The Issue of Research Misconduct - Case Study Example

Fabricating Data- Case Study 9 Name Institution Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 Introduction 3 Summary of the case studies 3 The ethical problems and issues 3 Application of concepts of chapters 5 & 6 5 Social dimensions of technology (Chapter 5) 5 Trust and reliability (Chapter 6) 6 Reasons offered for fabricating data 8 Reasons justifying data fabrication 9 Victims of fabricated data 9 Responsibilities for validating researches 10 Response during suspected data fabrication 11 Importance of honesty to the engineering community 11 Importance of honesty to the public 12 Recommendations 13 Conclusion 14 References 14 Introduction In the modern society, the issue of research misconduct or fraud has gained prominence in engineering literature. Among the unanswered questions regarding research misconduct or scientific fraud is its prevalence. Critically, the answer relies on how it is defined. According to Smith (2006), research misconduct consists of fabrication, plagiarism or falsification, proposing, undertaking, analysis of research data or reporting the research findings. Smith (2006) further posits that scientific misconduct excluded differences of opinion and honest errors. The case of John Darsee and Stephen Breuning has played a critical role in understanding of research misconduct under different scenarios. This report presents an analysis of the two case studies. Summary of the case studies John Darsee was uncovered to have fabricated research data that formed the premise for a number of articles he published through 1981. Breuning was also found to have fabricated data regarding the effects psychotropic medication on mentally-retarded patients in 1983. Both Darsee and Breuning admitted to fabricating data. The ethical problems and issues The key issue in the case is scientific misconduct included fabrication of data and falsification. In the case, Darsee’s three colleagues at the Cardiac Research Laboratory discovered discrepancy in Darsee’s research concerning the timing of the researches, where Darsee indicated that one week had passed while only minutes had passed. Once he was confronted by Braunwald, he acknowledged that he had fabricated the data (Harris et al, 2009). In regards to falsification of data, Darsee’s research was found to have had a low degree of uniformity or invariability in data. In the case, Kroner and Braunwald also discovered inconsistency in Darsee’s researches, once they compared them to studies by Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBIP). Succeeding investigations into Darsee’s work also showed he had engaged in dubious research practices that debated back to his undergraduate years at Notre Dame University (Kochan & Budd, 2012). Other concerns included hiding information from funding institutions for professional and financial gain. This included misuse of research funds, failure to disclose involvement in funders whose resources are used in the research and unlawful use of privileged information (Ivanović et al, 2013). For instance, Braunwald and Kroner carried out investigations on Darsee’s researchers without informing NIH of their concerns. Later, when NIH realised this, it criticised Cardiac Research Laboratory for hiding the information from it and threatened to withdraw funding for the researches (Kochan & Budd, 2012). Lack of compliance with research regulations concerning animal care, human objects, and bio-safety was another problem. Darsee violated National Institutes of Health’s (NIH’s) research policies that prohibited research misconduct when he engaged in research misconduct. Application of concepts of chapters 5 & 6 Social dimensions of technology (Chapter 5) Harris et al (2009) depicts technology as the application of science to resolve practical problems. This definition gives a significant insight into the nature of technology at Cardiac Research Laboratory. According to Harris et al (2009), it is not excusable for scientists to convince themselves that they would not meet any of the larger social and value issues in their researches or application of technology. This is since once this happens, the scientists become more inclined to engage in unethical practices. Indeed, it could be assumed that Darsee and Breuling become more disposed to engage in scientific misconduct following their assumption that their researchers were not likely to meet social and value issues (Kochan & Budd, 2012). Several institutions have also taken steps to address such likelihood by formulating policies or criterion that researchers should use in their studies. Harris et al (2009) illustrates how Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) instituted Criterion 6, which demands that engineering students should have an understanding of their ethical and professional responsibility, and Criterion 8, which demands that students should be knowledgeable about the impact of their researches and engineering solution on the societal context. In the case, it could be argued that Darsee and Breuling were in gross violation of the social and value dimensions of their researches. First, they had no understanding of their ethical and social responsibility in providing the society with the pertinent ethical research findings or the impacts of fraudulent researches