: 1) do no harm and 2) maximize possible benefits and minimize possible harms.
The principle of beneficence assumes that investigators will carefully think through the implications of their research. This principle means that the research should provide participants with maximum benefits while risks are minimized. Clearly the students who receive the study skills training have a greater possibility of receiving maximum benefits and minimal risks, if any (based on the research literature).
The benefits and risks for students in a proposed control group need to be examined carefully. The risks to the students in the control group may appear to be minimal. If the research shows no benefit to the experimental group, the students in the control group would not have invested their time in a useless course. If the results of the study are positive, they can participate in the study skills course after the end of the study. However, as stated in the case, these students are on academic probation and are in danger of being dismissed at the end of the current academic term if their GPAs do not improve. It is important to understand what success in college might mean to these students. As the first persons in their families to attend college, their families have high expectations for them. Failing at this technical college could have a profound impact on their dignity and self-esteem.
The best possible scenario is that they will have one more term to improve their grades to avoid being dismissed from school. Some of the students in the control group would not have the opportunity to participate during the next term because they would already have been dismissed from school due to academic ineligibility. Those students who had two terms to raise their GPA might had a better chance to do so if they had received the study skills training prior to the term in which they might be dismissed.
Justice. The principle of justice centers on "who ought to receive the benefits of research and bear its burdens."
Thus, Sherry must consider that "the general ethical question always is whether a negative effect upon the dignity and welfare of the participants is warranted by the importance of the research. . . [and that]. . . in weighing the pros and cons of conducting research that raises ethical questions, priority must be given to the research participant's welfare and dignity."
Are there alternative research designs?
Sherry could explore other research designs and methodologies that will allow her to conduct sound research and still fulfill her ethical obligations to her students. One possibility would be to use students who do not volunteer to participate in the study skills course as control group participants. The difficulty with this design is that the very act of not volunteering could be an indication that those students so different from the students who volunteer that one could not compare the results. Another design methodology might be for Sherry to take half the students who volunteer for the study skills course and meet with them for the same amount of time as students who take the course, but not work with them on study skills. This design could provide valuable insight as to whether it is the study skills that students are learning that enable them to achieve better grades, or whether it is simply contact and attention from someone who is concerned with their academic progress.
Who has the final ethical responsibility?
According to the APA,
Whether a proposed research project is ethically acceptable. . . is a matter on which the individual investigator is obliged to come to a considered judgment without abdicating this responsibility on the grounds of current practice, regulatory considerations, or judgments by others. . . . The investigator. . . must accept the final ethical responsibility for deciding whether or how to proceed. . . . The teacher or research supervisor should respect the moral judgment of students and assistants. If students or assistants feel a moral reluctance to carry out a research procedure, the supervisor should not pressure them to perform the procedure, even though it seems completely acceptable.
Ibid., pp. 19, 21, 30.
Sherry has the sole ethical responsibility for deciding whether and how to proceed. She cannot abdicate her responsibility to her thesis committee. Even though they might disagree with Sherry's decision, her committee members must not pressure her to go against what she feels are her moral obligations to her students and her employer.
Commentary On
This case touches on several points in research ethics. The points may be clear to a reader who can look at the entire picture over the course of a few minutes, but it is written to try to get the reader to look at the various steps as they may have happened -- over the course of a few weeks. The characters in the story had to deal with the issues far more slowly than one sees them while reading the case. Further, the individual steps from decision to decision are relatively small, and they may have appeared even more innocuous when addressed over a long period of time. The "slippery slope" concept is very relevant when dealing with the training of graduate students in ethical conduct in research, since the graduate years are those where they make s their first choices on where to stand in their professions.
The case is meant to address proper supervision of students, proper review of data and conclusions, ownership of data, honesty in reporting, and honesty in reporting. Jessica was included in order to provide a revelation of conflicting data and is not intended to be a significant part of the case at all. However, the case could become more complex if Roger were to act vindictively and grade her poorly based on his own biases.
The first direct question in the case asks whether any mistakes had been made before Jessica's arrival at the lab. The point addressed by this question is actually directed more toward the behavior of Hare and the committee. From the background it is clear that Hare did not take an active role in guiding Roger's development of the histochemical techniques and was not able to provide expert advice or critique regarding the results. This fact has relevance to Roger's possible misinterpretation of data. It also has relevance to the rest of the case as it gives an indication of Hare's approach to the education of students.
Roger's first relevant decision occurred when he decided not to report the conflicting results to Hare or Jessica. It could be argued that this decision was perfectly reasonable since these were only the first results produced by a novice researcher. However, Roger made an executive decision regarding data that was not his sole property. Perhaps it would have been more proper for him to mention to Jessica and Hare, even in passing, the possible relevance of what Jessica had found.
Roger's next actions were a mixture. It was good, scientifically and ethically, for him to follow up on Jessica's results. His decision to put her on a different project could go either way -- it really depends on his motivation, and the case is not clear on that point. Roger made another important decision when he completed the follow up experiments that confirmed Jessica's initial findings. The case made it clear that he did not relate his finding to anyone. In fact, he accepted thanks and praise for his monitoring of Jessica's progress and for keeping the lab "on track." It is now clear that Roger, whether it was his intent from the outset or not, is manipulating data and hiding results from the lab director.
Certain aspects of this entire situation may have been averted had Hare and the committee taken a more active role in Roger's training and guidance. This case clearly addresses issues of honest handling of data and of disclosure, touching on the ownership of data and the responsible use of laboratory resources and showing that Roger has responsibilities that go beyond his own interests. The case also demonstrates how small decisions can eventually create a situation that one would clearly have avoided were that situation one of the initial choices.
Commentary On
On the surface, this case appears to focus on a problem involving data presentation. However, if we look more closely, we can see that the disagreement between a major professor and his graduate student over how the master's project information will be shared with the general community stems from a more basic problem: poor communication.
This case addresses fundamental aspects of a student-mentor relationship. What is the mentor's academic responsibility to the student, and what is the student's role in this breakdown in communication?
It is not uncommon for large universities such as the one described in this case to be immense bureaucracies, filled with mounds of paperwork, extremely busy and overscheduled faculty, and students who find themselves thrown into a system fundamentally different from their undergraduate education. The questions posed after Part 1 direct the reader to consider the department's and faculty's obligations for new graduate student orientation. Additional questions concerning the student's role in this information exchange are equally important. After all, this is the student's education. Moreover, faculty generally view graduate students as highly responsible and self-motivated adults. However, the student may not ask the appropriate questions to garner information if he cannot anticipate the problem. In other words, an inexperienced individual such as a new master's student may not have the background to foresee potential difficulties.
It appears that the department and Dr. Lee should routinely provide written materials outlining departmental mores to all new incoming students. Perhaps the materials could also emphasize general expectations for both parties and the importance of a continuous dialogue between mentor and student.
In Part 2, we find that the graduate student spends an inordinate amount of time on his master's thesis. When he finally finishes, he faces a disagreement with his mentor over the publication format of his research. There are several considerations here. 1) Who has the right to determine publication format; who has ownership of data? 2) How should the conflict be handled? Should a third party be brought in to mediate? 3) Does the department have a responsibility to assure that a graduate student makes timely progress and does an appropriate amount of work for his project?
Again, it seems that the department and faculty committee should address questions of ownership and appropriate size of projects at the onset of the student's research. It would also seem reasonable for the department to provide a system for the mediation of student/mentor conflicts.
Part 3 finds the student retaining ownership of his research, but damaging his relationship with his mentor. Changes in how information is presented with the advent of the internet pose new questions. Standard methods of citation, publication, and so on, are in the process of being established. However, questions of ownership and conflict resolution methods could be addressed prior to the formation of a dispute. If a conflict develops in spite of such preventive measures, it may be necessary to bring in a third party to mediate. With the help of mediation, a win-win solution might be found that would satisfy both parties. By refusing to reconsider his position, the student in this case may have lost his best avenue for professional advice and recommendations.
In other words, he won the battle only to lose the war.
Commentary On
When someone hears or reads about research on nonhuman animals and potential ethical problems with that research, the research typically has biomedical applications. This type of research uses non human animals as models for human beings, in experiments with new products or techniques. Ethical arguments against this research have generally fallen under two major views: a utilitarian view or a deontological (rights-based) view. From the utilitarian viewpoint, the question hinges on whether the study organism has the capacity for suffering; if so, we need to take that suffering into account.
