In the Classroom
Trying a Case on Ethics in Scientific Research A Role-Playing Exercise for Students and Faculty in a Summer Undergraduate Research Program Patrick E. Hoggard Department of Chemistry, Santa Clara University, Santa Clara, CA 95053;
[email protected] In recent years, increasing attention has been given to the importance of addressing ethics in science within a classroom setting (1–7). This Journal has strongly encouraged the use of real cases of scientific misconduct as bases for discussions of scientific ethics (8). For the past 12 years the Department of Chemistry at Santa Clara University (SCU) has conducted a weekly Ethics in Science colloquium for undergraduates doing research during the summer, details of which have been previously published in this Journal (6). A major component of the colloquium consists of a set of five videos produced by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (9). The videos, each less than 15 minutes in length, span a range of ethical issues. Each video is introduced by a faculty member, who, together with a staff member from the Markulla Center for Applied Ethics at SCU, moderates the subsequent discussion. Most of the discussion generally takes place in small groups, some of which include faculty participants. The discussion is given some structure by assigning group members to represent the point of view of a particular character. Additional structure is provided by a framework for ethical decision-making that was developed in conjunction with the Markulla Center (6, 10), and by the ACS Chemist’s Code of Conduct (11, 12). Kovac’s The Ethical Chemist: Professionalism and Ethics in Science provides an excellent source for case studies (13). Using Case Studies To Investigate Ethics in Science The AAAS videos and other exercises, such as case studies based on recent news reports (14, 15), serve well to initiate discussions on topics that most undergraduates in the sciences have not thought much about. Visits to local companies to meet with representatives from their ethics committees add another dimension to the summer experience. In all of these, a constant is that the facts are well known, and it is the action to be taken based on these facts that presents the quandary. In the AAAS videos, even when the protagonists dispute the facts, the viewers are left in no doubt. Flashbacks are used for just this purpose. Furthermore, there is little doubt what the ethical lapse is— data fabricated or intentionally omitted, failure to credit work performed, violation of confidentiality, and so forth—or who has committed it. This is fine as far as it goes, however real-world ethical decisions must quite often be made in situations in which knowledge of facts is less than perfect. We consider it an indispensable component of ethical instruction to emphasize the point that one cannot assume that one is in possession of all relevant information; yet despite the uncertainty, decisions must be made. What follows is a role-playing exercise we have employed several times in this context, based on actual events. This exercise can be done with as few as four students, or as many as 30 students. 802
The Case under Consideration Petr Taborsky, an immigrant from Czechoslovakia, was a chemistry student at the University of South Florida (USF). In 1986 he began working as a laboratory assistant for Robert Carnahan of the Civil Engineering department at USF on a project sponsored by the Florida Progress Corporation. At some point after the expiration of the grant from Progress Energy Florida, Taborsky discovered that heating a particular zeolite to 850 °C greatly enhanced its uptake of ammonia. Contending that the discovery of this potentially patentable process was his alone, Taborsky refused to disclose the details or hand over his laboratory notebooks. The university pressed charges and Taborsky was found guilty of grand theft in 1990. He was given a suspended sentence, put on probation for 15 years, ordered to return all materials to the university, and forbidden to make any personal use of them. Shortly thereafter, Taborsky filed patent applications and was awarded three federal patents based on his work, in preference to competing patent applications from the university. USF appealed to the court, which found Taborsky in violation of probation and ordered him to assign his patents to USF. When he refused, Taborsky’s probation was revoked and he was sentenced to three and a half years in prison, which sentence he began serving in 1995. The case attracted national attention when he was found to be working on a chain gang. Taborsky was released after 18 months (16, 17). Implementing This Role-Playing Exercise A Web search on the term “Petr Taborsky” can be used to retrieve many accounts of these events (18). A bias in favor of either Taborsky or USF is evident in many of them. The selection of facts included in the stories varies considerably, and sometimes the facts themselves are not the same in different sources. For example, it is not clear when, or even whether, Taborsky signed a confidentiality agreement, nor for precisely what circumstances it might be invoked. Assigned Roles For the colloquium exercise, we settled on certain roles to be played by participants, not always the same set each time. In the most recent iteration the five roles were Taborsky, professor Carnahan, the president of USF, Governor (at the time of Taborsky’s incarceration) Lawton Chiles representing the state of Florida, and an ombudsman. Readings were selected and categorized to the extent possible as representative of the views of the four stakeholder roles. For the ombudsman (who is not a stakeholder), the readings consisted of the code of ethics and standards of practice of the International Ombudsman Association, which were downloaded from the association’s Web site (19).
Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 85 No. 6 June 2008 • www.JCE.DivCHED.org • © Division of Chemical Education
In the Classroom
Small-Group Tasks and Discussions The session was initiated with a brief, neutral explanation of the case. The date was set to correspond to Taborsky having spent six months in prison. Groups of five participants each were formed, including faculty only when necessary to fill out the groups. A packet of five readings, each reading identified at the top by a code letter (A–E) was distributed to each group, and the five readings were then divided randomly within the group. Each participant was then assigned a role corresponding to the code letter and all except the ombudsmen were instructed to represent the interests of the particular stakeholder, but to take or demand no action that would be unethical by the standards already developed during the Ethics in Science program. The stakeholders were not made aware of the fact that each set of reading materials was different. In addition to the readings from the International Ombudsman Association, the ombudsmen were given a worksheet, based in part on the framework for ethical decision-making used throughout the colloquium series (10), and were instructed to conduct the session.1 Approximately 12 minutes were allotted for reading the materials, after which the groups met and began their discussions. The groups were instructed to assume the discussion was taking place at a time when Taborsky was still in prison. These are the pertinent worksheet headings used to guide discussion:
Students (and faculty) engaged in this exercise reported that after reading the sources, they had felt quite ready to represent the assigned point of view. What they did not expect was to be challenged on the facts themselves. Because of the directive to act ethically (or their own desire to understand what really happened), they could not simply contradict all statements not in accord with their readings, and sometimes they altered their stances. Outcomes of the Activity
B. What action is desired by each stakeholder?
C. What are other possible actions?
After the general discussion, participants (no longer in their assigned roles) were surveyed informally to assess individual opinions. While the range of opinions was wide, as expected, significant differences arose between faculty and students. Interestingly, faculty were more likely than students to take Taborsky’s side in the dispute. More than half of the students felt that Taborsky should continue to be incarcerated until he relinquished the patents, while most of the faculty felt Taborsky should never have been imprisoned and should be released immediately. Students were more likely than faculty to suggest that Taborsky be released if he agreed to arbitration, or simply to suggest negotiating until both sides were satisfied. Besides emphasizing the dependence of the ethical decisionmaking process on the accuracy of the information available, this exercise reinforces several instructional goals on the responsible conduct of research outlined by the NIH Office of Research Integrity (20). These goals include topics from two core areas.
D. Evaluate the possible actions from ethical perspectives.
• Core Area 1: Data acquisition, management, sharing and ownership, including accepted practices for acquiring and maintaining research data; keeping data notebooks; data as legal documents and intellectual property.
• Core Area 2: Conflicts between a mentor and trainee; collaboration and competition.
A. What are the facts?
1. Which possible action does the best job of protecting rights? 2. Which possible action best serves the common good? 3. Which possible action does the least harm? 4. Which possible action is most (nearly) fair to all stakeholders?
E. Recommendation for a Course of Action
Discussing the Case as a Whole Group Sections of the chalkboard were set aside for ombudsmen to fill in the facts and the recommended action upon completion of the process. In practice, the greatest portion of the discussion time has centered on the facts of the case, in contrast to the discussions that followed the AAAS videos or other exercises. Even after hearing all sides, the “facts” written down by the ombudsmen indicated differing assessments of the evidence. After the group discussions were concluded, each ombudsman defended briefly the action recommended in front of all participants, referring to the notes already recorded on the board. Typically, the recommendations from the ombudsmen were far from uniform. Some favored Taborsky, recommending that he be released immediately with no restrictions. Some favored the university, saying that USF had sole rights to the patents. Many tried to find some compromise involving the sharing of financial interest in the patents. A short, concluding general discussion followed, with everyone participating. No effort was made to reach a single conclusion; instead, the participants were asked to comment on how the facts perceived to be true by the ombudsmen affected the final recommendation.
Acknowledgments Direct support of the Ethics in Science colloquium series by the National Science Foundation Research Experience for Undergraduates program (CHE-0139527) and additional support from the Undergraduate Biological Sciences Education Program of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute is gratefully acknowledged. Note 1. In some implementations of this exercise there was no ombudsman; in these cases the governor was charged with reaching a decision.
Literature Cited 1. Rytting, J. H.; Schowen, R. L. J. Chem. Educ. 1998, 75, 1317– 1320. 2. Sweeting, L. M. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 369–372. 3. Moody, A. E.; Freeman, R. G. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 1224– 1225. 4. Treichel, P. M. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 1327–1329. 5. Coppola, B. P. J. Chem. Educ. 2000, 77, 1506–1511. 6. Shachter, A. M. J. Chem. Educ. 2003, 80, 507–512.
