Notes on Lecture 10/3/2022

Interactive Lab Part 2

• I played as Beth Ridgley


• I decided to send the email to get people familiarized with and thinking about research integrity.


• In the decision of was research misconduct committed, I chose No because Liam didn't have sufficient evidence that misconduct occurred or sufficient motive that the researcher would have committed it.


• In the second case of research misconduct I asked the student to come to my office immediately to make her feel comfortable and so that she feels I really care about her problem.


• I let her speak so that she can get her story out there before I tell her about how the process works


• I chose not to drop the investigation just because there may be some relationship drama in the allegation


• I'm new on the job so I chose to call the old RIO to get his advice


• I chose to use a backup team just in-case I need help


• I also chose to grab the data immediately to not give him time to hide anything


• I talked to the PI to get the situation under control to solve things peacefully

My Answers to HWCase3, Q1

Q1. Prepare case notes on an ethics case related to ethics in research. Online students: post your notes to your blog. Your notes should include the following.

A link or other citation to the case you are using, or if it is from personal experience, point that out.
A list of 8 or more important facts about the case. These could help you tell your group members or anyone or remind yourself what the case is all about.
A list of questions (4 or more) about the case.
A 5th discussion question about how computer security relates to or could relate to the case.

Answer: The source of my case is http://ethicsinresearch.org/interestingcase.html.

Eight important facts are:

• In a case about genetics study it was alleged that Dr. Andrew R. Cullinane engaged in research misconduct


• They reported that he either falsified or fabricated data in two papers and a manuscript


• In Paper #1 he falsified or fabricated a figure misrepresenting "PLDN in fibroblasts and melanocytes"


• In Paper #2 he removed a band in a blot image that was present in the original


• In Manuscript #1 he fabricated the results in a section of blot data by "reuse and relabeling, duplication, and/or manipulation" in multiple tables and did the same for centrifuge tubes to "represent different experiments"


• As a result he was punished by having his research be supervised for the next 3 years.


• Any institution that hired him when applying for PHS funds had to certify that all research he was involved in was legitimate and accurate


• Additionally he had to exclude himself from any advisory position and retract/make corrections to his papers.

Four questions to ask about the case are:

• Considering some of the more minute changes that were made, what are some ways you could prevent falsifications of data like he made in his papers?


• Were the punishments made harsh enough and secure enough to prevent further research misconduct?


• What kind of oversight could be put in place to catch these events before they occur?


• Could any changes be made to the research computers used to prevent manipulation of data like this from occuring?

Three additional standard questions:

What does virtue ethics say about this case?
What does utilitarianism say about this case?
What does deontology say about this case?