Case Study One Review
Click on the highlighted words to see explanations of the ethical issues raised in this case study.
A graduate student in his fourth year of study is under pressure from his advisor to publish a manuscript. In addition, the student worries that if he does not publish soon he will not be able to get a top-rated postdoctoral position.
The student’s research looks at the effects of combinations of certain foods on cholesterol levels in humans. After obtaining approval for the use of human subjects in his study from the Institutional Review Board (IRB), the student recruits 30 subjects for each of his control and treatment groups. For three months, subjects in the treatment group follow a specific diet, have their blood drawn weekly, and keep a food log whereas subjects in the control group have their blood drawn weekly and keep a food log. During the intervention phase of the study, just over one third of the subjects in the treatment group and one quarter of the control group subjects drop out of the study.
At the end of the intervention, the student is preparing to meet with his advisor regarding his results. To his dismay, the student discovers that the data he has collected are insufficient to perform a robust analysis due to the high subject attrition rates. The student knows that his advisor will require him to collect additional data which will most likely involve rerunning the experiment. However, he does not feel that he has time to rerun the experiment, and though he enjoyed conducting the study, he is anxious to complete his graduate work and move on to postdoctoral studies. After reflecting on all the time and energy he has invested in this study to-date, the student finds himself trying to decide among the following courses of action:
- Show the data to his advisor and see what his advisor proposes
This is an acceptable solution in that the student is accurately reporting the results of this research to his advisor. Although it might delay the student in terms of finishing up his graduate studies and moving onto postdoctoral work, this action demonstrates that the student takes his obligation to report research results accurately and honestly, regardless of what he might perceive to be in his best self interest. This course of action demonstrates responsible conduct of research and decision making.
- Create the additional data points before meeting with his advisor
If he selects this option, the student will have made a conscious decision to fabricate data. Fabrication is a serious violation of accepted practices in proposing, conducting, or reporting results from scholarly activities and constitutes scholarly misconduct. Accordingly, this is an unacceptable course of action.
If he opts to create the additional data, the student is ignoring his obligation as a researcher to report data truthfully. Honesty is one of the fundamental values of scholarship. Researchers and scholars must be able to trust that colleagues are honest and truthful in the conduct of their work, such as in reporting and publishing data, as they use this information to replicate work and further develop knowledge about the world in which we live. Fabrication, along with other dishonest practices such as falsification and plagiarism, are damaging to research and scholarly activities because they distort or misrepresent the true results of the activities.
Opting to create the data may be attractive to the student as he perceives it to be in his best interest. By doing so, he perceives that he can more quickly write the article for which his advisor is pressuring him and thus finish up his graduate studies, permitting him to move on to conduct other more exciting research. However, the student also needs to consider the consequences if he is caught. It is highly probable that in reviewing the data and documentation with the student, the advisor will discover the fabrication. This discovery would lead to allegations of misconduct and maybe even expulsion from the institution. This would have a severe adverse impact on the student’s career and would also be potentially damaging to the institution, the department and the discipline.
- Delay the meeting with his advisor while he figures out what to do
Though selecting this option will not solve the insufficient data problem, it will allow the student to seek out advice about his options and/or think through the potential courses of actions and their consequences. This is an acceptable solution in itself. However, the course of action the student finally decides upon might not be. If the student finally decides to tell his advisor about the insufficient data, or seeks advice that leads to this decision, this is an acceptable course of action. If the student arrives as a decision to fabricate the data or otherwise distort the research record in to achieve this goal of finishing up graduate studies more quickly, this is an unacceptable solution.