on the public welfare (Kochan & Budd, 2012). From the case studies, it is critical to argue that a critical challenge that faces engineering ethics is fabrication of data. Harris et al (2009) calls these issues microethical issues. Still, Kochan and Budd (2012) argue that the issues of social policy concerning technology are the main challenge. Harris et al (2009) calls these issues macroethical issues. According to Harris et al (2009), macroethical issues have to be decided by the greater society of researchers or practitioners, who have to provide guidance and information in decisionmaking. This situation is evident in the case of Beuring, where the media and the general public gained interest in investigations on his research misconduct after Robert Sprague blew the whistle. Since Darsee’s issue involved the larger society of cardiac researchers as well as community of researchers in the other fields, it could be argued that it was a social policy issue. As mentioned by Harris et al (2009), issues that form the interface of the values, society and technology are social policy issues. To this end, Darsee and his contemporary researchers faced design issues that involved research and the society. Darsee should have thought about his work within the context of the society. This, in Tenbrunsel and Messick (2004) view, is since the public relies on the consistent expertise of scientists in the areas of safety, health and welfare. Trust and reliability (Chapter 6) Harris et al (2009) argue that recognition of the significance of trust and reliability in engineering practice is critical. In their view, codes of ethics demands that engineers have to be honest and objective when making professional judgement. In the case study, Darsee and Breuning failed to be honest and impartial in their research undertaking (Ehsan et al 2009). Breuning and Darsee’s dishonesty as violated the public’s moral agency when they included fraudulent data that failed to meet the true reflection of their researches (Lewis et al, 2012). From the utilitarian perspective of ethics, dishonesty was wrong as it undermined the relations of trust based on which the scientific community is founded, as well as informed decision-making, hence encumbering development of technology (Harris et al, 2009). In respect to the engineering discipline, Darsee and Breuning overlooked the fundamental canon of research, which requires engineers to make public statements only strictly in truthful and objective manner. The two engaged in dissemination of unfair, untrue and fabricated data (Kochan and Budd, 2012). According to Harris et al (2009), the services that engineers provided demand impartiality, honesty, equity and fairness. All this were overlooked by Darsee and Breuning. As further stated by Harris et al (2009), engineers should not engage in deceptive acts in their efforts to solicit professional employment. Darsee violated this concept. Investigations into Darsee’s work indicated that he had engaged in dubious research practices that debated back to his undergraduate years at Notre Dame University. Such succeeding malpractices had enabled him to get a position as a Research Fellow in the Cardiac Research Laboratory. He had also been promised a faculty position at Harvard University. Harris et al (2009) also underscores the rules of practice when he mentions that engineers should not allow their name to be used or associated with individuals who they have engaged in dishonest or fraudulent professional practices. Such as scenario is revealed in the case study as suspicion was cast over the works that Darsee had taken part in generating alongside other researches. At the same time, the published researches that bore the name of the authors whose researches were linked to that of Darsee were held in doubt (Harris et al, 2009). In regards to forms of dishonesty, Harris et al (2009) suggests that there has been a controversy over the definition of lying since every falsehood is regarded as a lie. For instance, if an engineer erroneously puts incorrect test results for analysis, he would not be lying despite telling the truth. Smith (2006) views such mistakes as ‘honest errors’ and suggests that it should be excluded from the definition or accusations of misconduct. Hence, in order to determine whether Darsee lied, there must be evidence that he intentionally conveyed misleading and false information. In the case, once Darsee some discrepancies were discovered in Darsee’s research findings, he acknowledged that he had intentionally fabricated the data due to intense pressures. The deliberate intention is enough proof to show that Darsee had lied in his researches (Messick and Bazerman, 1996). Harris et al (2009) describes an honest engineer as one who commits to seeking the truth rather than merely avoiding dishonesty. For instance, once Braunwald and Kroner discovered that Darsee’s research data had been fabricated, they failed to inform NIH, who provided funding for the research, and instead, they allowed him to carry on his research projects at Harvard for the several months. Such failure to inform NIH could be viewed as dishonesty. In fact, when NIH discovered that Darsee was being investigated, they criticised Cardiac Research Laboratory (Smith, 2006). Reasons offered for fabricating data Researchers caught fabricated data have