![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
My Answers to HWCase3, Q3
Oct. 12th, 2022 09:25 pmQ3. Write up your case on your blog with the following subheadings:
“The facts of the case.” Here is where you describe the case in your own words.
“Analysis.” Examine the case in terms of the questions and/or discussion.
“Conclusions.” Your analysis, opinions, and conclusions about the case.
“Future environment.” 3 sentences of average length or more.
“Future scenario.” 3 sentences of average length or more.
A researcher by the name of Dr. Andrew R. Cullinane engaged in research misconduct in two papers and one manuscript. He falsified data, figures, and images in published papers. After he was discovered he was punished by having his research supervised for the next three years as well as having to make retractions to his papers and manuscript. Additionally, any institution that hired him had to certify that any research he was involved in was accurate and not manipulated.
The Utilitarian perspective on this case would look at what was the result of him falsifying data, and that result is misinformation being spread which could lead to others wasting their time if they based their research on his findings. This is not ethical and therefore utilitarian ethics would say the result of his actions is 'bad'. Deontological ethics would examine his actions which was the falsification/manipulation of his data. I cannot imagine how manipulating data could lead to a positive outcome for humanity, it seems to be bad no matter how I look at it. It didn't help anybody but him which is self-serving so therefore his actions would be considered 'bad' as well. Examining the case through the lens of virtue ethics does not paint him positively either. The manipulation of data in science is inherently a selfish act so his character in this case would be considered 'bad' as well.
This case did not result in any serious harm to anyone so the punishment of having his research supervised seems adequate. It is my hope that it gives the researcher a chance to examine his actions and reflect in a way that will keep him from repeating them. If he were to commit research misconduct again then I believe he should be barred from research entirely.
My vision of a future that would prevent this kind of scenario is one in which computers used for research are more tightly locked than current computers. I mean locked in the sense that the researchers who use them are limited in their ability to interact with the data after it's been recorded. If any changes are necessary then they can be observed by a third party that has on stakes in the research to supervise them in order to prevent research misconduct from happening in the first place.
In my future environment lets say for instance John Smith is researching a cure for cancer but his experiments aren't leading to anything promising. If he doesn't come up with some results then his funding will be taken away. In order to secure his funding he goes to the computer in the lab to manipulate some of the data to make it look more favorable and noteworthy. As he attempts to change the data it locks and is reported by the computer system alerting someone that changes are being made. A third party quickly comes in and investigates to see what's going on. He asks what new experiments were being made and if the cameras in the lab or any lab assistants can corroborate his revised experiment. Alas, he cannot because he was attempting to manipulate data and hadn't preformed any new experiments so he has been caught.
“The facts of the case.” Here is where you describe the case in your own words.
“Analysis.” Examine the case in terms of the questions and/or discussion.
“Conclusions.” Your analysis, opinions, and conclusions about the case.
“Future environment.” 3 sentences of average length or more.
“Future scenario.” 3 sentences of average length or more.
Answer:
The facts of the case.
A researcher by the name of Dr. Andrew R. Cullinane engaged in research misconduct in two papers and one manuscript. He falsified data, figures, and images in published papers. After he was discovered he was punished by having his research supervised for the next three years as well as having to make retractions to his papers and manuscript. Additionally, any institution that hired him had to certify that any research he was involved in was accurate and not manipulated.
Analysis.
The Utilitarian perspective on this case would look at what was the result of him falsifying data, and that result is misinformation being spread which could lead to others wasting their time if they based their research on his findings. This is not ethical and therefore utilitarian ethics would say the result of his actions is 'bad'. Deontological ethics would examine his actions which was the falsification/manipulation of his data. I cannot imagine how manipulating data could lead to a positive outcome for humanity, it seems to be bad no matter how I look at it. It didn't help anybody but him which is self-serving so therefore his actions would be considered 'bad' as well. Examining the case through the lens of virtue ethics does not paint him positively either. The manipulation of data in science is inherently a selfish act so his character in this case would be considered 'bad' as well.
Conclusions.
This case did not result in any serious harm to anyone so the punishment of having his research supervised seems adequate. It is my hope that it gives the researcher a chance to examine his actions and reflect in a way that will keep him from repeating them. If he were to commit research misconduct again then I believe he should be barred from research entirely.
Future Environment.
My vision of a future that would prevent this kind of scenario is one in which computers used for research are more tightly locked than current computers. I mean locked in the sense that the researchers who use them are limited in their ability to interact with the data after it's been recorded. If any changes are necessary then they can be observed by a third party that has on stakes in the research to supervise them in order to prevent research misconduct from happening in the first place.
Future scenario.
In my future environment lets say for instance John Smith is researching a cure for cancer but his experiments aren't leading to anything promising. If he doesn't come up with some results then his funding will be taken away. In order to secure his funding he goes to the computer in the lab to manipulate some of the data to make it look more favorable and noteworthy. As he attempts to change the data it locks and is reported by the computer system alerting someone that changes are being made. A third party quickly comes in and investigates to see what's going on. He asks what new experiments were being made and if the cameras in the lab or any lab assistants can corroborate his revised experiment. Alas, he cannot because he was attempting to manipulate data and hadn't preformed any new experiments so he has been caught.
