Disscusion_Board_1___What_is_Ethics___RD_1.docx-1.pdf.pdf

Module 1 / Week 1

Discussion Questions 1, 4, 5

Why do you think scientist would fabricate, falsify, or plagiarize?

To understand why scientist, fabricate, falsify, or plagiarize I think it’s important to understand how these (3)

aspect of misconduct is viewed as the cardinal sins of research conduct.

According to the text in Scientific Integrity Falsification is changing research results or an omission of data that

would typically support claims of experiments or research processes. Fabrication is trying to pass data or

observations that never happened during the gathering of experiments; therefore, it comes across that someone

to produce results in a certain time frame may be the genesis of why experiments or trials conducted by

scientists end up generating inaccurate results. Those inaccurate results could include fabricated, falsified, or

plagiarized data especially if scientists are trying to reduce the time and efforts of repeating extensive and

burdensome trials.2 I also feel that this culture of research misconduct could easily take root because the times

we live in today are so competitive with people’s careers being built on reputations embodied by research

showing groundbreaking results and analysis that generates financial gain.

What punishments are appropriate for scientists who have been convicted of scientific misconduct?

Depending on the scientific misconduct that took place would determine the appropriate punished that is

warranted for the misconduct. I do believe that there is a strong possibility that in most cases the misconduct

began well in advance of the actual sanction or conviction. I believe appropriate punishments depending on the

harm to people. At the end of the day whatever punishment is issued for scientific misconduct it does not

changed misconceptions that are born out of the fraudulent information that can taint published researched and

make it challenging to eradicate those misconceptions. 1

Should retaliation against a whistle – blower be considered an act of research misconduct and added to

the definition of research misconduct?

I do believe if someone attempts to or succeeds in retaliation against a whistle blower that should be considered

an act of research misconduct simply because someone that makes a good faith allegation of scientific

misconduct could exposed the wrongdoing within research or clinical trials that could potentially lead to harm

within our environment or bring harm to the human race if it goes unnoticed or if nothing it done to stop it.

Case Studies 2.3

interpretations they still carry a different perspective because one abstract will be from a geneticist point of view

and the other abstract will be from a biochemist point of view which could explains the differences in their

titles. With the collaborators aware of each submission and giving their approval that is also an indication that

when they submitted their research it included proper citation and accreditation of the collaborative work that

when forth.1,2

Case Study 4.3

In the case of Aarti Shankar vs Raymond and whether Aarti should be added as a coauthor I believe in this case Dr.

Costello should not require that Raymond add Aarti to the publication because even though she had the pivotal

idea that laid the groundwork, during Raymond’s follow up work on the project he was unable to repeat Aarti’s

work and in the case study it states that her data was irreproducible.1 I don’t show any signs of misconduct

counteract the data that already existed which in the end creates the space for Raymond’s research to be

published without Aarti’s. I do feel this was a case of a minor mistake that I’m sure Aarti regrets and since there

was a lot of work, time, and effort put into the research I feel the biblical approach would be for Raymond to have a

heart of compassion as God has with his children when we fall short. In 1

Peter 3:8 it states, “Finally, everyone must live in harmony, be sympathetic, love each other, have compassion,

and be humble.” 3 Even though I don’t believe Raymond should be obligated to add Aarti based on the information

provided in the case study I do believe he should treat Aarti the way he would want to be treated if he was in her

position and put as much work into the research as she did.

Case Study 4.7

In the case of Dr. Taylor and the Junior faculty member I do believe there should be a correction published and

years, the analyzing of the data, and the several peer-reviews that were published he is in every right to take the

stance that he did. This goes back to discussion question (1) in Chapter 1 “Why do you think scientist would

fabricate, falsify or plagiarize?” 1 I believe this is a prime example of a junior faculty member not wanting to

invest all the time an effort that Dr. Taylor and his staff too the time to do. I don’t think there is anything wrong

with using someone else’s research to develop one’s point especially valuable insights provided by the junior

faculty member research regarding forest climatology and the new algorithms available. The only downside to

the publication of this research is not giving credit where credit is due and that would be to include Dr. Taylor

name as the primary investigator. If the Vice President decides it’s not necessary to do a corrected submission,

then I do feel Dr. Taylor would be in every right to proceed with file the allegation of plagiarism. I’m a firm

believer that you must treat others the way you want to be treated. So, if the Vice President and the junior

To truly define ethics, I believe it will require to understand Utilitarianism, which is a theory of morality, which

advocates actions that foster happiness and opposes actions that cause unhappiness. Utilitarianism promotes the

greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people. Utilitarianism is divided into (2) categories

teleological and deontology.1 Teleological deals with the consequences of an action to determine the morality of

that action and if it’s moral or immoral and deontology does not depend on the consequences of an action to

determine the morality of a situation.1 With this understanding Utilitarianism will put us in a position to where

we can’t just evaluate how something will affect our own personal well-being, but it will force us to view things

full circle and examine how the decisions we make effects everyone around us. I feel the way someone handles

situation related to Utilitarianism can be a defining moment of how ethics defines their character as a person.

To me ethics are the morals that someone embodies that tend to have the ability to govern someone’s behavior

consequences that end in a positive outcome if their moral compass aligns with a set of values that are ethical

however, someone’s moral compass could also cause them to approach a situation that could result in negative

consequences as well. The humanity behind ethics as it pertains to the world of inclusivity has created is own

cultural of societal concern. In the climate we live in today it’s become a critical importance in the professions

that serves society simply because the ethical stance that surrounds the professional world had a direct affect on

our welfare as the human race therefore it’s important that a code of ethics is established beyond the walls of

our personal demeanor and extends into the professional world and set the standard for moral behaviors.

Reference Page

1.Macrina, F. L. (2014). Scientific integrity: Text and cases in responsible conduct of research. American

society for microbiology.