often complained of extreme pressure to complete the research so as to meet the expectations of the funders, supervisors or to meet the deadline (Stern & Elliot, 1997). For instance, Darsee admitted that he had fabricated the data in the researches as he had been under intense pressure to finish the studies quickly. As indicated in the case study, Darsee argued that he had to engage in scientific misconduct as he was under pressure to meet the deadline or carry on in the competitive world of scientific research. According to Swazey et al (1993), some have also argued that they had been tempted to fabricate data as they knew how the experiment would turn out and therefore had to support the right answer. Additionally, others have also claimed that they had to fabricate data in order to get good grades and that such researchers were essentially classroom exercise. Reasons justifying data fabrication Harris et al (2009) suggests that acceptable reasons for fraudulent data where the researcher erroneously, rather than intentionally, includes incorrect test results for analysis. In which case, if Darsee or Breuning’s falsified data had to be viewed as acceptable, then there must have been some evidence to show that their falsifications were not their intentional. Victims of fabricated data Fabricating data affects the general public and the research community. Still, actually harm does not have to occur in order for fabrication to be ethically wrong. It leads to loss of time and effort on the part of the supervisors and other individuals in the department, who have to take time validating the data. For instance, Braunwald and Dr Rober Kroner, who were Darsee’s immediate supervisors, had to take many months cross-checking all the researches Darsee conducted in the Cardiac Research Laboratory, instead of concentrating on their work. It also leads to loss of employment. For instance, Darsee lost his position as a research fellow at Harvard. Additionally, his offer for a position at a faculty in the university was withdrawn. Additionally, it can lead to loss of career, as it happened to Darsee when he left his research career to train as a critical care specialist. It also leads to loss of reputation and funding. For instance, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) disqualified Darsee from receiving funding or participating in NIH committees for a ten-year period. Additionally, Cardiac Research Laboratory lost its reputation as a credible research centre due to criticisms for undertaking fraudulent researches. Kochan and Budd (2012) also suggest that reputation also has an impact on the future support of the research. There is also the likely consequence of loss of morale and productivity (Navran, 2014). This is evident in the case, all individuals who had associated with Darsee and Beuring during the course of their researches became wary of their reputations. According to Kochan and Budd (2012), falsification of data can cause damage to the research of other working researchers as well as the consistency of the published literature. Indeed, all the works conducted by Darsee were held in doubt. At the same time, while his work was disreputable, all other authors whose works were linked to that of Darsee. Responsibilities for validating researches A responsible engineer is an honest engineer (Harris et al, 2014). Therefore, an engineer has the responsibility of inquiring further into the accuracy of the work of other engineering researches to determine their trustworthiness. Response during suspected data fabrication If a scientist has a reason to believe that data has been fabricated by another scientist, he should be committed to findings the truth by looking further into their accuracy and ultimately informing the authorities at the research facility, rather than avoiding dishonesty (Avasthu et al, 2013). For instance, if a scientist discovers inaccuracies in data received from the test lab, he would either be concealing the truth or lying if he uses the results as they are, withholds information or fails to seek out the truth. In this sense, honesty is a constituent of being a responsible engineer (Harris et al 2014). Importance of honesty to the engineering community Honesty in scientific research enables the engineering community to make autonomous decisions. In respect to the Utilitarian Theory, the actions of the engineers should promote the general well-being and happiness of the research (Hammond, 2014; Sen et al, 1982). Indeed, the engineering profession contributes to the Utilitarian Theory by presenting designs for creating technology, which provide added value and happiness to the general public (Anderson, 2001). Without honesty, these functions are undermined as researchers cannot depend on the research results. Honesty also promotes trust among the participants in the engineering community. As indicated in the case study, Darsee was untruthful about the researches he had made. By doing so, he threatened the lives of the reputation of Cardiac Research Laboratory as well as Harvard-affiliated health organisations such as Brigham and Women's Hospital, leading to withdrawal of funding or $122,371 due to use of fraudulent data. It may also lead to fair competition in the job market, promotion, or recognition by the research community. For instance, fraudulent claims