Identifying Issues in Research Ethics

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

Dr José A. CruzDr. William J. Frey

Dr. Halley D. Sánchez

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/gradres/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

1.REVERSIBILITY

2.PUBLICITY

3.HARM

Ethical Decision Making Tests‡

‡ 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