A New Instance of Scientific Misconduct - Assignment Example

Assignment Research Scenario Scenario Ch.3, Qu.5, p.91 (Cooper text Gentlemen’s Magazine has asked you to carry out a research study. The magazine has been unsuccessful in attracting shoe manufacturers as advertisers. When the sales force tried to secure advertising from shoe manufacturers, they were told men’s clothing stores are a small and dying segment of their business. Since Gentlemen’s Magazine goes chiefly to men’s clothing stores, the manufacturers reasoned that it was not a good vehicle for their advertising. The editor believes that a survey (via mail questionnaire) of men’s clothing stores in the United States will probably show that these stores are important outlets for men’s shoes and are not declining in importance as show outlets. He asks you to develop a proposal for the study and submit it to him. Develop a management-research question hierarchy that will help you develop a scientific proposal. Summary of Problem The lack of response from shoe manufacturers in placing advertisements in Gentleman’s Magazine and being told that “men’s clothing stores are a small and dying segment of their business” suggests there may be a decline in importance of men’s clothing stores as outlets for men’s shoes. Research Purpose and Method The purpose of the research therefore is to ascertain whether or not there really is a decline in the importance of men’s clothing stores as outlets for men’s shoes. This is to be done through a mail questionnaire sent to men’s clothing stores in the United States. Management Research Question Hierarchy A Management Research Question Hierarchy (MRQH) is a way of facilitating “problem formulation using a systematic ‘hierarchy of research questions’ approach” (Park, 2003). It is devised by specifying the following prior to the research on which to then base the management decision: 1. Management Dilemma (MD) – Symptom of the actual problem 2. Management Question (MQ) – Restatement of the MD in the form of a question 3. Research Questions (RQ) – Specific MQs to be answered 4. Investigative Questions (IQ) – Fractionated RQs “to arrive at a conclusion about the research questions” (Park, 2003) 5. Measurement Questions (MsQ) – Actual questions asked to respondents on the questionnaire, (survey or through extraction of data) A possible MRQH for the scenario is given in the table below. 1. MD Shoe manufacturers are not placing advertisements in Gentleman’s Magazine 2. MQ What can be done to attract shoe manufacturers to place advertisements in Gentleman’s Magazine? 3. RQ What is the true level of importance of men’s clothing stores as outlets for men’s shoes? 4. IQ 1. What are the total monthly sales figures for men’s shoes in men’s clothing stores? 2. What is the total monthly volume of customers passing through men’s clothing stores? 3. How do these figures compare with sales of men’s shoes from general shoe stores? 4. What factors are present in the purchasing decisions of customers buying men’s shoes from men’s clothing stores? 5. MsQ Obtain figures for 1 and 2 from a sample of men’s clothing stores; Obtain figures for 3 from a sample of general shoe stores; Ask customers about the factors that affect their purchasing decisions of men’s shoes in men’s clothing stores. References Cooper, Donald R. and Schindler, Pamela S. (n.d.). Business Research Methods. McGraw Hill. Park, Prof. Kang H. (2003). Weblecture – Day 2 (Chapter 3). Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Southeast Missouri State University. Retrieved July 4, 2009 from: http://cstl-hcb.semo.edu/park/BA620/Weblectures/Weblecture%20-WK2.htm. Assignment 2: Research Applications Scenario/Question The restaurant business is notoriously difficult; seventy percent of new restaurants fail within two years of opening. You are deciding whether to make a financial investment in a new restaurant. The entrepreneur or chef who is asking for your backing has started four restaurants previously. Three of them failed within two years; the other one was sold for a substantial profit after 3 years in business. Based solely on this information, is the entrepreneur or chefs track record in the restaurant business better or worse than average? Give reasons for your answer. Summary of Problem Statistics suggest that the majority of restaurants (70%) fail within two years of opening. This is corroborated by the previous experience of the entrepreneur in which three of his four restaurants failed within two years. Analysis/Answer The average figure for restaurants failing within two years of opening is given as 70% whereas the entrepreneur’s track record for this eventuality is 3 out of 4. This comes to 75% (3 ÷ 4 x 100). This figure is higher than 70% suggesting that the entrepreneur’s track record in the restaurant business is worse than average. That is, the entrepreneur has experienced the failure of more restaurants than is common for other entrepreneurs. However, in making this analysis two points/issues arise: 1. The average figure is just an average. 