Ethical Issues in Scientific Research - Case Study Example

Ethical Issues in Scientific Research Introduction Scientific researchers are done for a number of reasons including validation of theories, alleviating human suffering, and reduction of ignorance and understanding human behaviour. The research community has guidelines that direct their behaviour in carrying out their research. They guide both the research and publication processes. This paper uses three case studies to examine the significance of appropriate scientific conduct and to justify the need for an ethical basis for the practice of science. Case Study 1: A Case of Academic Plagiarism In this casestudy, Kock (1999) relates a case of a professor, who in his desperation to to fulfil his publishing quota copies an article from a publicly available web page, repackages it and submits it to another journal for review and publishing. Kock (1999) recounts how this former professor of information systems at a university in the U.S, Plag, had submitted a copy of an article he co-authored. In the paper that was submitted for review and consideration for publication, Plag had used the same wordings as those used in his study as well as the same figures as used in the original research, yet the two researchers were investigating different issues. In fact, Kock (1999) says that “Out of 51 paragraphs in Plags paper, 38 were nearly sentence-by-sentence, word-for-word copies from my article” (p. 99). He then describes the legal implication in this case of plagiarism and copyright infringement. Ethical Issues It is apparent that the major ethical issue in this case study is plagiarism. Kock (1999) documents precisely that Plag, in his quest to climb his professional ladder repackaged an already published article and submitted it for publication. It is more evident that he wanted to take the easy way out since Kock (1999) confirms that he had already won awards for his research work. This means that, without the evasion of the time and work required to do an original research, Plag had the ability and intellectual know-how to do an original research. Virtually all scientific journals require that a person should be stated as the author is only he has made a direct and significant intellectual input to the research design, data analysis and writing the paper. Clearly, Plag replicated Kock’s methodologies, data interpretation and presentation and even the writing of the paper. Plags paper is a case of plagiarism, fabrication and falsification of information. This is because Plag used Kock’s methodologies but cooked up results and reported them. Furthermore, he used Kock’s ideas, results, processes and word and did not give credit. The author has a responsibility to submit original material. ACS publication policy describes plagiarism as “passing off another person’s work as one’s own, that is, reusing text, results, or creative expression without explicitly acknowledging or referencing the original author or publication (Kamat, 2006, p. 19). Plag’s actions bring in the ethical issue of misrepresentation of research findings; he used fraudulent in the research. Kock (1999) explains that Plag’s paper claimed to have analysed 20 business processes, the table that summarised his results contained 22 – which is the same number that Kock’s paper had analysed. A researcher has an obligation to honour the trust colleagues have on them. Instead of honouring this obligation, Plag exploited this trust to fabricate data and plagiarise another researcher’s work. Had he not quoted Kock (1999), no one will have known that the paper was plagiarised. In fact, when confronted by Kock, Plag said that it would be so bad to drain all the respect and hard work they had put into this area of research. One ethical consideration that any researcher has to put on consideration in data collection, storage and dissemination is confidentiality and anonymity of the study subjects. Plag abused that provision to fabricate data since no one would ever confirm that a subject actually gave the data. The desire for new knowledge should be the basic driving desire to carry out a research. Guiding ethical principles provide that research should be carried out in a way that ensures integrity, quality and transparency. The person caught in the plagiarism, exploited the ethical provision of privacy and confidentiality in which forbids a researcher from disseminating personal information about the persons used in the study. This provision is meant to protect the subjects not as charade to fabricate data. Manipulating data to deceive others violates the ethical obligations of scientific research; they mislead their colleagues thereby obstructing progress in the field of research. They also mislead the audience in the findings of research. Secondly they undermine the trustworthiness of researchers and this poses a great danger since researchers in the field of science would not be taken seriously. Thirdly, the researcher is expected to act in ways that serve the public. In this case Plag served his interests and did not mind the damage his misconduct could cost the field of research or even the public. If every researcher decided to act this way, no new knowledge would be added in scientific research. Relevant organizations and the public that rely on scientific research to make decisions and take actions in the future would act on wrong information. Ultimately, the field of research would collapse and bring with it many other organizations that rely on the knowledge it provides. Case Study 2: Writing for Others Ethical Issues Kamat (2006) says that one of the obligations that researchers have is to honour the trust that their colleagues have in them. The scientists from other countries may have been justified to give the supervisor the paper to write since he had been a part of the research. On the other hand, they did not want to work with the supervisor in writing the paper and they wanted get credited for the authorship of the paper. However, the supervisor asking Janice to write the paper was ethically wrong. The supervisor does not honour the trust that has been place to him by the staff members. He violates the ethical provisions of honesty, integrity and accountability. In this case study, the subjects of the authorship misconduct, could use the ethical framework of justice. Justice requires the researcher to treat people fairly and equitably. The justification would be that, they would be considered as authors but their names would be first in the authorship. Although the researchers may argue that they treated the rest fairly by allowing them to be part of the authorship, they could not claim authorship of the paper without their writing or editing anything. If their English proficiency was not good, they would have drafted the paper and sought help with editing. They are not justified to claim that their names come first since the paper was to be written by someone else entirely. According to Kamat (2006) “a person should be listed as an author is only the person made direct and substantial intellectual contribution to the design of the research, the interpretation of data or the drafting of the paper” (p. 9). In this regard, the three staff members have not contributed to the drafting of the paper. Janice, cannot be named as the author since, apart from writing the paper, she was not involved in the research. On the other hand, it would be unfair not to include her in the paper since she would be writing the whole paper by herself. It is noted in the case study that Janice, the lady who was told to write the whole paper compromised on her demands to be given full authorship because she would write the entire paper. However, the researcher insisted on their names coming first and Janice’s later. In such instances of exploitation professional relationships are damaged as well as the knowledge base. This happens when the set standards of professional behaviours are damaged and the researchers yield their obligations of honesty and integrity. Case Study 3: Efficiency at All Cost In this case study a computer professional is given the responsibility of coming up with a design for a system that is being developed for the government to process welfare payments. He divides the work amongst his staff and when the system is installed, it is found to be so difficult to use by the staff which results to ending the project. Ethical Issues The computer professional who was given the responsibility of coming up with the system delegated the work to his staff. He was given this responsibility because of his credibility and trustworthiness which he let down the drain by delegating the work to his employees who may not be as competent as he is. His misconduct trashed the ethical principle of honesty and integrity. In addition, he did not honour the trust given to him and his obligation to act in ways that would benefit the people. This resulted in loss of time, effort and money. The ethical framework of honesty, integrity and accountability was set to help researchers take responsibility for their actions and come up with information or products that benefitted the public. A relegation of this responsibility costed the government money and it slipped back to the earlier system which was more expensive. If all system developers behaved this way, the government, public and even developers themselves would lose trust in the authenticity or ability of system developers. Honesty, integrity and accountability ethical guidelines that help researchers safeguard the authenticity and trust in their area of expertise. It is important for every person to honour their responsibilities and obligations. References Kamat, P. V., 2006, Research Ethics, Available online at: Kock, N, 1999, A Case of Academic Plagiarism, Association for Computing Machinery, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 42, No. 7, pp. 96-104. Read More