From the rights-based viewpoint, the question of suffering is not the central criterion for evaluating our decisions about non human animal research. For this view, the major problem with non human animal research is that we are using living, sentient individuals as resources, as means to our ends.
But what if the research does not have a direct, immediate application to our own species? What if, instead, we are interested in understanding the basic ecological and evolutionary processes that govern the living world? One field of research taking this approach and using nonhuman animals as research subjects, is the field of animal behavior. Ethologists, comparative psychologists, and behavioral ecologists study the behavioral patterns of nonhuman animals and humans in both captive settings and in the organisms' natural settings. The goals of the research are to understand the behaviors animals use to feed, reproduce, communicate, and avoid predation -- how these behaviors develop, the mechanisms by which they are elicited, what functions they serve, and how they evolved in the species. Indeed, for those of us concerned about the use of nonhuman animals in research, a solid understanding of the ethology and natural history of the species is fundamental to know what might be painful to an animal or what is an abnormal environmental context or stimulus for a species. To arrive at this understanding, research with nonhuman animals is necessary. While mathematical modeling, computer simulations, and strictly observational data often serve as the foundation for generating predictions about behavior, experimental studies involving manipulations are often necessary to test the predictions.
How does one decide whether a given ethological experiment with non humans should be done -- whether it would be ethically justifiable? A decision model proposed by Bateson
An important extension of this decision cube would take into account what might be called a conservation criterion.
"The Gladiator Sparrow" case touches on many of these issues. The research is designed to reveal basic principles and processes of behavioral development -- the benefit that might accrue from the research may have no direct application to human welfare whatsoever. Then again, understanding socialization processes during development that lead to certain behaviors being displayed in a nonhuman animal species may be of some significance to our understanding of human behavior. With basic research like the study described in the case, one simply cannot know beforehand the practical results that might be obtained. The questions raised in the case touch on our notions of whether some groups of animal species may be more or less preferable as study organisms in behavioral research and how this decision might relate to utilitarian or rights-based views. They also relate to the fact that with behavioral research, the questions asked and the design of research are often inseparable from the ethical issues confronting the research. However, the remainder of this commentary will focus on one of the most fundamental issues in this case -- studying aggression in a captive group of animals.
In this case, the behavior in question is aggressive behavior, and a study of aggression in and of itself brings many of these ethical issues to the forefront. Perhaps the most central issue in this case is that, by definition, research on aggression will involve pain and suffering for some of the animals. Further, the study of aggression in a captive setting raises the stakes. Although a captive setting allows for increased experimental control and for extremely detailed observations of behavior and its development, in this case it also exacerbates the problem of animal pain. In a captive setting, an individual being attacked by another cannot escape the interaction by leaving the area, as might be the case in the species' natural setting. This concern has led some authors to view any captive study of natural behaviors like aggression, infanticide, or predation -- or any field study with manipulations to increase the likelihood of these events -- to be ethically problematic.
In her discussion of ethical problems with studies of predation or aggression, Huntingford argued that the conflict between the pain involved in the experiment and the likely information acquired by doing the experiment will come out in favor of doing the experiment to the extent that six criteria are met:
- The theoretical importance of the study is critically evaluated by several researchers, including researchers outside the particular field of aggression and predation studies.
- The behavior of the subjects in the experiment is recorded in extreme detail.
- Care is taken not to replicate unnecessarily experiments with the particular species or question; collaborative research with other workers in the field or of that species should be pursued.
- Data are collected from natural (unmanipulated, noncaptive) settings as much as possible.
- Models rather than live predators/aggressors are used whenever possible.
- Aggression and other potentially dangerous or painful encounters are kept to a minimum and to as short a duration as possible.
F. A. Huntingford, "Some Ethical Issues Raised by Studies of Predation and Aggression," Animal Behaviour 32 (1984): 210-215.
It is informative to look at the case of The Gladiator Sparrow in light of Huntingford's six criteria (as well as those of Bateson, Cuthill, and Driscoll and Bateson, discussed above).
- We can assume that the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) of Clarisse's university comprises several scientists and at least one community member and that her study passed the IACUC's criteria for theoretical importance. On the other hand, given the nature of studies of aggression or predation, it may be important for researchers such as Clarisse and her adviser to go beyond the IACUC and request commentary on the research question and design from several researchers in and outside the particular field.
- We can perhaps assume, given the information in the case, that Clarisse has analyzed behavioral interactions of her birds in great detail. This information may be particularly relevant to the question of unnecessary pain and suffering of birds in her future work. If Clarisse has collected dozens of dependent behavioral measures in her work, she may be able to find antecedents of aggression in the behavioral repertoires of the birds that allow her reliably to predict aggressive and potentially harmful behaviors. Thus, in future studies, she may be able to stage encounters using one of these antecedent behaviors as her measure of aggressive interaction.
- This criterion is an area where Clarisse probably did not prepare sufficiently in establishing her research design. It also points to a weakness of present IACUC protocol applications. These applications typically ask for a Web-based literature search for related studies and for alternatives to research with nonhuman animals. Most Web-based literature searches only go back for the last two decades or so, however, which means that older studies may go unnoticed by some researchers. That could be particularly damaging in a field like animal behavior, where a great deal of very detailed natural history studies of species may be several decades old. In this case study, Clarisse did not contact Drs. Cabral and Marable, and she may not have been aware of their earlier work until well into her study. Clarisse should have known these researchers' work better than she apparently did, and should have contacted them before initiating her study. Knowing she might encounter extreme amounts of aggression among the birds, she may have been better able to minimize losses in her study.
- Had Clarisse herself had first-hand knowledge of and data on aggression in the wild with the particular population of Gladiator sparrow she would study, she may have been more ready to deal with the level of aggression that would occur in her birds. On the other hand, if she were studying a population whose behavioral interactions had been studied thoroughly by other researchers, it may not be necessary for her to spend a year or more observing the behavior of the birds in the natural setting.
- It is difficult to tell from the case study whether the use of models rather than live birds might have been possible in Clarisse's study. If she plans to carry out more manipulated and experimental tests of aggression and/or responses to aggression in the future, however, it may be possible to use stuffed models of the sparrows in aggressive postures or playbacks of aggressive vocalizations, rather than using real birds to test subjects' behavior.
- This point is similar to the discussion brought up in Criterion 2. If Clarisse were able to know with a high reliability that a given behavior "A" of a bird virtually always led to fighting and harm to another bird, she may be able to use behavior "A" as her measure of aggression, and stop any interactions between two birds after that behavior is displayed by one of the birds.
To summarize, Clarisse seems to have done a fair amount of preparation for her research, and she has met the expectations and concerns of her IACUC in developing her study. On the other hand, given the nature of her research project, she perhaps should have prepared more thoroughly. Had she known the extent of the aggression she would observe (and from the case it seems likely she could and should have known this), she could have been ready for what she would encounter with the birds. She could have set up testing situations, or in general could have been better prepared, to minimize the losses in her study as well as the amount of pain suffered by the birds, while still collecting the data required to answer her research questions.
Commentary On
Recent advances in human genetic research have made it easier to identify mutations responsible for rare genetic disorders like BCK. The availability of families like those in Community Z are important for the characterization of these gene defects in order to predict and immediately treat future cases. The main purpose of this case is to stimulate discussion of researchers' moral and ethical responsibility to culturally distinct and/or indigenous populations who engage in population-specific genetic studies in return for improved health care.
The case presents several ethical dilemmas. Although clear-cut answers are not obvious, the research team must make a decision. They must consider all interested parties, including individual community members, the community as a whole, the research team, and, indirectly, the integrity of the research team's institution.
The first issue is whether to screen unmarried couples or individuals even though the elders do not recommend it. In some cultures, the concept of persons as individuals may differ from other societies' definition. Whether the choice of unmarried couples to go against their elders' wishes to be screened is wise, depends on that community member. Certainly, if the research team decides to test unmarried couples who desire screening, it may affect the researchers' relationship with the community elders. This decision could also impact these individuals' decisions to marry -- or never to marry for fear of having an affected infant. However, if the couples are not allowed to be screened until married and it is determined that they are both carriers, knowledge that they have been identified as carriers may have a negative effect on the marriage. In addition, each child they may conceive has a 1 in 4 chance of having BCK. In light of these facts, screening unmarried couples may be best. Because of the high incidence of BCK in this community, it is far better to screen the unmarried couples who desire carrier testing than to deny them.