2. The opening of 4 restaurants is a very small figure to base a comparison on. Firstly, we neither have any information about how many restaurants were studied in total to arrive at the average figure, nor how many entrepreneurs’ restaurants there were and the proportions that failed. An average suggests that there may well be significant differences in the experiences of different entrepreneurs and indeed different locations as well for example. Some entrepreneurs may be better at running restaurants than others, so we need to ascertain the factors that lead to either success or failure. Secondly, the number of restaurants opened by the entrepreneur in question is probably very much lower than the total that were surveyed. A larger number may result in a figure closer to the general average. In any case, the proportion of failure (75%) is still fairly close to the average of 70% so it cannot be said that he is not a typical entrepreneur. Furthermore, the fact that he made “a substantial profit” on the fourth restaurant after 3 years in business brings to question whether the first 3 attempts were really failures or useful learning experiences for a successful outcome in the end. Assignment 3: Research Article Review Introduction An article is selected that involves ethical issues in research. It will be reviewed according to the points in a checklist given below. The chosen (medical) article is ‘Recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 for grade III open segmental tibial fractures from combat injuries in Iraq’ (NYTimes.com, 2009) allegedly authored by associate professor Kuklo TR, and orthopaedic surgeons Groth AT, Anderson RC, Frisch HM, and Islinger RB. It appeared in the August 2008 issue of (British) Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery but was later retracted (JBJS, 2008). The reason for choosing this article is to provide an example of unethically conducted research, and use this to highlight essential requisites of ethical research. Ethics in Research Ethics are “norms or standards of behavior that guide moral choices about our behavior and our relationships with others” (Cooper, 2008:34), the goal being “to ensure that no one is harmed or suffers adverse consequences from research activities” (ibid). Examples of unethical practices include deceiving others, breaking participant confidentiality, violating nondisclosure agreements, and misrepresenting results. An ethical researcher is responsible and demonstrates his or her integrity. The essential features of ethical research therefore typically include the following: Voluntary participation (i.e. “people [must] not be coerced into participating in research” (Trochim, 2006)) Informed consent (which means that “prospective research participants must be fully informed about the procedures and risks involved in research and must give their consent to participate” (Trochim, 2006)) Participant confidentiality or anonymity (to avoid a breach of trust) Protection from risk of harm (both physical and psychological) The RESPECT project (IES, 2004) formulates a code in terms of respect for intellectual property, confidentiality, professional qualifications, professional standards, and research users. Checklist For Evaluating Research Article & Its Assessment 1. Describe the purpose of the article. “To compare the management of Gustillo-Anderson type IIIB and IIIC segmental tibial fractures from Iraq treated with autologous bone grafting or rhBMP-2 in relation to subsequent infection, reoperation and fracture union” (Kuklo, 2008). 2. What is the problem? Is it clearly stated? The problem of injuries to the musculoskeletal system from incendiary devices, exploding ordinance and makeshift artillery and landmines during conflict is clearly stated and given detailed attention in the introduction to the article. 3. Does the problem have a theoretical rationale? The problem has a very practical rationale because it relates to treating wounds, but the research is grounded in advancing the case for the use of a human bone morphogenetic protein over the use of the traditional bone grafting technique. 4. How significant is the problem? The problem is common in war. “Although improvements in medical evacuation have resulted in a significant reduction in mortality on the battlefield, there has been an accompanying increase in morbidity” (Kuklo, 2008). 5. Is there a review of the literature? If so, is it relevant? Describe briefly. Some literature review is briefly interspersed but not covered in-depth in a separate section. What is stated is relevant. For example, the ‘delayed rate of union’ (of type III fractures) is discussed and compared with wartime rates caused by high velocity and blast injuries. 6. Are the constructs operationally defined? There were no constructs that needed to be defined. Furthermore, the article appeared in a highly specialized journal read by orthopaedic surgeons who are expected to understand the medical terminology used. 7. What are the hypotheses? How clearly are they stated? No hypothesis is explicitly stated in the article. But see ‘findings’. Towards the end of the introduction a case is advanced for “recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2) (InFUSE)… for severe open tibial fractures” (Kuklo, 2008). 8. Is the procedure (or method) used to address and answer the problem described fully and completely to enable future researchers to replicate the study? Describe briefly. Yes, the ‘Patients and Methods’ section clearly details the method (allegedly) followed to address the problem (and advance the case for Infuse). Things noted included “mechanism of injury, defect size and classification, associated injuries, presence of infection” (Kuklo) etc. And, the method used is clearly mentioned (involving a ringed fixator or intramedulary nail, repeated debridement and irrigation etc.) for other surgeons to replicate the study. 9. Was a sample used? If so, how was it selected? Provide sample information. The sample comprised of 138 American male soldiers from Iraq with a mean age of 26.6 years with a particular type of bone injury. 