BIEN
Summer 2013
Millikan Oil Drop Experiment Controversy
Due Date: 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, June 19, 2013
Learning Outcomes
I. To understand how norms of conduct and conflicts of interest affect the research process.
II. To understand ethical criteria necessary to ensure responsible conduct in research.
III. To understand the importance of trust and trustworthiness in the research process and the
ways this can be undermined by failures to act responsibly. Of particular note here is honesty
and openness in reporting results.
Instructions
1. Readings
a. “August, 1913: Robert Millikan Reports His Oil Drop Results,” This Month in Physics, 15,
(August/September, 2006).
http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200608/history.cfm?renderforprint=1
b. “Trust and Trustworthiness in Research,” by Caroline Whitbeck, Science and Engineering
Ethics 1 (December 1995): 403-416. Also online at:
http://www.onlineethics.org/CMS/research/resessays/cw2.aspx
c. “Why most published research findings are false,” by John Ioannidis, PLoS Med 2(8):
e124 (2005). Also online at
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0020
124
2. Questions: Answer at least one question below.
a. Whitbeck tells us, “’Expediency’ aptly connotes putting short term personal interests
ahead of concerns for research integrity.” Discuss the Millikan case study in this
context and whether or not his actions should be considered simply honest or careless
mistakes or whether they more seriously should be considered negligent or even
reckless.
b. If Millikan had not written in his 1913 paper that “this is not a select group of drops but
represents all of the drops experimented upon” would his actions be considered blameworthy
or at the very least questionable and why? Does your answer depend on whether you view the
situation as his contemporary or an observer in the present?
c. Describe what a conflict of interest (COI) is and how this can affect the research process.
Use examples from the Millikan case study.
d. Can COIs help explain why Millikan claimed to have published all the experimental data
when it appears this was not the case? If so, do you have any suggestions for how you would
have handled the specific COIs in this case so as to mitigate any negative consequences?
e. If you get the “right” result what difference does it make if you use non-standard procedures
for selecting data or even if you fabricate your data? Incorporate some of Whitbeck’s
distinctions in your response.
f. According to Ioannidis, what are the factors that strengthen a research result? What
factors weaken a research result?
g. Discuss the Millikan case in light of the model and discussion by Ioannidis.
3. Exchange of Ideas and Intellectual Honesty
a. You are strongly encouraged to discuss these questions with your colleagues.
b. However, you are expected to answer each question in your own words.
c. Any ideas you get from others must be carefully documented and credit assigned
appropriately. Even if you paraphrase from another source you must reference it. This
includes ideas you pick-up from others in discussion.