Another issue raised by this case is respect for the community as a whole by honoring the recommendation of the elders. In the interest of maintaining their relationship with the elders, the research team should provide further education about BCK to the elders and the community, with the hope that the elders will either 1) allow unmarried couples to be screened or 2) arrange for married couples to receive genetic counseling if tests show that both partners are gene carriers.
References
- M. W. Foster, D. Bernsten, and T. H. Carter, "A Model Agreement for Genetic Research in Socially Identifiable Populations," American Journal of Human Genetics 63 (1998): 696-702.
- L. O. Gostin, "Informed Consent, Cultural Sensitivity, and Respect for Persons," Journal of the American Medical Association 274 (10, 1995): 844-845.
This case raises several important dilemmas that confront clinical scientists who conduct research with individuals who have mental disorders. A dilemma can be defined as a situation in which rights or obligations of interested parties are in conflict. In this case, the interested parties include Miriana, Duncan, Duncan's advisers and others who may require the use of the data, health care workers involved in Miriana's care, and the agencies and Internal Review Boards of the hospital, university and funding source. Whichever course of action Duncan chooses, consequences will ensue for each of these parties. For this reason, Duncan must consider both participant protection and methodological factors as he seeks to resolve his dilemma.
In deciding upon an appropriate course of action, Duncan could take solace in the fact that the IRBs of the hospital, university, and granting agency have approved the research protocol, including the consent procedure. Or can he? There is a potential conflict of interest inherent in approval of research protocols by the granting agency, in that the agency has a vested interest in the success of the research project.
Informed Consent
Informed consent is at the core of Duncan's dilemma, and in particular, informed consent with individuals who may exhibit impaired capacity to fulfill the requirements of informed consent. Informed consent becomes a dilemma in this case because of the potential conflict between the rights and interests of the research participant and those of the individuals who have a stake in the outcome of the research. The Belmont Report described three elements of informed consent: information, comprehension, and voluntariness.
When Duncan initially reviewed the consent form with Miriana, he asked her whether she understood each component of the study, including the component that she was to complete today, and she stated that she did. This procedure is described as relatively intensive. Yet, at least one study has demonstrated that, in some cases, objective assessments of schizophrenia patients' comprehension of informed consent are discrepant with the patients' self-report of understanding.
The capacity of patients with mental disorders to engage in decision making related to participation in research and treatment has been the subject of increased attention and debate. Current conceptualizations of decision-making capacity have evolved from operational definitions of legal competence and generally include four standards for determining whether individuals have the capacity to make autonomous decisions. These standards are: 1) the ability to express a choice, 2) the ability to understand relevant information, 3) the ability to appreciate the situation and its likely consequences, and 4) the ability to manipulate information rationally or to reason.
As noted in the case, schizophrenia is a disorder that can affect multiple areas of cognitive functioning. In one investigation of the four decision-making standards, one-fourth to one-third of patients with schizophrenia exhibited impaired understanding, reasoning, or appreciation. The investigators reported a significantly lower percentage of healthy comparison participants, patients with depression, and patients with angina who exhibited impairment in these capacities.
Duncan wonders whether the controversy over informed consent is relevant to his situation with Miriana, because she may not have schizophrenia. Although it may be true that much of the current controversy concerns patients with schizophrenia, and that they are at a greater risk of impairment, Miriana's diagnosis would appear to be irrelevant. In the individual case, the diagnosis in and of itself cannot indicate whether decision-making capacity is impaired. (Indeed Grisso and Appelbaum suggest that as many as 75 percent of patients with schizophrenia are unimpaired in at least one of these capacities.
Rather, the relevant question is whether the individual prospective research participant has sufficient decision-making capacity to engage in the consent process. Indeed, there has been considerable discussion regarding whether the decision-making capacity of all prospective research participants should be evaluated, regardless of psychiatric status. Some commentators suggest that the capacity of all hospitalized psychotic patients, whether or not they have schizophrenia, should be evaluated, but concede that this practice might lead to an overestimation of incapacity among such patients.
However, one aspect of Duncan's problem is that he did not initially employ, and does not seem to have at his disposal, an effective means of identifying impairments in Miriana's decision-making capacity as they relate to informed consent. Duncan appears to have unwittingly contributed to the development of this dilemma by not reminding her that he was from the research project when he approached her today. At this point, Duncan could review the informed consent form with Miriana and obtain consent again, using the approved protocol. Such re-consent procedures have been suggested in cases in which experimentation occurs over an extended period of time.
A further problem arises when one must rely on the subjective judgments of a participant's capacity by researchers who have a potential conflict of interest between the need to gather data and the need to protect their human subjects.
In determining criteria for acceptable levels of capacity, the American Psychiatric Association guidelines state "As a general rule, the less favorable the risk/benefit ratio of participation in a research project, especially as the absolute level of risk increases, the higher the level of capacity that should be required."
If Duncan were able to use such an instrument, and if he determined that Miriana evidenced a level of impairment in decision-making capacities that was not acceptable, given the risks in the study, he could discontinue with Miriana for the day, running the risk that she will be discharged, and approach her again tomorrow. If she were discharged, or if she still exhibited impairment, the data he has already collected apparently would be unusable. But, even if a research participant such as Miriana demonstrated impaired capacity when assessed objectively, should she necessarily be ineligible for participation? As Appelbaum points out, "Impairments exist on a spectrum and some degree of dysfunction is not incompatible with competent decision-making."
Such questions frequently have been explored from the armchair; more recently, several investigators have begun to address these issues as empirical questions. In one investigation, Wirshing et al. designed a consent procedure that involved an explanation of the study protocol, brief survey, re-explanation of information pertaining to missed items, and a re-testing. In their sample, schizophrenia patients obtained a median score of 80 percent on the first testing; 37 percent of the remaining individuals required three or more trials to answer all items correctly.
Despite such promising results, there are potential drawbacks to the use of assessment tools to evaluate capacity. Results may be influenced by other factors including performance anxiety, psychometric properties of the instrument, and current context.
If educational efforts and objective testing are not successful in eliciting a satisfactory level of decision-making capacity, then state laws may allow an alternative individual to consent for the patient. The American Psychological Association's guidelines stipulate,"For persons who are legally incapable of giving informed consent, psychologists nevertheless 1) provide an appropriate explanation, 2) obtain the participant's assent, and 3) obtain appropriate permission from a legally authorized person, if such substitute is permitted by law."
Keeping in mind these issues, including the facts that Duncan does not appear to have a readily available means of assessing Miriana's current decision-making capacity and that she does not have a legally authorized representative, there may be no way in which Duncan can "set things straight with Miriana" and continue with the interview. Instead, the most appropriate course of action is likely to be to terminate Miriana's participation, despite the risk of being unable to use her data. The loss of one patient's data is a small price to pay if it spurs Duncan and his advisers to design an approach to address these important issues that would better accommodate the conflicting demands of protection of participants and research outcome.
Confidentiality
A second major issue raised by the case concerns the confidentiality of diagnoses obtained during the course of the patient's participation. While Duncan does not specifically face this dilemma in his interactions with Miriana, it is an important point that is worthy of consideration by researchers who investigate mental disorders,
In this case, the primary question is whether researchers should promise confidentiality as it pertains to diagnosis when that diagnosis might conflict with that of the hospital. The interested parties are the same as those involved with informed consent, but the interests of hospital staff may be more directly involved in this context. Here, confidentiality and methodological rigor may be on the "same side" of the dilemma, and may conflict with beneficence regarding the patient's care. That is, research participants typically are promised that their results and the information they provide will be confidential, but that could not be promised if there were an agreement that the diagnosis would be shared.
From a methodological standpoint, it could be argued that it is to the researchers' advantage to ensure confidentiality, because it increases the chances that the information given by the patient will be accurate. Some patients may attempt to downplay or deny their symptoms to the hospital staff if they feel that full disclosure will prolong their stay in the hospital or lead them to be transferred to a state hospital. If confidentiality were not ensured, patients may not be motivated to be as truthful, which may compromise the diagnosis and results of the research. Indeed, Nowell and Spruill conducted an investigation of the reporting of symptoms by college students as a function of the level of confidentiality assured; they reported that participants who were promised complete confidentiality were more willing to disclose information about certain kinds of symptoms depending on their nature and severity.
