1

Janella Mae R. Salamania App Physics 191

2008-67782 July 6, 2011

Introduction

We now live in a fast-paced world, thanks to technological advances. Today,

technology has enabled information to be propagated in just a few seconds with just a click of

a mouse or the touch of a screen. Technology has also shaped communication over time, and

the scientific community is no exemption from its effects. The internet has given scientists

the freedom to share their works and exchange ideas. In fact, it has become a venue for

scientific activity and progress. Today we don’t just know a few scientists like Albert

Einstein, or Niels Bohr. More scientists are emerging from their field, giving excellent

researches. In fact, in the scientific community today, the list of notable scientists continues

to grow.

With the increasing activity the scientific community, however, problems like

violation of intellectual property rights, plagiarism and fabrication arose. This is due to the

increasing number of research works and researchers sharing information. Because of this,

the scientific community needs to devise a set of rules that govern how the scientists should

interact with each other. Scientific standards and responsibilities in research must also be well

defined.

Here, we tackle the few cases where ethics and scientific standards are needed to be

applied. The case studies to be discussed are from the article “On Being a Scientist: A Guide

to Responsible Conduct in Research.”

2

I. A Change of Plans

This case study is about Joseph, who had some problems with his thesis adviser. They

had different plans; his adviser wanted him to stay for two more semesters to continue

gathering data for his dissertation while all the while Joseph thought that the data he collected

was already enough for his thesis.

First, it is commendable that Joseph and his adviser had a good working relationship.

This is advantageous to both parties as this usually results to better research output. However

in the story, it was clear that Joseph did not discuss the status of his thesis with his adviser or

any other member of his thesis committee before he went on to summer vacation. He just

assumed that they would agree to his plans and went on to create new plans on his own. The

problem then arose when his adviser then objected to his plans. One cause of this conflict

would be that Joseph did not do his responsibilities as a mentee. As a researcher, Joseph

should have stated early on his expectations with his adviser with regards to his thesis. This is

one of the crucial responsibilities of a mentee.

The adviser on the other hand, is not totally innocent in the situation. She should have

made it clear to Joseph if she wanted his research to help in her own research early on. The

adviser shouldn’t stop Joseph in his plans if her reason was for her benefit alone. She

shouldn’t abuse her authority to Joseph for her selfish needs. In fact as an adviser, it is her

role to help a researcher move forward in his career. In short, the real root of the problem is

not having healthy and clear mentor-mentee relationship.

What then should Joseph do now? Joseph could try to convince his adviser by

reviewing his measurements and proving that they are enough for his thesis. This he should

do professionally and in a way that preserves his healthy relationship with his adviser. Joseph

could also seek the advice and opinions of his colleagues and his to thesis committee about

the results he obtained. Both Joseph and his adviser should talk and agree on one same plan

for Joseph’s thesis. Maybe Joseph could bargain to extend for just one more semester instead

of two semesters. Or maybe the adviser could demand a little bit more measurements from

Joseph in order for her to give Joseph good recommendation letters. There are numerous

possibilities and arrangements that could be agreeable to both parties and this can only be

fixed through discourse.

To avoid same problems like this in the future, Joseph should set his goals and plans

with his thesis adviser early on. He should be responsible enough to always consult and

update his mentor on his plans and research. This doesn’t only prevent him from being

3

disappointed in the future, it also promotes a healthy relationship between them. If only both

Joseph and the adviser cleared out their plans at the start, then the results would have been a

win-win for them.

Truly, even small misunderstandings between the adviser and his or her advisee can

lead to big problems in the future. The importance of having a good adviser-advisee

relationship must never be undermined.

4

II. The Selection of Data

“The Selection of Data” features the case of Deborah and Kamala, where they are in a

dilemma of whether they would drop some data points from their experiment. This problem

came about because during their experiment, a few electrical fluctuations occurred and

Kamala suspects that these caused some of the anomalous data points that deviated from the

theoretical curve. Deborah was just concerned that what Kamala wants to do could be

considered as data manipulation.