where some researchers fabricate data to excel in their researches and earn a job or promotion can lead to unfair competition or unjustified recognition by the research community (Parson, 2005). Under such circumstances, those carrying out evaluations may not make informed decisions. For instance, Darsee had established had unjustifiably earned a reputation within the research community for his brilliance in researchers on heart drugs on dogs. Due to this, he was offered a job as a Research Fellow at Cardiac Research Laboratory and a position at the faculty. However, once he was uncovered, he lost his reputation and the job. Importance of honesty to the public Honesty in scientific research is particularly significant to the public as it promotes credibility and reliability of the engineering community. This could be argued in terms of utilitarianism, where it should be practiced for the greater good of the general public (Hull, 2000). Hence, honesty ensures the respect of the clients’ moral agency. First, they ensure that the public makes informed decision regarding matters of engineering design (Klung, 2001). Honesty in the research data ensures that the public is warned of the impending environment dangers, and gets it prepared to avert a scourge. Honesty also ensures that the public understands the true consequence of their decision. And hence can make rational decisions over their relationships to their life plans (Messick and Bazerman, 1996). Honesty also ensures the public can make decisions without coercion from family pressures, illnesses, or stress. When it comes to the clients, honesty in the research findings ensures the safety of the clients (Lachman, 2008; Rich & Butts, 2010). Honesty also promotes trust among the public and the research community. As noted in the case study, Darsee was untruthful about the researches he had made. By doing so, he threatened the lives of the public whose physicians depended on the data on heart drugs. Recommendations To diminish the likelihood of research misconduct, a national body should be created to provide leadership on responding to research misconduct (Arbinger Institute, 2000). The national body should set guidelines on best practices, encourage teaching of research and raise consciousness on the problems associated with research misconduct (Swazey et al, 1993). Organisations should also set up whistle-blowing programs to report and address concerns on suspected individuals who engage in fabrication of data (Arjoon, 2008). Additionally, the overall level of scientific integrity should be raised instead of emphasising on investigated those suspected to engage in scientific misconduct (Messick & Steward, 2006). Organisations should also set codes of good conduct, instead of just listing bad practices that should be avoided (Swazey et al, 1993). The organisations should also raise consciousness on good practices rather than just list the bad ones that the students should avoid. Once the researchers’ awareness has been raised, they will realise that they are incessantly presented with ethical responsibility around collection of data, data analysis, informed consent, conflict of interest, and authorship (Swazey et al, 1993). Conclusion The key issue in the Darsee and Breuning’s case studies are scientific misconduct, including fabrication of data and data falsification. Additional concerns included hiding information from funding institutions for professional and financial gain. In regards to Social dimensions of technology, Darsee and Breuling become more disposed to engage in scientific misconduct following their assumption that their researchers were not likely to meet social and value issues. Overall, recognition of the significance of trust and reliability in engineering practice is critical. Engineers have to be honest and objective when making professional judgement. Honesty promotes trust among the engineering community and the public. To diminish the likelihood of research misconduct, a national body should be created to set guidelines on best practices, encourage teaching of research, and raise consciousness on the problems associated with research misconduct. Organisations should also establish code of conduct, awareness programs as well as establish whistle-blowing policies. References Anderson, K. (2001). Utilitarianism: The Greatest Good for the Greatest Number. Retrieved: Arbinger Institute. (2000). Leadership and Self-Deception. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers Arjoon, S. (2008). Corporate Governance: An Ethical Perspective. Trinidad: The University of the West Indies St. Augustine Avasthu, A., Ghosh, A., Sarkar, S., Grover, S. (2013). Ethics in medical research – General principles with special reference to psychiatry research. Indian J Psychiatry 55(1), 86-91 Ehsan, N., Anwar, .S & Talha, M. (2009). Professional Ethics in Construction Industry of Pakistan. Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering 2009 Vol I WCE 2009, July 1 - 3, 2009, London, U.K. Hammond, P. (2014). Consequentialist Decision Theory and Utilitarian Ethics. Retrieved: < http://www.stanford.edu/~hammond/SienaLect.pdf> Harris, C., Pritchard, M. & Rabins, M. (2009). Engineering Ethics. Baltimore: Wadsworth Cengage Hull, G. (2000). An Introduction to Issues in Computers, Ethics, and Policy. Retrieved: Read More