Inaccurate information can compromise data in other ways. For example, the patients may be asked to be completely truthful about the last time they used drugs and cigarettes. These substances can affect performance on many tasks and it is vital to interpretation of some forms of data that these variables are known. Thus, the integrity of the information, and therefore the accuracy of results, could be compromised in some cases if complete confidentiality is not ensured. In addition, many patients with schizophrenia exhibit suspicion, and some of these patients have adversarial relationships with their health care teams. Sometimes, patients may choose to participate only because they know that the study is not formally affiliated with the system of which they are so wary. These patients are sometimes the most seriously ill and the most difficult to recruit, but it can be very important to obtain their data. Without assurance of independence from the hospital, it might be difficult to obtain their participation.
The research team is not obligated to inform the hospital staff of a new diagnosis or other information relevant to the patient's status (e.g., use of drugs and alcohol). Yet, through their rigorous procedure, the research staff may obtain a more reliable and accurate diagnosis that, if shared, could benefit patients like Miriana.
However, in addition to researchers' potential concerns regarding integrity of information, there could be other ramifications if research diagnoses were disclosed to the hospital staff. The first issue relates to the importance of safeguarding the voluntariness of the patient's consent. Consent forms include the statement that the relationship with the hospital will not be affected by the patient's participation in the research; this provision is intended in part to minimize the possibility that a patient will feel pressured to participate. The Belmont Report states, "Unjustifiable pressures usually occur when persons in positions of authority or commanding influence -- especially where possible sanctions are involved -- urge a course of action for a subject."
One way of addressing this concern would be to allow participants or their legally authorized representatives to determine whether the research diagnosis is shared with the staff. However, this alternative too would raise important questions. Would patients choose to share the diagnosis with the staff only if they "liked" the research team's diagnosis? If they didn't "like" it and didn't want it shared, what responsibilities would the research team have? If patients had to decide at the beginning of the study whether the research team's diagnosis would be shared regardless of the outcome, might some of those electing to share the diagnosis purposefully manipulate the information given to the research team?
Further questions are raised by uncertainty about the way in which discrepant diagnoses would be handled by hospital staff. Not all practitioners would agree that the diagnosis achieved through use of a semi-structured interview leads to a more valid diagnosis. In addition, a prevailing hierarchy in many hospitals ranks psychiatrists higher than psychologists in certain areas of expertise, and psychiatrists frequently have administrative superiority over psychologists. Thus, it is possible that the psychiatric staff would choose not to accept the diagnoses provided by a psychologist- staffed research team. How far would the research team be obligated to go if a psychiatrist insisted on one diagnosis and the research team another? In this situation, what responsibilities would the researchers have to the patients? Would the researchers be required to inform patients or their legally authorized representatives about the discrepant diagnosis? How could patients or representatives ensure that the research diagnosis was taken into consideration? Could this practice lead to legal ramifications for the hospital? What if the hospital diagnosed and treated a patient for bipolar illness, but the research diagnosis was schizophrenia? The patient or family could see legitimate grounds for a suit against the hospital for misdiagnosis and treatment. To avoid this problem, would the hospital pressure the research team to reconsider the diagnosis in discrepant cases? How would that affect patient care, the ability to conduct research, and the results of the investigation? Would some level of irreconcilable differences affect hospitals' willingness to allow research? How might that affect the progress of knowledge about the etiology and treatment of disorders like schizophrenia?
In order to weigh the costs and benefits of compromising voluntariness by disclosing diagnoses and contending with the ensuing issues, it is important to consider the likelihood of benefits to the patients from sharing diagnoses with the hospital staff. An important point is that psychiatric treatment is not currently so specific that well-supported and distinct treatments exist for specific psychotic disorders. For example, most treatment of patients with psychotic disorders includes antipsychotic medications regardless of the specific disorder. Thus, in studies that include patients with different types of psychotic disorders, such as Duncan's, all participants may already be receiving similar treatments and the actual diagnosis may be irrelevant. Although this fact perhaps begs the major question, and will likely change as treatments become more refined, it raises questions about the extent to which psychiatric patients would actually benefit from disclosure of their diagnoses.
Just as researchers have begun to empirically address issues surrounding consent, the issues surrounding confidentiality of diagnoses could be framed as empirical questions. To determine the scope of the problem, studies could be designed that would quantify the frequency with which hospital and research diagnoses are discrepant. These investigations could include whether the prescribed medications varied as a function of the patient's diagnosis, to address the relevance of conflicting diagnoses. By posing hypothetical cases to hospital staff, investigators could examine the ways in which staff members are likely to handle discrepant information. Such empirical studies are likely to contribute to a better understanding of the extent of the problem and potentially lead to modifications in confidentiality agreements where they are warranted. As Bonnie states, "Current controversies regarding research with cognitively impaired subjects should be seen, in historical context, as a reminder of unfinished business."
Commentary On
This case shows that ethical issues arise even when none of the parties involved commit obvious ethical violations.
It might be tempting to confine the study of ethics to situations in which one or more of the parties involved has committed some obvious violation of ethical principles. Once this stance is taken, many make secondary the study of ethics on the grounds that "the people I deal with on an everyday basis are reasonably ethical." This case reminds us that the study of ethics is important nevertheless, and should always be at the forefront of our thought process.
In this case, Huge and Ivy are confronted with ethical dilemmas even though both parties have operated in a manner that, at least at first glance, seems ethical. After all, both parties want to see the new MRI technique succeed, and neither party is hindering the progress of the other. This case also reinforces the fact that ethics plays an important role in fundamental science, despite the fact that its experiments are rarely conceived with a practical application in mind. Furthermore, it may remind us that the study of ethics doesn't always ask us to choose between a '"right" and "wrong" answer. This fact can be troubling to some scientists, and it is worth discussion.
It is also instructive to note that this case never focuses on one individual. Often our case studies revolve around interactions between individuals, which can lull us into believing that these are the only ethical situations that we need to look out for. One might argue that behaving ethically does not just involve doing what is right for one's own situation, but also involves understanding how ethical decisions are dealt with between groups.
We must be willing to approach ethics with forethought. It is not sufficient to just wait for a situation to present itself and then "behave ethically." Ethical behavior must involve understanding (or at the bare minimum, attempting to understand) what ethical decisions might lie ahead. In the end, the reader may note that the downfall of the parties involved in this case is not that they took an unethical step along the way, but rather that they failed to consider the ethics of their research before they began.
Question 1
The first topic this question is likely to raise is how a moral obligation to society differs from what is legally right (i.e., patent law). Too often, the two are deemed to be identical. Although one could argue that both parties have a moral obligation to society to mass produce the new technique, one cannot argue that the most efficient manner for either party to do so would necessarily be legal. Furthermore, this question is a good way to get students to think about the ultimate purpose of science. Is the ultimate goal of science to search for truth, to better society or to do something else? What do you do when the search for truth conflicts with bettering society?
Question 2
One interesting way to approach this question might be to ask. "Why do we call the funding we get for experiments 'grants'?" The word "grant" carries a connotation of "free money"; however, most would argue that grant recipients have some sort of responsibility to the entity that funded the research. At the vary least, scientists have the obligation to show that the money was spent wisely. If they fail to do so, they will not receive any more grants and will no longer be able to practice science.
Question 3
This is an especially interesting topic for scientists whose livelihoods depend on ideas that do not or have yet to bear practical applications. Many scientists' careers are based on developing abstract, entirely theoretical notions. Occasionally, these abstract theories will yield an application (either directly or indirectly) that is highly profitable. Some examples include the CD player, the internet and quantum computing. This question asks the reader how to maximize public gain from scientific applications without squashing a valuable reservoir of talent that could produce new, applicable science.
Question 4
This question requires readers to look beyond the ethical questions presented to them and instead examine how their choices place others in a situation where there is an ethical decision to be made. In other words, is it good enough to behave in a way that passes the ethical decision on to another party?
Question 5
This question asks readers to weigh the pursuit of truth, utilitarianism and patent law all at once. This discussion can be especially rich because many, if not most, of the ethical decisions that we must make require deciding between choices, all of which have good intentions. It is important to remember that the study of ethics is not only important when trying to decide between right and wrong, but also when deciding between two "right" options.
