(Macrina, 2014b, 2014c, 2014a)
Case Studies 4.3, 4.7; or
MY POST
Discussion Questions
1. Why do you think scientists would fabricate, falsify, or plagiarize?
According to Macrina (2014c), career pressure, taking shortcuts to achieve a “known” result, and
yielding data via unreproducible methods are the underlying motives for scientific fraud in research. There
is great competition within the scientific community to yield astonishing results in the most effective way
possible all under a strict deadline. As a result, scientists may feel pressured to fulfill their duties within that
timeframe and might undertake extraordinary measures, such as fabrication, falsify, or plagiarize, as
alternative method. Also, many scientists think they might not get caught in the act and as a result yield data
in an unconventional and unreproducible format that other scientists may not be able to produce.
4. What punishments are appropriate for scientist who have been convicted of scientific misconduct?
All scientists that perform any sort of scientific misconduct should be suspended temporarily as a legal
investigation of their misconduct is executed. Further suspension, sanction, or prison sentence should be
based on the intensity and frequency of the misconduct in the current publication being reviewed and any
previous publications written or co-written by the author in question.
5. Should retaliation on the whistle-blower be considered an act of research misconduct and be added to
the definition of research misconduct?
Yes, retaliation shouldn’t be permitted and should be considered an act of research misconduct. When a
investigation begins, the whistleblower’s name should be maintained private from the public eye and from
the scientist in question. However, if secrecy is not possible, any retaliation against the whistle-blower from
the scientist in question or other associated with the said individual, should be considered research
misconduct assuming the whistle-blower’s action was not ill-intended.
As such, the overarching staff and organization should also look into the published work of the whistle-
blower since the whistle-blower’s action against the scientist in question may be out of retaliation or
ulterior motive.
Case Study 2.3
Key Question: Have these investigators acted appropriately in reporting their research?
According to Macrina (2014a), scientists agree that it is unethical to publish the same material in two different
peer-reviewed journals. However, there is much ambiguity regarding meeting proceedings because the methodology
of an experimentation often cannot be fully described and consequently cannot be peer-reviewed. Although the
abstracts are titled differently and contain different wording, the experimentation is the same; therefore, the
biochemist should’ve had a conversation with the editor of the journal explaining a potential overlap with the
geneticist prior abstract submission.
Case Study 4.3
Key Question: Dr. Costello seeks your advice on whether Aarti has a case for authorship. What do you tell
her? Why?
Based on the reading, I would tell Dr. Costello that Aarti doesn’t qualify for authorship of the current study
because she meets fewer than the four criteria based on ICMJE’s criteria for authorship. The criteria includes the
significant contribution to the conception or design of work, analysis, or interpretation of data; the drafting of the
work or revising it critically for content; the final approval of the version to be published; AND the agreement of
due accountability for all the aspects of work (Macrina, 2014a). Although Aarti did have the seminal idea of the
project, she was not involved in the other three criteria.
Fortunately, Aarti can be acknowledged in the article’s “Acknowledgements” section and a technical contributor
to the experiment.
Case Study 4.7
Key Question: What advice for action would you give the vice president? Does Dr. Taylor’s threatened
plagiarism allegation have any merit? Why or why not? Are the junior faculty member and her trainee at
fault for anything they did or did not do?
I think that Dr. Taylor has a valid point. This was his original research, research that was not permitted by the
lead author to be utilized. The vice president should propose a meeting between the junior faculty member, her
trainee, and Dr. Taylor regarding this manner. Additionally, it would be in the vice president’s best interest to yield to
Dr. Taylor’s request and add his name in the byline or at least in the “Acknowledgements” section of the published
article (Macrina, 2014a). Furthermore, Dr. Taylor’s plagiarism allegation does have merit especially since the junior
faculty member did not ask for permission to use his data although the data was archived in the university’s server.
What is ethics?
According to Geisler (2010) and Macrina (2014b), ethics is the study of moral values, i.e., defining what is right
and wrong morally. Ethics is pivotal in science for it endorses integrity within the scientific community.
Similarly, Christian ethics deals with what is morally right and wrong for a Christian in accordance with God’s
will and Word (Geisler, 2010).
Can an evolutionist/compromising creationist do medicine?
I think a great way to begin answering this question is to explain the foundation of sickness. Sickness and
disease arose after the fall of man in Genesis. Paul exhorts that, “…by one man’s disobedience the many were
sinners, so by one man’s obedience the many will be righteous” (Romans 5:19, English Standard Version). In short,
everyone is born into sin and must repent receiving everlasting life from Jesus who died for everyone's sins. Also,
Paul exclaims that "…just as sin came into the world through man, and death through sin, and so death spreads to all
men because all have sinned" (Romans 5:12, English Standard Version). There is no way to escape from the
consequences of sin, so there is no way to escape trials and tribulations, such as sickness. However, although
sickness was beckoned from the fall of man, God still uses sickness as a way to show His omnipotence and love.
Furthermore, I believe everything in life should start and end with Jesus, but in between that spectrum, there are
doctors, therapists, and psychologists that are available for help. Peter was a fisherman, and God still used him
(Matthew 4:18, New International Version). Likewise, Matthew was a tax collector; Saul, an assassin; and Luke, a
physician, yet God still unreluctantly used them to do His will. (Matthew 9:9, New International Version; Acts 8:3,
New International Version; Colossians 4:4, New International Version). Because people live in a broken world, there
is a necessity for physical, emotional, and spiritual healing. Although God is the source of the healing, He can work
through professionals to conduct the healing. God created humans as intelligent beings with the ability to create and
utilize medicine to restore bodies.
I absolutely believe an evolutionist/compromising creationist can practice medicine! Just because someone
doesn’t believe in God, doesn’t mean that God doesn’t believe in them and has given them the talents and will to be
a physician/scientist. There are many people that have a genuine interest in helping other through the practice of
medicine and they should not be excluded from practices their trade because of their religious beliefs. In fact, it is
even possible for an evolutionist/compromising creationist to practice medicine even better than a believer.
Should you publish pro-evolutionary articles in hardcore evolution journals?
This question depends on an individual’s origin-of-life worldview. Traditional creationists believe that God
created the heavens and the earth in six, 24-hour days as described in Genesis 1. Progressive creationists believe that
God lead the creation of the heavens and earth over a period of billions of years by performing a series of constant
miracles. Theistic evolutionists believe that God created the natural laws of the universe and the building-blocks of
life with the eventual emergence of life in mind and life eventually emerged from nonliving material. Darwinian
evolutionists believe that the universe and all living things were created by undirected biological processes such as
abiogenesis and natural selection.
If I were to write an article, I would write about my research from a neutral stance. However, if I were asked to
state my beliefs, I would state my beliefs in creationism. I would not write my article with evolution in mind, I
would write my article based on the research at hand.
References:
Geisler, N. (2010). All the options. In (2nd ed., pp. 15–21).Christian ethics: Contemporary issues & options
Macrina, F. (2014a). Authorship and peer review. In Scientific integrity: Text and cases in responsible conduct of
research (4th ed., pp. 83–115).
Macrina, F. (2014b). Ethics & the scientist. In Scientific integrity: Text and cases in responsible conduct of research
(4th ed., pp. 25–41).
Macrina, F. (2014c). Methods, manners, and responsible conduct of research. In Scientific integrity: Text and cases
in responsible conduct of research (4th ed., pp. 1–25).