There are many factors that Kamala and Deborah should consider in deciding how to

present the data from their experiment. First, it should be noted that their experiment was

expensive and so repeating the experiment should be the last choice of action. Second, albeit

there were electrical power fluctuations during their measurements, there is no reliable way

for them to detect its effect on their data, if there is indeed any effect. There is no way to tell

which data point or part of the data is affected by the power fluctuation. It can also be helpful

to note that aside from some of the data points deviating from a theoretical curve, their

deviations were also outside the expected error bars calculated.

Given these factors, there are many ways that Kamala and Deborah can approach their

data. They shouldn’t right away discard any data points. What they could do is to search for

previous papers and journals on similar experiments done on the same machine and similar

laboratory and then check the results. They can refer to these papers in deciding whether to

discard the points. They can also research further on the expected possible effects of

electrical fluctuations and compare them in the results of their experiment. Kamala and

Deborah can also consult other papers on how to deal with uncontrollable factors such as

electrical fluctuations.

Learning on a new mathematical explanation of the experiment’s behavior should not

affect their decision on how to present data. As scientists, data should be honest and accurate,

even though they do not support the proposed theory behind, especially if the theory is just

new. In fact, experiments are done for the sole purpose of also disproving theories and not

only for supporting them. The best they could do is to explain the possible causes of some of

the deviating points. They could cite the power fluctuation as one source of error. Another

option is to do approved statistical analysis in the data and see if the two anomalous points

should really be rejected mathematically. They could also ask for the opinion of their

research adviser or any senior researcher that may give advices on how to deal with the

results. However, if Deborah and Kamala has found supporting papers and research showing

5

that the two data points pointed out by Kamala can indeed be anomalous, then they could

consider discussing the results with the discarded data points. If these can’t be done then it is

recommended that a separate analysis that includes all the points should also be done.

Because of these unresolved issues, a draft paper shouldn’t be the priority at this

point. Interpretation of data must be thoroughly agreed on to first before jumping on to

drafting a paper. The issue of getting a paper published must not be the main priority of a

scientist. A researcher must value honesty and accuracy first before publication.

If Kamala and Deborah cannot anymore agree on how to present the data, then maybe

one should consider not being an author of the paper. In writing a paper, all the authors must

agree to the content of the paper as they will all be responsible for the results presented in it.

Thus if Deborah doesn’t agree with Kamala and worries that Kamala is manipulating data

then she should just remove her name in the publication. This would even avoid future

problems in Kamala and Deborah’s relationship as scientists.

6

III. Discovering an Error

The case study titled, “Discovering an Error” is about Yuan, a statistician discovering

a minor error in the codes that he used in the papers he published about the spread of

infections in populations. On his relief, the errors in his codes did not change the average

time it took an infection to spread. However, his corrected code shows a greater uncertainty

in results, making predictions about the spread of an infection less definite. Marie, an

epidemiologist have also used Yuan’s model and so she is affected by this error. They now

both face a situation of whether to send corrections on their articles or just correct their works

on their next papers.

From the introduction part of “On Being a Scientist,” it was clearly emphasized that

the first obligation that a researcher should have is to “honor the trust that their colleagues

place in them.” Also emphasized in the article is that scientific research relies on other

research too. Thus these errors can mislead other researches who rely on these papers and can

then waste large amounts of time, money and resources. Also, in the specific case as that of

Yuan’s and Marie’s, their research is of direct practical use in medicine—it is a prediction of

how long an infection will spread. In short, it is a research that directly affects human life.

Not only does it mislead scientists, it can also mislead the public who trust in science. Hence,

small errors should readily be corrected. Yuan and Marie should consider all these in

deciding whether to correct their publications or not.

As scientists, Yuan and Marie should be kind enough to send formal corrections to the

editors of the journal/s in which their papers were published. They could correct the

publication through a corrigendum which is the author’s error. This should be done in such a

way that the integrity of the paper is still preserved. Also, they should correct their next

papers accordingly. Aside from publishing a formal correction, the authors could also

disseminate their corrected model through their own academic websites and profiles that are

deemed reliable by other researchers. This will help in the correction of erroneous knowledge

about their paper.