Question 6
At this point, the reader may ask about the four universities that did not emerge as players in this case study. After all, at least six universities contributed to the pool of basic science research that Huge and Ivy applied to new MRI techniques. What do Technological University, Private University, Popular University and Selective University deserve?
Commentary On
This case provides a framework for discussion about affirmative action, graduate education and graduate research. Indirectly, the case raises questions about the responsibilities of university research in society and issues surrounding student-mentor relationships. It is intended to open up communication on a topic that is rarely discussed in technical research and thought to pertain only to "policy."
Affirmative action in graduate education is important because science and the generation of knowledge are embedded in a larger context of values, norms and priorities. Historians have recognized that the growth of knowledge in science cannot be understood simply as a mastery of nature through the use of a set of tools. Rather, the interests and priorities of science are structured by circumstances in society. As scientists, we should be able to reflect on our work and determine how it relates to a broader context. The debate over affirmative action is only one aspect of the complex interaction between science and society.
In using this case for instruction, it could be useful to assign the characters to different students/participants and have them develop arguments in support of their positions. Such a role-playing exercise could unveil additional issues of importance to the case. It also allows students to determine what "ought to be done" for a given situation as well as the compelling pressures for not following through.
The commentary is organized in three sections. First, the parties involved are identified and a discussion of their roles and responsibilities is provided. Second, four points of conflict are presented. These topics will bound the discussion. (The reader must realize that the topic of affirmative action is controversial and quite broad.) Finally, the third section contains additional questions for discussion.
Parties Roles, and Responsibilities
Each of the multiple parties involved in the case provides a different perspective on the issues at stake and the points of conflict. The essence of the case is the student member's participation on the admissions committee and his or her role on it.
The faculty members, as agents of the university and as implementors of the admissions policy, are the second group involved. Each committee member -- the student and the faculty -- is expected to "ensure a fair and transparent admissions process." These terms are vague for the student serving on the committee, not to mention the faculty members, who might have personal interests to promote. The third group consists of the two students under consideration for admission (and the fellowship). These individuals embodied in the university are a micro-representation of a public education system that has specific goals and objectives.
As a public university, the school has a public mission to fulfill. That mission could be to provide quality education to the state's population, or to develop a strong research agenda that supports the state's or the nation's priorities. In achieving their missions, institutions as complex as schools often find contradictions in the implementation of policies. For example, is academic excellence exclusive of racial diversity under the current historical context? As with many hierarchical institutions, Major State University is supporting a controversial policy by having language written in a vague way. Vague policy directives, however, are not surprising. The school might be attempting to avoid future lawsuits, or has simply delegated to departmental administrators the nuts and bolts of policy implementation. This vagueness of the school's intent resembles many real-life situations.
In addition to the responsibilities of each group, it is important to focus on how accountability is distributed among the actors. Accountability is important because it helps determine how individuals view their responsibilities and the need to act upon them. The faculty members are accountable to other faculty members, to the university at large and, in an indirect way, to the society. Accountability of the student on the committee is less clear, however. The student may be accountable to other current students, to future students or to the faculty members on the committee.
Points of Conflict
A first point of conflict is the appropriateness of student participation in a program's admission decisions. Student representation is often justified by appealing to a democratic and consensus-based character of decision making where stakeholders are heard and have some influence on committee decisions. Although valuable for the student body, the appropriateness of this approach in admissions decisions is difficult to ascertain. Regardless of the ethical implications of student involvement in admission decisions, the information that a given student was admitted primarily because of the availability of funds earmarked for a racial (or gender) category should remain confidential, not accessible to students. The perils of information leaks are considerable. It is surprising that neither the faculty nor the student raised any questions about the appropriateness of the student's participation before the committee's activities began.
This case raises further questions about the relationship between faculty members and students (which differs from the one-to-one student-mentor relationships discussed in other cases). Should students be limited to their research and academic activities? Is their involvement in program decision making worth the perils it brings?
A second point of conflict arises from the decision itself. For this discussion, it is important to consider some of the most common arguments favoring affirmative action. Affirmative action is often promoted in the interest of compensating for past situations deemed wrong. It is cited as a challenge to a historian by insisting on a contextual analysis of issues. Current inequalities and institutional practices, it is argued, are linked to earlier periods. There is a presumption that racism (or gender bias) has contributed to contemporary manifestations of group advantage and disadvantage, resulting in differences in income, education and rates of incarceration, among others. The United States, like many other countries in this hemisphere, was born of different forms of violent colonization, with slavery being critical to a national economy. For some, the mere memory of this often overlooked past justifies the need for affirmative action. It could be argued that these types of harms spill over from person to person in the form of stereotypes. The net result of this hypothesized cultural contagion is that future members of society inherit the cumulative effects of macro- and micro-level discrimination before they are ever in a position to experience a specific and identifiable harm that many consider a prerequisite to reparation, the concept cited by Professor Harris. Other rationales for affirmative action include compensating for current bias, redistributing resources vital to survival, democratic participation in society, preventing social disintegration or bestowing charity.
It would appear that a key element of the discussion is that Lambert was born and presumably educated in Kenya, while Rodney grew up in the United States. This difference would make Rodney more qualified to receive the fellowship even though merit and qualifications for admission have not been discussed yet. It could be argued that Kenya's precarious economy, due to colonialism, qualify Rodney for the fellowship. A third point of friction arises from the potential conflict of interest faced by the faculty members. For example, Professor Belman is not yet tenured. For her, quality research (and the means to achieve it) might be a decisive factor for her professional career. However, Professor Belman might find racial or gender diversity in the workplace valuable and hence encounter a definite conflict. Similarly, Professor Harris argued against Lambert's admission based on the notion of restoration. Is it because he firmly believes in affirmative action or because Rodney has expressed interest in working with him?
From the text, it is not clear what motivates each faculty member to make the statements presented. The alternatives outlined above are plausible and point to definite conflicts of interest. One could think of similar situations in admissions processes where conflict of interest is not as clear, and yet it exists. For example, what should be done when a highly qualified student expresses interest in working in a field where research money is scarce, but it is clear to the faculty that his abilities would be in suited to other, more promising areas of research.
A fourth point of conflict is the flexibility of standards in determining the admission of either or both of the students. As presented, the case is ambiguous about Lambert's qualifications for entering the program, but the case presents Rodney as less qualified than Lambert. Should the admission decision be based solely on academic standards or merit? How can letters of recommendation be comparable if they come from different countries or areas of study? The word "merit" is often used to illustrate one aspect of affirmative action, but how does one define merit in this context? While the general implication is that merit refers to standardized test scores, these determinants are more accurate reflections of the socioeconomic status of the parents. Defenders of affirmative action policies focus on the importance of having a healthy skepticism toward claims of neutrality, objectivity and color blindness, and meritocracy. These claims appear to be central to an ideology of an equal opportunity that presents race as an immutable devoid of social meaning and tells an historical, abstracted story of racial inequality. But is affirmative action the answer?
The fifth point of conflict takes the discussion back to the role of graduate education in society, and more specifically, in a public university. Should graduate education focus on individual success or on the advancement of knowledge and science? What is socially responsible education? Are the advancement of science and social responsibility mutually exclusive? As stated in the opening paragraph of this commentary, these questions are difficult to answer because they are embedded in the social and political milieu of the educational system. Awareness, discussion of the issues and tolerance surface as catalysts for understanding what is ethical and desirable for society.
Additional Discussion
There is enough ambiguity in the case to allow the construction of other scenarios for further discussion. For example, both applicants are males. Do the issues discussed here apply to gender discrimination? Would the case be different if the Kenyan applicant were a woman?
What if Professor Belman, motivated by her tenure worries, said that she would not accept responsibility for the tutelage of either student and pushed other faculty to state whether they would mentor them? Where do one's role as a leading researcher, one's responsibility as a mentor to the students and one's obligation to society begin and end?
A common feeling among minority students in graduate (and undergraduate) school is that other students view them only as a result of affirmative action policies, thereby discrediting individual merit. In a society that appears to value merit over other personal aspects, is this concern legitimate? Can schools address this concern? How?
Cornell West states that, "if racial and gender discrimination could be abated through the good will and meritorious judgement of those in power, affirmative action would be unnecessary." (West, 1993, p. 65) Can discrimination be effectively reduced with affirmative action policies? Are other policies more effective? How would they affect graduate research?
