Identifying Issues in Research Ethics
Dr José A. Cruz
Dr. William J. Frey
Dr. Halley D. Sánchez
NSF SES-0629377: “Graduate Education in Research Ethics for Scientists
and Engineers”
NSF SES-0551779: “Collaborative Development of Ethics Across the
Curriculum Resources”
November 29, 2007
© 2007 by Cruz, Frey & Sanchez
Objectives
• Identification of the key and pressing issues in
research ethics at UPRM
• List and rank the issues in research ethics at
UPRM
• Develop strategies for responding to these issues
Workshop Agenda
• Warm-up exercise – two cases in
research ethics
• Issues at UPRM
– Generate list
– Structure and Rank list
• Strategies for responding to the issues
Cases in Research Ethics
"Preliminary Data" Online Ethics Center for
Engineering 4/19/2006 12:36:40 PM National
Academy of Engineering Accessed: Monday,
November 26, 2007
www.onlineethics.org/CMS/research/rescases/gra
dres/gradresv5/data.aspx
Weil and Arzbaecher, Ethics and Relationships in Laboratories and Research Communities,
Professional Ethics., Vol 4. NOS 3&4: 99
Getting Recognition
• In his first year of graduate school, Pu-ning Lee is supported by Professor
Ludwig von Bampus’ research funds in an electro-optics laboratory on a
project dubbed Laserkill. By the end of the first year, Lee has not only
become proficient at many of the more routine tasks of the project, but he
has made a small, perhaps noteworthy, refinement to the approach to the
segment assigned to him. At the end of Lee’s first year, von Bampus goes
on sabbatical leave, and Lee starts working with Professor Alain Redon in
the same lab but on a very different project. Von Bampus returns after a
year and takes up Laserkill, among other projects. At the beginning of his
third year Lee learns from another student who has been working on
Laserkill, that Von Bampus is publishing, with that student only, a paper on
some aspects of Laserkill. The paper utilizes Lee’s methodological
refinement, but he is given no acknowledgment. Lee is disturbed.
Commentary by Weil and Arzbaecher
 “The vignette suggests that there should be
some structure or, at least, check points for
marking the progress of graduate students and
channels for regular communication about the
progress of research. Graduate students have a
right to be properly advised. They also have
responsibilities as advisees.”
 Weil and Arzbaecher, Ethics and Relationships in Laboratories and
Research Communities, Professional Ethics., Vol 4. NOS 3&4: 100. Case
based on an email from Carolyn Whitbeck
Preliminary Data
•
Penelope Brighton is a second year graduate student in Dr. David Gilligan's cell biology lab.
Gilligan is a highly productive, well-published, respected investigator whose students receive
prestigious post-docs. As part of Brighton's thesis, she has begun to characterize the localization of
a newly discovered protein within cells. In her first, quick experiments, Brighton found some
potentially interesting results. Gilligan is quite excited about Brighton's project and is in the
process of writing a grant using Brighton's results as preliminary data.
•
Brighton followed up the initial experiments by performing in-depth, well-controlled experiments.
She changed several experimental conditions. She used immunopurified antibodies instead of
crude antisera and changed blocking conditions to eliminate staining by preimmune sera. As
Brighton sat by the microscope collecting data, she was surprised to find that her protein was
present in all of the cells, but that it was not localized where she or Gilligan expected it to be. As
she scanned several slides, she could find only two cells out of hundreds where the protein
appeared to localize where they had hypothesized it would. In all of the other cells, the staining
was in a different, specific area. Brighton believed the new staining to be clean and consistent, but
the staining does not look like the initial results with crude sera. Brighton realized that the
characterization of the protein may not be as straightforward as originally expected. Brighton
attempted to discuss her new results with Gilligan.
•
"Preliminary Data" Online Ethics Center for Engineering 4/19/2006 12:36:40 PM National Academy of Engineering Accessed:
Monday, November 26, 2007 www.onlineethics.org/CMS/research/rescases/gradres/gradresv5/data.aspx
Preliminary Data
 However, Gilligan did not seem interested in all of the data. He said that they
would deal with the staining details later, but that they need to get the grant
application out now. Gilligan asked Brighton to create a figure for the grant using
one of the cells where the localization fit with the proposed hypothesis. In the
grant application, Gilligan did not mention that the figure is an example of an
atypical result. Instead, he suggested that all of the data from these experiments
completely support the hypothesis.