To sum it up, even though scientific standards tell us to minimize errors, there are still

unavoidable circumstances that cause scientists to err. However, when unavoidable errors

happen, it should always be an option to properly correct errors right away.

7

IV. Fabrication in a Grant Proposal

In this case study, Vijay who is going to apply for a scholarship for his fellowship is

working on an experiment with other groups of people. The manuscript for their experiment

will be done by the end of the summer. However, the deadline for the application is on June

already since Vijay, wrote “submitted” rather than “in progress.” He makes up a title and the

authors for that publication. When he was asked, he said he thought that practice was not

uncommon in science. His colleagues demanded that he withdraw his proposal and that he be

dismissed from his program.

From the example of Vijay, it is not surprising if more researchers in the community

are doing the same—exaggerating publication status. Many researchers do that because it

increases their chances to be accepted in scholarships and jobs just like what Vijay did.

Though many researchers do this, it is still unacceptable and is considered a form of

fabrication. That is why the punishment of Vijay seemed very hard. Fabrication of directly

violates the foundations of science which is trust and so what Vijay did is not excusable.

If Vijay decides to study in another institute or college, the people there have the right

to know. It is up to their rules however how to deal with the same disciplinary case. Other

schools punish lighter while other schools punish a lot.

Vijay’s application couldn’t have been questioned if only the adviser double checked

Vijay’s application. The adviser should have checked his mentee’s publications.

8

V. Is it Plagiarism

The case study is about a professor, Prof. Lee who wrote a proposal for a research

grant two days before its deadline. Due to the short time left before the deadline, Prof. Lee

copies exactly a few sentences of a journal written by different author without citing that

author properly. The sentences copied by Prof. Lee consist of descriptions of basic concepts

from textbooks and mathematical definitions as well as “brief, factual, one-sentence

summaries of earlier articles closely related to the proposal.” Prof. Lee only cites the same

author when he copied a one sentence summary of the journal paper.

Here, one can see that Lee clearly violates the scientific standards and can thus be

considered to have plagiarized. First and foremost, he completely copied many sentences

from the journal without any quotation marks or citations, which clearly is stealing a

statement or idea. In fact, Lee only cited the author when he copied a one-sentence summary

of the journal paper. This is still plagiarism since he didn’t put any quotation marks at all.

Doing this takes unfair advantage over the other author’s efforts and is thus unethical in the

scientific community.

Furthermore, in a proposal there should be a review of literature and Lee clearly did

not do that since he just copied some definitions and sentences from another author. As a

scientist, Lee should have reviewed the literature cited and not just copied it onto his

proposal. Reviewing the literature is needed because the literature review of the journal may

be incorrect or erroneous. As scientists, Lee should ensure that all definitions and

descriptions from literature are accurate.

Another consequence of plagiarism is that aside from not having an accurate literature

review, other scientists in the community may be able to detect plagiarism. It is possible that

someone who may have read Lee’s source’s publication may be the one to review Lee’s

proposal and she finds that Lee just copied it from somewhere she read. A worst case

scenario is if the author of your source is the one to review Lee’s proposal. Truly, plagiarism

has a lot of grave consequences.

9

VI. A Career in the Balance

This case study features the story of Peter and Jimmy who was working in the same

laboratory. Peter has convincing evidences that Jimmy, who wasn’t working inside their

laboratory, is just fabricating results. Peter now faces a difficult situation: should he raise this

issue to his adviser or not? Another problem is that Peter and his research adviser both rely

on Jimmy’s results on their own researches.

Before Peter can make any move, he should first gather all valid evidences that

Jimmy is indeed fabricating results at a certain degree. This should include files, thrown out

research materials, etc. A better but impractical option could be to replicate the said

“methods” used by Jimmy in getting those “results.” If these results aren’t reproduced then

the data of Jimmy is questionable.