References and Further Reading
- Ansley, Fran "Affirmative Action: Diversity of Opinions - Classifying Race, Racializing Class," 68 University of Colorado Law Review (Fall 1997): 1001-33.
- Edley, Christopher Jr. Not all Black and White: Affirmative Action, Race, and American Values. New York: Hill and Wang, 1996.
- Gordon, Robert W. and Margaret Jane Radin, eds. Words that Wound. Boulder: Westview Press, 1993.
- West, Cornell. Race Matters. Boston: Beacon Press, 1993.
Commentary On
The object of this case is to raise the related issues of the value of scientific information and the role played by agents of dissemination, such as journals. Scientists be aware of these issues early in their careers so that they may appropriately wield the power they have over their own products and better achieve their goals (whatever they may be). Established scientists may be interested in the issues raised by this case because they are in a position to act, making decisions about journal management that can establish a fair and effective mechanism of information dissemination.
1. Should the board even care whether S&T goes under? If the journal does fold, is anyone harmed? Why might the board be concerned with the "value" of the research it publishes?
Of course the board should care whether S&T goes under. Most academic societies have one fundamental purpose: to disseminate information to interested parties, usually via a journal and a meeting. If the journal folds, much of the purpose for ASST's existence goes with it, and ASST is fairly likely to collapse, as investigators establish stronger ties to the remaining journals that publish in their fields. A more interesting question is whether anyone else should care. There are people who may be harmed if the journal folds. Some, such as the employed staff of the journal are harmed for reasons other than disruption of the scientific enterprise. Others are harmed by the intellectual loss that would be created if S&T folds - for example, stuffologists and thingographers who are interested in how their own work ties in with work being done in the sister discipline. Scientists in other fields may be interested in having a consolidated location with the best stuff and things in it. The scientific establishment as a whole would be harmed by the loss of S&T, because it is a unique resource, deliberately trying to bridge two fields, a valuable contribution as science becomes more and more fractionated.
In one sense, the board is concerned with the value of the research it publishes because it seeks to retain the current prestige and status of ASST and the journal. At the top of its fields, the board would probably like to stay there. So it will try to publish the most influential, controversial, clever, insightful, well-executed research available. However, that is not what Naylor means by value. Naylor's argument is about the monetary (commercial) value of publicly published information. In this case, Naylor is referring to the commercial demand created by readers who want the information primarily, though not exclusively, for the scientific process (as opposed to those who primarily want to apply the information). In theory, the more valuable the information, the more that can be charged for a copy of the publication. ASST's position of manipulating the subscription price based on concerns other than demand, means that they probably need not be concerned with maximizing monetary value. (Monetary value may be correlated, however, with scientific value, which ASST does seek to maximize. Maximization of monetary value then becomes an indirect result, if ASST can maximize scientific value.)
2. How valid is Dr. Naylor's assertion? Can one legitimately treat research results as a marketable product? Are there values in academic publishing that make it substantively different from the rest of the publishing world?
Naylor's position grows out of the idea that scientific information is a product of creative labor, and, as with any other product of labor, the laborer should be justly compensated. Naylor thinks that the prestige/stature/recognition that accrues to authors in S&T is inadequate, or that there must be some component of monetary compensation. Naylor, as ASST President, clearly holds the respect of his colleagues and can probably give a reasonable assessment of the stature gained by authors in S&T. This stature may or may not be adequate reward for the amount of effort that goes into a publication. One cannot conclude that the compensation is adequate based on the fact that people continue to submit papers for publication, because S&T, as the top journal, offers the best compensation available (and the best may still be inadequate). The board might be able to make this determination by polling the membership.
Naylor's assertion that page charges devalue information is true, but only with respect to the monetary value of the information. If the authors believe themselves to be adequately compensated with stature, or if they are altruistic, the monetary devaluation probably matters little.
3. Who should be responsible for paying for the dissemination of research results? Who is the "consumer" of the journal? Does it even matter who pays as long as the information gets out?
Several parties are interested in having the results of research disseminated, including the researchers, the researchers' institutions, other researchers who might use the information, the agencies that funded the research and parties outside the academic community (such as policy wonks and venture capitalists). In the simplest situation, a product will have one producer (who becomes the seller) and one consumer (who becomes the buyer). Scientific information is much more problematic, because several different entities are involved in its production, and the same entities can be the consumers.
The primary consumer of the journal is the reader; and thus subscriptions (or individual copy charges) should be the primary mechanism for funding journals. Structured this way, all entities that may consume the scientific information will share in the costs of producing it. It may be feared that this arrangement will price journals so high that no one can afford them. However, that outcome is impossible, because the publisher needs subscribers to stay afloat. Under this system, if a journal cannot survive, then it really is not terribly useful to the scientific community. Note that that does not mean that S&T is not useful; rather, it points to the problems created by trying to artificially suppress subscription prices.
Some may argue that it is acceptable to charge the authors for the privilege of publishing their work. In this approach, the journal is selling a forum to authors. This interpretation is plausible, but it is basically a cycle of buying prestige: Prestigious publications justify grant funding, which is then used to purchase prestige and justify more funding. I doubt if any journals have descended to the point where they charge different rates for papers of varying quality, but if they did, they would need to indicate the charge to maintain the cachet of the journal's name. That seems unlikely, but many journals already charge different subscribers different rates, based on factors much more arbitrary than quality.
Who pays for dissemination affects the method and place a researcher decides to publish his work (although it isn't the exclusive determinant); it also affects the way a reader finds the work and the costs incurred in so doing. The value to the researcher of the work going out must be balanced with the value to the reader. If the system of paying for dissemination does not approximate this balance, then either the flow of information will be inhibited, or the consumer will be swamped by overload. Because the value ratio will vary, it is likely that having a mixture of information dissemination practices will be most efficient.
4. Does the value of the journal vary by whether it is published electronically or in hard-copy? What if many other related journals are moving toward electronic access?
This issue is large enough to deserve a whole discussion on its own. However, here we are mainly interested in whether it allows us to dodge the ethical dilemma created in deciding who should pay for research dissemination. If the cost is low enough to be negligible for all parties, then functionally the issue becomes moot.
Briefly, electronic publication, or at least electronic access, enhances the value of a journal. It will increase the accessibility of the journal to readers, both in ease of access and speed. Rolling publication of papers becomes a possibility. A unique advantage is the search capability afforded to electronic text, which, if well done, will mitigate the possible information overload that could be created. If many other journals become electronic, and S&T does not, S&T will probably lose stature due to its relative inaccessibility.
5. How do different journals' publishing practices affect the flow of information in science? Can they affect the functioning of the scientific community? What responsibilities do journals have in the scientific enterprise?
This is the critical issue raised by the case, and Questions 1-4 have merely been leading up to it. By now, discussion participants should have touched on these questions, if not explored them in depth. However, some may be slightly lost unless it is made clear to them that the issue rests on the assumption that efficient flow of information is crucial to the ability of scientific investigation to explain phenomena. Efficiency is not rapidity - papers could come out much more rapidly if they were neither edited, reviewed nor revised. This change would substantially hamper readers' ability to distill what is useful to them, a problem that generates as many complaints as does the current speed of the publication process. There appears to be a trade-off between speed and utility, and the functioning of science depends, in part, on journals seeking to maintain an appropriate balance between the two.
6. Are there any ethical issues involved in attempting to manipulate the value of a scientific publication by means other than the quality of the papers published?
This issue is unrelated to the major issues of the case, but several reviewers were uncomfortable with the notion that a journal would use "dirty tricks" to manipulate its perceived value. One thing to remember is that this approach is possible only when the system used to rate journals is flawed. Using those flaws to leverage the true value of a journal isn't necessarily unethical; perhaps it is the flawed evaluation system that needs revision. Another consideration is that the approaches S&T uses to inflate its value may simply be catalysts of a positive feedback because perceptions of high quality will attract a broader and better class of manuscripts.