10. What are the limitations or delimitations of the study? Were these stated? In the discussion, Dr. Kuklo (2008) points out that because the study was performed at a United States military hospital, “pre-certification and insurance reimbursement are not foremost, especially in the care of wounded soldiers” but goes on to make a compelling argument for the continued use of such ‘emerging technologies’. He states that “a cost-benefit analysis was beyond the [s]cope of this study” (ibid). 11. Are there any probable sources of error that might influence the results of the study? If so, have they been controlled or acknowledged as limitations to the generalizability of the research? It is admitted that the injury profile used in the series “is slightly more severe owing to our inclusion of type IIIC factors” (Kuklo, 2008) so is “not ideal, as it is a retrospective review of a series of open tibial fractures. [Nonetheless,] as each soldier was treated using similar algorithms in the evacuation, initial care and subsequent management of these injuries…” [the method is acknowledged as being a good way of] “reviewing the clinical use of advanced bone grafting techniques” (ibid). A randomized trial it is suggested “might be considered to be unethical and impossible because of multiple confounding variables” (ibid). 12. What statistical techniques are used to analyze the data? Are they appropriate? The data is analyzed using percentages for rates of infection and union. Standard demographic statistics and means are used to compare the two groups with a chi-squared test. 13. How clearly are the results presented? Describe the results. The ‘results’ are clearly presented in tables, a graph, and explained in detail and analyzed. Photographs are also used to illustrate the changes after using Infuse. 14. What are the findings? Are they presented clearly? Do the data support the conclusions? Does the researcher over-generalize the findings? Explain. The findings suggest that ‘Infuse’ is effective in lower-limb tibia restoration. This is actually a bone-growth product sold by Medtronic who financed the study (but this information is not mentioned in the article). It is argued that Infuse is “strikingly better than the traditional bone-grafting technique used to heal soldiers’ shattered shin bones“ (Meier, 2009). Dr Koklo claims in the article, “The 92% rate of union in group 2 patients is a striking finding as was a much lower infection rate… which we believe is directly attributable to rhBMP-2, one of its properties being angiogenesis”. The data is invented to support this claim for Infuse. In addition, the article states the use of ‘informed consent’ from all patients and apparently followed the International Review Board protocol. However, the checklist does not include further points to ascertain whether the research was conducted ethically or not. In this faked study: Authors are made up “presumably to bolster the credibility of the paper” (Stemwedel, 2009). Conflicts of interest are undisclosed – Medtronic actually financed Dr. Kuklo’s ‘research’ and this important material fact in not disclosed in the article. Thus the integrity of Dr. Kuklo and his research is entirely in doubt. Data is made up – Anderson confirms that the patients received both Infuse and a bone graft whereas Dr Kuklo claimed to have treated two groups of soldiers with one or the other. Signatures are forged – clearly to deceive! Conclusion Pharmaceutical companies are notorious for sponsoring devious research that is against the spirit of true research for advancing knowledge free from financial interests. The whole research studied was a fraud. The checklist was applied but the study could very easily have been considered real as indeed it was initially. There must be additional safeguards to ensure that research studies are genuine. Ethical criteria must therefore include motives, interests, genuineness of authors, data and signatures, and so on. References Cooper, Donald R. and Schindler, Pamela S. (2008). Business Research Methods. 10th edition. McGraw Hill Irwin. IES. (2004). The RESPECT Project. Institute for Employment Studies. Retrieved July 4, 2009 from: http://www.respectproject.org/main/index.php. JBJS. (2008). Recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 for grade III open segmental tibial fractures from combat injuries in Iraq. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British Volume 90-B, Issue 8, pp.1068-1072. British Editorial Society of Bone and Joint Surgery. Retrieved July 4, 2009 from: http://www.jbjs.org.uk/cgi/content/short/90-B/8/1068. Kuklo. (2008). See NYTimes.com, 2009. Meier, Barry. (2009). Discredited Research Study Stuns an Ex-Army Doctor’s Colleagues. The New York Times, June 6, 2009, p.B1. NYTimes.com. (2009). Recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 for grade III open segmental tibial fractures from combat injuries in Iraq. Retrieved July 4, 2009 from: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/business/20090513kuklo-journal-article.pdf. Stemwedel, Janet D. Familiar themes in a new instance of scientific misconduct: the Kuklo case. June 7, 2009. Science blogs. Retrieved July 4, 2009 from: http://scienceblogs.com/ethicsandscience/2009/06/familiar_themes_in_a_new_insta.php. Trochim, William M.K. (2006). Ethics in Research. Research Methods Knowledge Base. Retrieved July 4, 2009 from: http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/ethics.php. Read More