Peter’s first option is to talk to none other than his adviser. He could present all the

evidences against Jimmy and he should explain that inaccuracy in Jimmy’s work will affect

both of their research. However since the adviser is involved here, a third objective party is

recommended to investigate. This may be an integrity officer of a certain research institution

or any other supervisor in the laboratory. After this, Peter can then confront Jimmy and ask

him to explain why his results are that clean or that why doesn’t he stays in the lab to

experiment. Lastly, he could file formal complaint to the university or the laboratory

administrators as a whole if needed.

It cannot be denied that accusing someone is also hard especially in the scientific

community. Thus, Peter can also consult other cases of fabrication of data and see what the

authorities have done. He could base his decisions from there. Truly, in any case, careful

decision and detailed evidences are needed.

10

VII. Tests on Students

“Tests on Students” is a case about Antonio, a psychology student who conducted a

research about strengthening memory. In his experiment, he used student volunteers that will

answer web-based instructional modules. He expected that the volunteers will have better

scores than other students.

Here Antonio used human subjects without any IRB approval. Although Antonio’s

experiment is just psychological and may seem not risky in human health, IRB’s approval is

still needed since the results of his experiment will still be published. There is no harm for

Antonio to get an IRB approval since his experiment is only about teaching techniques.

Truly Antonio’s sample experiment does not risk any human life but what about other

types of experiment that need to test food samples on humans? What about those that test

skin products on humans? On animals? These kinds of experiments need IRB approval

without question. The experimenter must know proper human and animal care because this is

the ethical way.

In Antonio’s experiment, it was also noted that the human subjects weren’t given a

formal consent as to what they were volunteering for. This is scientifically wrong and a

detailed consent must be given beforehand especially to small hospitals. One reason is that

students might experience physical or psychological distress from using the web modules.

Aside from that, another reason why consents are needed is that as mentioned in other

experiments, subjects need to undergo or intake something that might not be safe for them. In

short, it consents and IRB approval are there to ensure the safety of human and animal

subjects

11

VIII. A Change of Protocol

The case is about Hua, a postdoctoral fellow in a laboratory for cancer treatment. In

their experiments, a cancer-prone strain of mice is made to develop visible tumors and is then

given experimental drugs to observe its effects on the tumors. Hua however notices that the

tumors developed are interfering with some of the mice’ ability to eat and drink. Others

become weaker than others. Another fellow in the lab advices her to not mention this issue to

the rest of the laboratory members since if it was proved necessary to change the

experimental protocol, their previous work would be invalidated and authorities need to be

notified.

From the case, it can be seen that Hua’s experimentdo not protect the welfare of the

mice used. This violates the objectives of the guidelines for care and use of laboratory

animals which is to protect the welfare of animals as well as enhance the quality of research.

So what can Hua do? First, Hua can consult other experts in their fields like their supervisors

for advice on what to do in the given situation. She can also consult former researches and

publications similar to their current research and see how the mice were treated. After getting

other expert advices, Hua should now slowly open up to her labmates about the current

situation of their experiment. She should meet with them and discuss what the best course of

action for this is. However, based on the state of the mice, it is best if the protocol they used

is examined by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUCs). The IACUCs

shall be the one to recommend changes in the lab’s protocol.

12

IX. Publication Practices

“Publication Practices” is a case about Andre, a young professor and two graduate

students who have been working on a series of experiments for the past years. They have a

problem on deciding whether to publish a single comprehensive paper with one first author or

they could write two shorter and less complete papers where the two graduate students are

first author. Andre favors the first option because it is good for his tenure while the two

graduate students favor the second option as this will help in their career.

Before Andre and his students decide, they must first consider that as scientists, it is

not the number of publications that matter in the scientific community but rather the amount

of contribution a publication gives. In other words, Andre and the two graduate students must

consider in which paper they can contribute more significantly in the scientific community.

They can start by considering the coherence and completeness of each of the papers. From

here, Andre and the two students can then decide if the paper still needs to be broken out into

pieces. Maybe Andre could publish the more complete paper and the two graduate students

can publish two more papers that are extensions of their main research.

However, if this issue is still not resolved between Andre and the two students, it must

be brought to an authority to decide on how to divide the papers. They can go to a supervisor

in the laboratory or institute administration. The students can also go to the graduate students’

office if they feel that their concerns aren’t addressed.