© Division of Chemical Education • www.JCE.DivCHED.org • Vol. 85 No. 6 June 2008 • Journal of Chemical Education
803
In the Classroom 7. Niece, B. K. J. Chem. Educ. 2005, 82, 1521–1522. 8. Moore, J. W. J. Chem. Educ. 2002, 79, 1391. 9. AAAS Directorate for Science and Policy Programs. Integrity in Scientific Research: Five Video Vignettes. http://www.aaas.org/ spp/video (accessed Feb 2008). 10. Modified from Velasquez, M.; Andre, C.; Shanks, T.; Meyer, M. Thinking Ethically: A Framework for Moral Decision Making. Issues in Ethics [Online] 1996, 7 (1). http://www.scu.edu/ethics/ publications/iie/v7n1/thinking.html (accessed Feb 2008). 11. American Chemical Society. Chemist’s Code of Conduct. http://portal.acs.org/portal/acs/corg/content?_nfpb=true&_ pageLabel=PP_ARTICLEMAIN&node_id=1095&content_ id=CTP_004007&use_sec=true&sec_url_var=region1 (accessed Feb 2008). 12. Bruton, S. V. J. Chem. Educ. 2003, 80, 503–506. 13. Kovac, J. The Ethical Chemist: Professionalism and Ethics in Science; Pearson Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2003. 14. For example, Weiss, Mike. Blood Test. West Magazine [Online], San Jose Mercury News, October 15, 1995. http://cseserv.engr.scu. edu/NQuinn/Presentations/Chemistry%20Ethics/BloodTest.html (accessed Feb 2008). 15. The AAAS has a considerable bibliography at http://www.aaas. org/spp/video/articles.htm (accessed Feb 2008). 16. Grossman, R. Patently Unfair. Chicago Tribune [Online], Mar 21, 1997. http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/chicagotribune/access/11290588. html?dids=11290588:11290588&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:F T&type=current&date=Mar+21%2C+1997&author=Ron+Gro ssman%2C+Tribune+Staff+Writer.&pub=Chicago+Tribune&ed ition=&startpage=1&desc=PATENTLY+UNFAIR++RESEAR CHER+SCOOPS+WORLD+WITH+DISCOVERY%2C+EN DS+UP+ON+CHAIN+GANG (accessed Feb 2008). 17. Field, T. G., Jr. Taborsky v. State. In Introduction to Intellectual Property: Cases and Materials; Carolina Academic Press: Durham, NC, 2003. 18. A representative sample (with a wide spread of viewpoints) consists of (a) Jaroff, Leon. Intellectual Chain Gang. Time [Online], February 10, 1997. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/
804
article/0,9171,985892,00.html; reply to above by Taborsky’s parents, http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,9860724,00.html (both accessed Feb 2008). (b) Darling, Roderick; Friedlander, Marvin. Intellectual Property. http://www.irs.gov/pub/ irs-tege/eotopicb99.pdf (accessed Feb 2008). (c) Student Coalition for Handling Intellectual Property. Board of Regents of the State of Florida acting by and through the University of South Florida vs Petr Taborsky (Pro Se), Civil Case no. 89-11625, Criminal Case no. 89-2458, http://web.archive.org/web/19991006111523/ www.ij.net/S-Chip/petr/petr.html (accessed Feb 2008). (d) Shulman, Seth. A Researcher’s Conviction. http://www.techreview. com/Biztech/11524/ (accessed Feb 2008). (e) Nicklin, Julie L. Ex-Student Put on Chain Gang after Dispute over Research Notes. Chronicle of Higher Education [Online], April 26, 1996. http://chronicle.com/che-data/articles.dir/art-42.dir/issue-33. dir/33a03501.htm (accessed Feb 2008). (f ) Former Student in Patent Fight Leaves Prison. New York Times [Online], June 14, 1996. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0DE2D 81739F937A25755C0A960958260 (accessed Feb 2008). 19. International Ombudsman Association Code of Ethics. http:// www.ombudsassociation.org/standards/Code_Ethics_1-07.pdf (accessed Feb 2008). 20. National Institutes of Health Office of Research Integrity. Description of Core Instructional Areas. http://ori.hhs.gov/policies/ RCR_Policy.shtml#appendix (accessed Feb 2008).
Supporting JCE Online Material
http://www.jce.divched.org/Journal/Issues/2008/Jun/abs802.html Abstract and keywords Full text (PDF) Links to cited URLs and JCE articles Supplement
A set of readings provided to groups (in an earlier implementation) for the roles of Taborsky, Carnahan, Progress Energy Florida, the president of USF, and Governor Chiles
Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 85 No. 6 June 2008 • www.JCE.DivCHED.org • © Division of Chemical Education