Commentary On
This case is based on real studies that were conducted in Vancouver and Montreal (Bruneau et al., 1997; Strathdee et al., 1997a, b; Archibald et al., 1998). When researchers found that needle exchange did not reduce the spread of HIV among their subjects, congressional leaders in the United States and conservative Christian groups like the Family Research Council demanded an end to NEPs. (E.g., Maginnis [1998a] specifically cites the Bruneau et al. [1997] and Strathdee et al. [1997a] studies.) Though some may find the reference to "religious extremists" biased and even inflammatory, it reflects the political environment in which needle exchange and needle exchange research take place. (See Maginnis, 1996a-c, 1997a-d, 1998a-c for Family Research Council articles on the topic.) Relevant policy research necessarily hits on such hot-button issues.
Dr. Lang and the real-world researchers on whom this case is based are indeed needle exchange advocates (Bruneau and Schechter, 1998b), but it is up to the reader to decide if whether theirs is a well-researched, rational, professional opinion or the view of passionate activists. It is important to address the issue of bias in research head on. What are the limits to the objectivity of science? Relevant to the issue of needle exchange and HIV/AIDS in particular is the role that social injustice plays in disease, which is increasingly recognized by the public health and medical communities. How researchers deal with bias varies across and even within fields.
Is bias something to be minimized, avoided and downplayed, or is it something to be named in order to contextualize the work and help others understand it? Is it possible to be a competent, well-read researcher on such a hot-button issue and not have an opinion on the efficacy of NEPs? Does having no opinion in this environment reflect a kind of bias against the existing research? How confident is Dr. Lang in her explanation of confounding variables in her study? What if she is wrong? What if needle exchange really does increase HIV through some as yet unknown mechanism? What is her responsibility as a scientist to report her results as she finds them, and where is the line between experienced interpretation of results and unfounded argument?
What are researchers' obligations in the process of policy making and politics? In the Montreal and Vancouver studies, the misrepresentation of results in the public arena was so significant that the studies' authors published an op-ed piece in the New York Times about the distortion of their findings by American policy advocates, politicians and journalists. (Bruneau and Schechter, 1998a) Local government in Canada responded to the studies by expanding needle exchanges and adding other health services for injection drug users. In the United States, however, the Clinton administration upheld the federal ban on funding for needle exchanges, which had a chilling effect on many less established local needle exchanges. (Freedberg, 1998; Neal, 1998).
One might ask if Dr. Lang is obliged to be similarly active in communicating her results in the political sphere; while Bruneau and Schechter responded only after damage had been done, Dr. Lang anticipates the misrepresentation of her results and has the option to act preventively. Where does Dr. Lang's role as a researcher meet the ethical responsibilities of journalists reporting on science and health policy issues or the responsibilities of policy advocates and public servants to accurately represent research findings?
This case raises further questions about the social consequences of scholarly research and the responsibilities of researchers to various communities with which they interact. What should be done when these interests and responsibilities conflict? On the one hand, Dr. Lang's finding that needle exchange did not aid HIV prevention could result in the shutdown of the exchange and any future research she had planned there. On the other hand, she is under pressure from her funders to publish, and findings that so blatantly contradict the dominant belief in her field could be her ticket to fame or notoriety, depending on whether she is right.
One might explore the possible alternatives Dr. Lang faces in her choice to publish. She might, for example, choose to present her results in the best light possible, perhaps falsifying or omitting some of her data. She might delay publication, wanting to collect more data that might alter her findings. What are the implications of these decisions for each party involved in and affected by the research?
The nature of Dr. Lang's relationship with the NEP's activists and clients is a key issue. There is a strong possibility that the trust the exchange had established with clients would be eroded by articles in the paper against needle exchange that used Dr. Lang's findings for support. To what extent are the needle exchange activists and clients partners in research? What kind of role would they ideally play in such a project?
Because injection drug users have so little access to health care, needle exchange can be their only bridge to health care services (including, in many cases, drug treatment). Might access to certain forms of medical care such as free HIV testing serve as a coercive inducement to participation in research? How might Dr. Lang address the concerns of some community members who view needle exchange as part of a racist effort to bolster the influx of drugs to poor, African-American communities? What are the ethical issues involved in a research project that monitors the spread of HIV through the voluntary use and refusal of needles? For example, what follow-up care should be planned for those who do contract HIV during the course of the study? With a disease like HIV for which effective treatment is not an option in poor communities, what is the researcher's responsibility to disseminate information about HIV prevention? Does this responsibility compromise the "objectivity" of the study? How can such a conflict be resolved?
Perhaps Dr. Lang's situation could have been avoided entirely with a more appropriate research design. Discussions of this case may include brainstorming about what kinds of designs might have eliminated or minimized the flaw in Dr. Lang's work. Could she have foreseen this problem? What should scientists do when they make such mistakes?
References
- Archibald, C. P., M. Ofner, S. A. Strathdee, D. M. Patrick, D. Sutherland, M. L. Rekart, M. T. Schechter and M. V. O'Shaughnessy. "Factors Associated with Frequent Needle Exchange Program Attendance in Injection Drug Users in Vancouver, Canada." Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes and Human Retrovirology 17 (2, 1998): 160-66.
- Bruneau, J., F. Lamothe, E. Franco, N. Lachance, M. Desy, J. Soto and J. Vincelette. "High Rates of HIV Infection among Injection Drug Users Participating in Needle Exchange Programs in Montreal: Results of a Cohort Study." American Journal of Epidemiology 146 (12, 1997): 994-1002.
- Bruneau, J., and M. T. Schechter. "The Politics of Needles and AIDS." New York Times, April 8, 1998. (1998a)
- Bruneau, J., and M. T. Schechter. "Needle Exchange Programs Do Work" Chicago Tribune, April 23, 1998; Sec. 1, p.22, col. 3. (1998b)
- Freedberg, L. "White House Needle Swap Surprise: A Refusal to Lift Ban on Program Funding." San Francisco Chronicle, April 21, 1998, Sec. A, p.1, col. 5.
- Maginnis, R.L. "Will Exchanging Needles Save America's Future?" Insight, Family Research Council, May 1996.
- Maginnis, R.L. "Government Should Not Encourage Newest Heroin Epidemic," Perspective, Family Research Council, September 1996.
- Maginnis, R.L. "'Harm Reduction' an Alternative to the Drug War?" Insight, Family Research Council, October 1996.)
- Maginnis, R.L. "An Update: Free Needles for Junkies?" Insight, Family Research Council, June 1997
- Maginnis, R.L. "Swiss Heroin Giveaways, Media, and National Security," Insight, Family Research Council, July 1997.
- Maginnis, R.L. "America Assesses Needle Exchange Programs," Special Publication, Family Research Council, August 1997. http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=BL041. (1997c)
- Maginnis, R.L. "Voters Reject Free Needles for Addicts," Article, Reporter-News.com, October 1997. http://www.texnews.com/opinion97/con090897.html. (1997d)
- Maginnis, R.L. "Religious Voters Assess Drug Policy." In Focus, Family Research Council, March 1998
- Maginnis, R.L. "1998 Update: Free Needles and Politics," Insight, Family Research Council, March 1998.
- Maginnis, R.L. "Needle Exchanges are Bad Medicine," At the Podium, Family Research Council, June, 1998
- Neal, T. M. "Drug Policy Chief is Facing Some New Foes; McCaffrey's Tactics on Needle Exchange Program Prompt Anger Among Advocates." Washington Post, May 18, 1998, Sec. A, p. 15, col. 1.
- Strathdee, S. A., D. M. Patrick, S. L. Currie, P. G. Cornelisse, M. L. Rekart, J. S. Montaner, M. T. Schechter, and M. V. O'Shaughnessy. "Needle Exchange is Not Enough: Lessons from the Vancouver Injecting Drug Use Study." AIDS 11 (8, 1997a): F59-65.
- Strathdee, S. A., D. M. Patrick, C. P. Archibald, M. Ofner, P. G. Cornelisse, M. L. Rekart, M. T. Schechter, and M. V. O'Shaughnessy. "Social Determinants Predict Needle-sharing Behaviour among Injection Drug Users in Vancouver, Canada." Addiction, 92 (10, 1997b): 1339-47.