 Brighton read a draft of the grant and was shocked by the spin Gilligan had put on
the data. When discussing the draft with Gilligan, she stressed that most of the
localization data did not agree with the hypothesis. Gilligan insisted that the figure
in the grant certainly supports the hypothesis. He said that the standards for
presenting data as preliminary results in a grant application are not as stringent as
those for publishing data in a journal article. Gilligan stated that it is better to
present the data his way. Mentioning the unexpected results would only create
doubt among the grant reviewers and decrease the likelihood of funding for the
project.

"Preliminary Data" Online Ethics Center for Engineering 4/19/2006 12:36:40 PM National Academy of Engineering
Accessed: Monday, November 26, 2007 www.onlineethics.org/CMS/research/rescases/gradres/gradresv5/data.aspx
Discussion Questions: Preliminary Data
•
If the definition of scientific misconduct is fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, deception or
other practices that seriously deviate from those that are commonly accepted within the
scientific community for proposing, conducting or reporting research, did Gilligan represent
his laboratory's work appropriately to the funding agency? Or is he guilty of scientific
misconduct?
•
Would the situation be different if the research were being presented in another format?
•
How well-supported must a result be before it is presented at a seminar at another university?
in a meeting abstract? in a progress report for the department? in a published paper?
•
What possible actions are available to Brighton and other graduate students who feel their
work is being misrepresented?
•
Should Brighton take action? If so, what would be an appropriate form of action?
•
As a thesis adviser, what are Gilligan's obligations toward Brighton? In this case, is Gilligan
fulfilling his obligations as a thesis adviser?
Commentary: Preliminary Data by
Brian Schrag
• “uniform definition for scientific
misconduct”
– The Federal Register, October 14, 1999 (Volume
64, Number 198), pp. 55722-25
• Research Misconduct
– “fabrication, falsification or plagiarism in
proposing, performing or reviewing research, or in
reporting research results.
Schrag Commentary Continued
 “Fabrication is making up results and recording
and reporting them”
 “Falsification is manipulating research materials,
equipment or processes, or changing or omitting
data or results such that the research is not
accurately represented in the research record”
 “Plagiarism is the appropriation of another
person’s ideas, processes, results or words
without giving appropriate credit, including
those obtained through confidential review of
others’ research proposals and manuscripts.”
Second Activity
Generate an Issues List
 Using discussion of “Getting Recognition” and “Preliminary
Data” as points of departure, identify issues in research ethics at
UPRM
 Schrag:
 Scientific Misconduct: plagiarism, falsification, fabrication
 Harris, Pritchard, and Rabins in Engineering Ethics:
Concepts and Case
 Irresponsible Research: trimming, cooking, forging, plagiarizing
 Conflict of Interest, Intellectual Property, Confidentiality
 Socially Responsible Research
 What issues are outstanding in Research Ethics at UPRM?
Third Activity
• Structure Research Ethics Issues List
• Rank Research Ethics Issues
– Each participants will have five stickers
•
•
•
•
•
Orange = 5 points
Blue = 4 points
Brown = 3 points
Green = 2 points
Purple = 1 point
• Place your stickers on the issue of choice to indicate
your ranking
Results
Final Activity
• What strategies we can use at UPRM for
responding to these issues?