How could all these be avoided in the future? First, the laboratory or institution

should set policies on special cases like this. Each laboratory should have their own special

rules regarding authorship to avoid anymore disputes like this. Even more detailed rules on

publication must also be made to avoid publishing short but less complete papers.

Furthermore, Andre and the students too could have avoided this issue if the expectations

from each one in the group are already made clear from the start.

13

X. Who Gets the Credit?

This case study is about Robert who has been working for a large engineering

company for three years after his postdoctoral fellowship. In his computer simulations, he has

developed a method to constrain the turbulent mixing that occurs near the walls of a tokomak

fusion reactor. He wanted to publish a paper in Physical Review, but his supervisor wanted

his name on the paper even though his supervisor hasn’t given any intellectual contributions.

Now, who gets the credit? Before Robert should answer his supervisor’s demands in

being an honorary author, he must first consult other authorities regarding this kind of issue.

He could ask other people from his company if they have policies regarding publication

authorship. He could also ask the journal to which he plans to submit his paper if they have

guidelines regarding honorary authorship. After getting advice from these, that is when

Robert can confront his supervisor about his demands. He could appeal to guidelines

describing acceptable authorship in other documents. In short, Robert needs a lot of legal

guide in this case.

A similar case where credit is not attributed fairly is an incident that happened in the

Plasma Physics Laboratory of the National Institute of Physics where two PhD students are

involved. PhD student 1 experimented and gathered data and shared it with his group member

PhD student 2. PhD student 2 did not gather experiment and gather data. A few months later,

PhD student 2 publishes a paper using the data of PhD student 1 without even including PhD

student 1 in the co-authors. PhD student 1 did not anymore fight for his right because he

didn’t know where to run to. He just stopped going to the lab one day. Here, we see why

laboratory policies are important in the issue of authorship. A set of approved rules is needed

to avoid such injustice and unfair allocation of publication.

14

XI. A Commercial Opportunity?

This case study is about Shen, who made a popular spreadsheet program on his

university-provided computer and posted it on his personal Web page. Later on, he knew that

researchers in other laboratories and in the industry had begun to download and use his

program. He was later on advised by his adviser to “commercialize” it since others may just

copy his work. Other problems also arose since Shen also used another program that is done

by another company.

Given this problems, Shen must first correct his unauthorized distribution of the

software. From here, the commercialization decision can then be made. It is now up to Shen

if he will want to commercialize this or continue giving if as a freeware to research

communities.

Commercialization based on another’s product both has pros and cons. The con, as

stated above is that there will be violations in terms of legal rights. However, having a

program based on another product allows others to use the program made for research

purposes.

Lastly, as a student, it will be impractical and hard for Shen to operate a business

while working on his thesis. For one, a dissertation already occupies a lot of work for a

student. Running a business will demand even more time from Shen and this distracts him

from doing real research. In short, when science and commercialization meet, many problems

arise.

15

XII. A Conflict of Commitment

This case is about Sandra a graduate student in the laboratory of Dr. Frederick, a

leading scholar in her field. Dr. Frederick assigned to her a research project that was

supported by a single company. Sandra is having a problem since her research has become

skewed toward questions that are important to the company. She is worried that her ability to

publish her work would be limited and that she won’t have a coherent dissertation.

For one, Dr. Frederick cannot be necessarily blamed for the predicament that Sandra

is in right now. Working on industrially sponsored research is not necessarily unhelpful in

education. In fact, it can be good way to learn industrially oriented problems as prepare future

work that has direct societal needs. However, in this case, the company has started to

interfere with Sandra’s education. The company and the research group have conflicts of

interests and this is where the problem is.

How can they have conflicts of interests? The company sponsoring Sandra might

demand that more data be collected from different areas of the country to aid in their

research. Instead of allowing Sandra to look at the potential of the materials, the company

may ask her to design the material in such a way that it is cheaper to make. These are just

some examples of the things that are in conflict with the objectives of the laboratory.

Truly, when private businesses fund research, it cannot be helped that there will be

some conflicts in interests and motivations.