Commentary On
One of the major issues in this case is separating what is legally required of the researcher from his/her ethical responsibility as a scientist working with human subjects. Sometimes the law offers incomplete answers to ethical questions that may arise in research involving vulnerable populations. (Fisher, 1997) The goal of science is to discover truth through controlled experiments, but the researcher also has an ethical duty to protect participants' welfare, In some instances these goals appear to conflict. (Fisher, 1993)
In HIV/AIDS research, many laws have been enacted as a response to litigation. Science and research, in trying to keep up with the rapid increase of this relatively new epidemic, have leapt ahead of the legal guidelines. Current federal regulations and professional ethics codes should be revised to accommodate new concerns in this field. In the meantime, scientists should take great care to implement and design ethical procedures that take a proactive stance regarding the impact of the research on individuals. They should adopt a relational ethical perspective, which involves dialogue between participants and researchers. This approach allows the investigator to reflect on participants' needs and concerns in the research context and serves as a guide to researchers in understanding their own boundaries, competencies and obligations. (Fisher, 1997)
It is important for research scientists to identify and evaluate the risks and benefits of research before they begin a study. An important factor in determining the benefit of research is whether the study has scientific merit. In order for research to be scientifically valid, it must produce reliable information. (Fisher, 1996) Many researchers promise confidentiality to ensure that participants feel comfortable enough to give accurate information. In many instances, confidentiality is integral to ensuring participant cooperation.
John made several mistakes in the design of his research. As a psychologist, he is required to be knowledgeable about the population with whom he is working. He should have consulted with others who have conducted similar research and with HIV+ patients themselves. If he had used the experience of the investigators and the perspectives of prospective participants as a resource, John would have realized that it was highly likely that a participant would report having unprotected sex. John should have developed a protocol that would deal with all of the possible consequences of data revealed by the research.
Informed consent procedures are designed to protect participants by ensuring that their decision to participate is informed and voluntary. According to Federal Policy 46.116, informed consent forms must include:
- A statement that the study involves research, explanation of the purpose and duration of the research, and a description of the procedures.
- A description of any foreseeable risks or discomfort.
- A description of potential benefits to the participant or others.
- Disclosure of alternative procedures or treatments that may be advantageous to the subject.
- A description of the extent and limits of confidentiality
- For research involving more than minimal risk, information regarding compensation and availability and nature of treatment if injury occurs
- A statement describing the voluntary nature of the research, the right to refuse participation or withdraw participation at any time without penalty.
John's protocol complies with most of the informed consent requirements, but he fails to detail the extent and limits of confidentiality. His informed consent form should have stated that information indicating that a participant is having unprotected sex with a partner who is unaware of the participant's HIV status would lead to disclosure. This clause would have given participants the information needed to make an informed decision about participating in the study. John also could have added the option of helping participants disclose their HIV status to their partners.
In general, the scientific community needs to be more sensitive to misleading or inadequate informed consent protocols, especially when working with vulnerable populations. Individuals in need of services or monetary compensation are at greater risk of coercion to participate in research. Participants must be given all the facts regarding a study in order to make an informed decision regarding participation.
Researchers are aware that if individuals are told that their actions will be disclosed if they report harming another person, some may either refuse to participate or withhold that information. The possibility of disclosure is likely to bias the sample and does not allow the researcher to gain an accurate understanding of the behavior in question.
Does the "good" accomplished by warning a third party about potential HIV risk outweigh the "good" that can be gained from a large subject pool whose members provide honest answers? Does the benefit of gaining a better understanding of a phenomenon outweigh the cost of potentially violating a participant's right to privacy in order to protect an individual outside the scope of the research?
Who is John responsible to -- himself, the participant, the participant's boyfriend, the HIV community, society at large, or the obligation to increase the body of scientific knowledge? Are these categories mutually exclusive? The answers depend on the scientific community's concerted efforts to address these ethical concerns. A balance between a consideration for the welfare of others and a scientist's obligation to ensure the validity of research findings is an important goal for investigators as we head into the twenty-first century.
References
- American Psychological Association. "Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct." American Psychologist 47 (1992): 1597-1611.
- Fisher, C. "Integrating Science and Ethics in Research with High Risk Children and Youth." SRCD Social Policy Report 7 (1993): 1-27.
- Fisher, C., K. Hoagwood and P. Jensen. Casebook on Ethical Issues in Research with Children and Adolescents with Mental Disorders. In K. Hoagwood, P. Jensen and C. Fisher, eds. Ethical Issues in Mental Health Research with Children and Adolescents. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1996.
- Fisher, C (1997). "A Relational Perspective on Ethics in Science Decision Making for Research with Vulnerable Populations." IRB 19 (5, 1997): 1-4. Contracted paper for the National Bioethics Advisory Commission.
- Office for Protection from Research Risks (OPRR), Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health. Protecting Human Research Subjects: Institutional Review Board Guidelines. Washington, D.C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1993.
Commentary On
Question 1
The researchers have carefully considered the risks and benefits of the study. If a death from anaphylactic shock were likely to occur, there would be little moral justification for the research. This research poses a very low initial risk to the children: 1 in 1 million.
There are several aspects of the research that the investigators can address. First is the issue of respect, which would include informing the parents and children of the potential risk and requesting informed consent. In addition, the researchers will try to maximize the benefit to the participants by dropping the nonsymptomatic control group because these children have much less to gain from participating than children who have respiratory symptoms. Only symptomatic children, who would have more to gain from the skin testing, will be recruited.
If one child enrolled in the study developed anaphylactic shock, the consequences could be devastating - the death of the child; the loss to family and friends; anger and fear in the community directed at the researchers, the school administration and the public health department. A child's death would also affect the research policies of the school administration and the public health department. It is likely that more conservative policies would be adopted, which would limit the ability to identify disease in at-risk subpopulations and implement measures to reduce disease.
The researchers should take several steps to prevent a death from anaphylactic shock. First, they should have trained staff who know what to do immediately if a child begins to go into shock. Second, they can conduct the research in a medical clinic with quick access to medical expertise if the emergency epinephrine does not work. With these measures in place, the researchers will have maximized the benefits to the participants and minimized the risks.
Question 2
In the Tuskegee research, investigators deceived members of the African-American community and enrolled them in a study to follow the natural history of untreated syphilis. These men were allowed to remain untreated for syphilis for forty years, from the 1930s to the 1970s, even though treatment became available in the 1940s with the dissemination of penicillin. With the legacy of the Tuskegee experiment, the African-American community has had much less trust in governmental institutions and outside investigators conducting research in their community.
Issues of respect, beneficence and justice do not change; they are universal principles in our society. However, we as researchers can learn from the past. Clearly the Tuskegee study violated the three tenets published in the Belmont Report. People who participate in research are entitled to respect, beneficence and justice.
Little respect was shown for the African-American men who participated in the Tuskegee experiment. They were treated like children or experimental lab animals; they did not give informed consent; crucial information about the experiment was withheld from them. Nor was there much concern for the welfare of participants in the 40-year duration of the experiment.
The participants did not obtain any benefits from taking part in the study. Although the men received a few free meals and palliative treatment for some of their symptoms, these were of negligible benefit compared to the harm they experienced as the disease progressed to advanced stages. Nor were they told they had syphilis. The men did not benefit from being under medical surveillance. In fact, they were placed at higher risk from procedures such as lumbar punctures to test for neural syphilis. Justice was not served by research conducted at the expense of a subpopulation of African-American men to obtain information designed to benefit the entire U.S. population. Moreover, there were no clear benefits to the population of all syphilitics.
Researchers in today's environment can ensure that they take the Belmont Report's tenets into account when planning and conducting research. In the asthma study, parents and children who are invited to participate in the study receive a clear explanation of the risks and benefits that would be incurred with participation. The informed consent forms are written in easily understood language with little jargon. Moreover, only children who seem to be at risk of asthma or wheezing are invited to participate because they are the children most likely to benefit from the study. They will learn what potential allergens they are allergic to, as well as receiving information on how to reduce their exposure or deal with asthma. They will also be enrolled in the medical clinic and have better access to care for their wheezing symptoms. In addition, all participants will receive the plastic bed covers and cockroach traps.
In considering the tenet of justice, the question stated in the Belmont Report is, "Who ought to receive the benefits of research and bear its burdens?" In the case of the asthma research, the intervention is low cost, specifically targeted for families with little money or time to spend. Thus, the subjects are being systematically selected for reasons directly related to the problem being studied rather than their easy availability or their manipulability. (National Commission,1979) Moreover, these subjects are recruited from a pool of children who were found to have wheezing symptoms, so they would benefit greatly from a reduction in allergen levels.
References
- Jones, James H. Bad Blood: Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, 2nd edition. New York: Free Press, 1993.
- 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." OPRR Reports, April 18, 1979.
