The Whole Truth Sayan Kumar - 20207766 1. I think Sandy’s stance to talk to Dr. Cornwall was appropriate and justified. Kevin deliberately tweaked the data in the poster without informing the co-worker who is working with him on the same project. On, the author hand Dr. Cornwall is the head of the laboratory, therefore he should be informed first before going to a disciplinary committee. In Dr. Cornwall was also co-author of the poster then he is already aware of fabrication of the result. In that case, Sandy should have asked Dr. Cornwall once if he is aware or missed somehow the fabrication part. If yes, she should immediately should head to department head or the concerned person for respective research misconduct. Kevin was trying to write journal based on the findings he obtained in the lab while concealing the actual findings to make the result in his favour. The research is based on vaccine’s effectiveness which might be trialled later on human or other animal. Therefore, the research misconduct in the context is already very serious. Therefore, if experiment is deliberately fabricated for personal benefit should be formally be reported. However, the informal reporting can be justified if fabrication is not deliberately done but due to mis-information. 2. Dr. Cornwall’s reaction is warranted because he was not aware of the fabrication and hasn’t really listened to Kevin. On the other hand, Dr. Cornwall may think that Sandy might bring false allegation due to her personal reason. Further, Dr. Cornwall know Kevin for five years, therefore he had somewhat confidence in Kevin’s actions. Therefore, accepting a research misconduct charge on Kevin is not well digested by Dr. Conrwall. Therefore, the reaction was justified from human nature point of view. His later discussion with Kevin sounds disappointing and didn’t actually solve the issue. The poster was already presented and he should have warned Kevin not fabricate result even in the poster presentation. However, he acted appropriately while Kevin talked about journal, he mentioned that it is not the right time to publish and more data should be collected before publishing in the journal. 3. Sandy should have also raise the concern that why she was not aware of content of the poster when she is already a part of it. Because she is also a part of the experiment and if later in the stages any research misconduct charge is place, she will also be accused. Therefore, she should record the conversation between her and Dr. Cornwall in email or by some other means so that if something comes later, she can justify her stance. Dr. Cornwall is an experienced researcher, therefore when he realised what Sandy was saying was 100% true and she has concern on the truth, he didn’t tell anything about Sandy to Kevin. In that way, Dr. Cornwall protected her from Sandy’s whistleblowing act. I would definitely would go to my lab head first to talk if I feel there is any research misconduct. And, if I realise lab head is also involved in the process, I would prefer to go to Research Integrity officer (RIO). 4. Although, it looks like the data supports what Kevin reported, I strongly disagree with it. The poster doesn’t report the death of 9 rats. Also, the cause of death for those rats are not investigated properly. Therefore, data only supports what Kevin wanted them to support. If Kevin wants to act like an ethical researcher, he should mention about the dead-rats, the reason behind their death and all the changes he had done in the research protocol clearly in his paper and based on that he should draw the conclusions of his findings. And it should be left up to the readers to judge if that has a real impact or not. 5. Generally, as per my lab is concerned all the data is scrutinised by lab head. However, it might depend upon the group size. If the group size is large enough, then it becomes impossible for the head of the lab to go through all the articles by them. Therefore, posters are generally handled by senior researchers or other principle investigator in the group. However, the journal paper should be effectively scrutinised by the head, otherwise it may come down to his own reputation as well. 6. In my personal experience, although the peer review is sometimes single blinded and sometimes double blinded. And, a natural bias is created if the authors are renowned or reviewer and reviewee is related by collaborations or by some other means. Therefore, single blinded peer review doesn’t make an effective publication. However, double blind mitigates some of the issues where the reviewer may not know the reviewee. However, the writing style topics reveals some of the information about the authors. Therefore, if the paper is from renowned group it is very likely to be get biased and it is not unknown to research community. 7. Although, as laboratory director he should have been aware of the all the activities happening in the lab, it is practically impossible being a busy researcher. But as soon as he came to know about the discrepancy he handled it in a politically correct way. As a mentor, I am not that sure as not much of his character is revealed in the video clip to comment about his mentorship skills. 8. The following responsibilities the scientist should have while researching with animals – a. They have explored all the options before using the animals. b. They should statistically analyse and use minimum number of animal for their research. c. They should give high degree of respect towards the experimented animal d. If the researchers have any concern about the well-being of the animals, should report to the institute’s relevant department. Animals are integral part of our eco-system. Rampant usage of animal will dis-balance the ecology and will be disastrous for our living world. However, usage of animal is necessary for making the life better for animals and human. Now a days, many computer simulation has been invented which can substitute animals to many degrees. Therefore, these procedures need to be followed before any animal usage. It seems Kevin’s act of not feeding the rats are not justified, as he didn’t take the consent of his co-worker. Therefore, as he is projecting that it was a part of his experiment might not be true as well. Due to his act, many rats also died which might be against institute’s animal usage policy. UCD places highest degree of ethical standard in terms of animal usage. The corresponding policy document can be found in the following link – https://www.ucd.ie/researchethics/t4media/Policy%20on%20the%20Use%20of%20Animals% 20for%20Research%20Teaching%20V2%20270617.pdf 9. Ethical consideration should hold same even it is experimented on human. If there is some abnormalities that is being observed in the process of research should be reported with due diligence. As, the laws for the human is more stricter than that of animals, probably researchers take the ethics more seriously than that of rat. But, as a responsible researcher, ideally both the cases should be handled with high degree of research ethics.