Appendix: Concepts, Tests and
Online Bibliography
Free and Informed Consent
• Right of those who will be affected by a
project to participate to the degree to which
they will be affected
• Includes information about the project,
especially its risks
• Exclude obvious or hidden modes of
compulsion
Maintaining Confidences
• Research conducted in private industry or in
conjunction with private industry gives you
access to proprietary information
• Confidentiality limited by the obligation
(under free and informed consent) to make
available risk information
Conflict of Interest
• A Person has a conflict of interest if…
– he/she is in a relationship with another requiring
him to exercise judgment in that other’s service…
– he/she has an interest tending to interfere with
the proper exercise of judgment in that
relationship
–
Michael Davis, “Conflict of Interest,” Business and Professional Ethics Journal, vol.1, no. 4 (1982),
pp. 17-27
Responsible Research
• What should be done
– Honor the free consent of those affected by your
research
– Exercise due care in carrying out your research
– Maintain confidences and avoid conflicts of
interest
Responsible Research
• What should be avoided
– Failure to exercise due care: negligent or
reckless research
– Deceptive Research: Trimming, Cooking,
Forging, Plagiarism
Irresponsible Research
• Trimming: “the smoothing of irregularities to
make the data look extremely accurate and
precise.”
• Harris, Pritchard, & Rabins, 125-128
• Sigma Xi, Honor in Science (1986), 11-18
Irresponsible Research
• Cooking: “retaining only those results that fit
the theory and discarding others.”
• Problematic instance: Millikan case
• Harris, Pritchard, & Rabins, 125-128
• Sigma Xi, Honor in Science (1986), 11-18
Irresponsible Research
• Forging: “inventing some or all of the research
data that are reported, and even reporting
experiments to obtain those data that were
never performed.”
• Goodrich forged data on brake test results
(reported by Vandivier)
• Harris, Pritchard, & Rabins, 125-128
• Sigma Xi, Honor in Science (1986), 11-18
Irresponsible Research
• Plagiarism: “the use of the intellectual
property of others without proper
acknowledgement or credit.”
• Responsibility of giving due credit to others
• Developing habits of proper documentation
• Harris, Pritchard, & Rabins, 125-128
Lack of Due Care
• Negligent Research: “insufficient care in a matter
where one is morally obliged to be careful.”
• Reckless: “acts in professional practice [that] ignore
dangers that should be obvious to a minimally
competent professional so the acts themselves
create a presumption of willfully ignoring those
dangers together with failing to give them due
attention and care”
•
Whitbeck, Ethics in Engineering Practice and Research (1998), Cambridge Press, 215-216
Ethics Tests for Decision Points
Ethical Decision Making Tests‡
1.
REVERSIBILITY
2.
PUBLICITY
3.
HARM
‡
Based on Michael Davis, Ethics and the University, Chapter ?
Reversibility Test
• Question: “would I still think choice
of this option good if I were
adversely affected by it?”
• Moral Imagination Task: Visualize
the solution from the standpoint of
the stakeholders
–Public, Client, Profession, Peer
Harm/Benefits Test
• Question: does this option do less harm and bring
about more benefits than alternatives?
• Moral Imagination Task: Use your experience,
knowledge and skill to visualize the likely
consequences
• Sort these out and balance benefits and costs
• Check for distribution among the stakeholders
– Don’t purchase client benefit at the expense of distributing risk
to the public
Publicity Test
• Question: “would I want my choice of this
option published in the newspaper?”
• Moral Imagination Task: What would a morally
exemplary engineer or engineer do in this
situation?
• Does your action realize or frustrate the
following values?
–
–
–
–
–
Justice, responsibility, respect, trust, integrity
Care for public wellbeing
Social Responsibility
Commitment to Scientific Truth
Promoting trust among your research peers
Select Online Bibliography
 Connexions in conjunction with the EAC Toolkit project (SES 0551779)
 http://cnx.org/content/m14400/latest/
 Module has key links to online ethics and CSES (WMU) NSF project in teaching research ethics.
Under construction with much more to come.
 OpenSeminar
 http://openseminar.org/ethics/
 Comstock’s project provides publicly accessible online course for graduate students in
research ethics. (UPRM version soon to come)
 National Institute for Engineering Ethics
 http://www.niee.org/murdoughCenter/
 Web site contains NSPE Board of Ethical Review cases many of which give the association’s
take on research ethics in the engineering context
 Online Ethics
 http://onlineethics.org/CMS/research.aspx
 Responsible Research section of Online Ethics project
 Ethics Update
 http://ethics.sandiego.edu/
 Online classical texts in philosophical ethics (Aristotle, Kant, Mill, etc.)
 Excellent bibliographies and resources in applied ethics and practical and professional ethics