This included misuse of research funds, failure to disclose involvement in funders whose resources are used in the research and unlawful use of privileged information (Ivanović et al, 2013). For instance, Braunwald and Kroner carried out investigations on Darsee’s researchers without informing NIH of their concerns. Later, when NIH realised this, it criticised Cardiac Research Laboratory for hiding the information from it and threatened to withdraw funding for the researches (Kochan & Budd, 2012).

Lack of compliance with research regulations concerning animal care, human objects, and bio-safety was another problem. Darsee violated National Institutes of Health’s (NIH’s) research policies that prohibited research misconduct when he engaged in research misconduct. Application of concepts of chapters 5 & 6 Social dimensions of technology (Chapter 5) Harris et al (2009) depicts technology as the application of science to resolve practical problems. This definition gives a significant insight into the nature of technology at Cardiac Research Laboratory.

According to Harris et al (2009), it is not excusable for scientists to convince themselves that they would not meet any of the larger social and value issues in their researches or application of technology. This is since once this happens, the scientists become more inclined to engage in unethical practices. Indeed, it could be assumed that Darsee and Breuling become more disposed to engage in scientific misconduct following their assumption that their researchers were not likely to meet social and value issues (Kochan & Budd, 2012).

Several institutions have also taken steps to address such likelihood by formulating policies or criterion that researchers should use in their studies. Harris et al (2009) illustrates how Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) instituted Criterion 6, which demands that engineering students should have an understanding of their ethical and professional responsibility, and Criterion 8, which demands that students should be knowledgeable about the impact of their researches and engineering solution on the societal context.

In the case, it could be argued that Darsee and Breuling were in gross violation of the social and value dimensions of their researches. First, they had no understanding of their ethical and social responsibility in providing the society with the pertinent ethical research findings or the impacts of fraudulent researches on the public welfare (Kochan & Budd, 2012). From the case studies, it is critical to argue that a critical challenge that faces engineering ethics is fabrication of data.

Harris et al (2009) calls these issues microethical issues. Still, Kochan and Budd (2012) argue that the issues of social policy concerning technology are the main challenge. Harris et al (2009) calls these issues macroethical issues. According to Harris et al (2009), macroethical issues have to be decided by the greater society of researchers or practitioners, who have to provide guidance and information in decisionmaking. This situation is evident in the case of Beuring, where the media and the general public gained interest in investigations on his research misconduct after Robert Sprague blew the whistle.

Since Darsee’s issue involved the larger society of cardiac researchers as well as community of researchers in the other fields, it could be argued that it was a social policy issue. As mentioned by Harris et al (2009), issues that form the interface of the values, society and technology are social policy issues. To this end, Darsee and his contemporary researchers faced design issues that involved research and the society. Darsee should have thought about his work within the context of the society.

This, in Tenbrunsel and Messick (2004) view, is since the public relies on the consistent expertise of scientists in the areas of safety, health and welfare. Trust and reliability (Chapter 6) Harris et al (2009) argue that recognition of the significance of trust and reliability in engineering practice is critical.

Read More