In the Classroom edited by
Teaching with Problems and Case Studies
Grant R. Krow Temple University Philadelphia, PA 19122
Kim Kostka
University of Wisconsin–Rock County Who Is Responsible for a Fraud: Janesville, WI 53546 An Exercise Examining Research Misconduct W and the Obligations of Authorship through Case Studies
Brian K. Niece Department of Natural Sciences, Assumption College, Worcester, MA 01609-1296;
[email protected] Increased public scrutiny of research makes it important, now more than ever, to maintain the highest professional standards among graduating scientists. Interest in topics such as cloning and stem cell research has focused attention on ethical issues related to science. In order to contribute effectively to the public debate on such issues, the future scientists whom we are now training must be immersed in the ethical culture of the scientific community as early as possible. The importance of ethical scientific practice is underscored by the publication a few years ago of the Federal Policy on Research Misconduct, which governs the handling of misconduct in “federally funded research regardless of where or by whom the research is conducted” (1). Various authors (2, 3) make the case that it is important to teach ethics in the context of science courses. To facilitate this, the National Academy of Sciences has published a booklet that discusses the ethical issues involved in the practice of science (4). Kovac has published a book in which he presents a background in ethical theory, a strategy for ethical problem solving, and a number of cases for classroom use in teaching ethics (5). In addition, contributors to this Journal have described courses at the undergraduate (6–8) and graduate (9, 10) levels in which a significant quantity of class time is devoted to the discussion of scientific ethics. Schachter describes a summer-long program in which research students are involved in discussion of ethics (11). Several authors have suggested exercises that can be used to introduce ethical discussions into other science courses (12–14). Kovac points out that ethics must be taught explicitly and describes case studies as a natural way to address this important topic (15). Moore has specifically suggested that the recent cases of alleged research misconduct at Lawrence Berkeley National Lab and Bell Labs provide a good starting point for discussion of professional ethics in science (16). The exercise presented here draws on these cases and a publication dispute that arose in a separate case. The research in question is at the interface of chemistry and physics, and this study is appropriate for use in undergraduate courses in either discipline. The issues of data integrity and coauthor responsibility that it raises are universal and may appeal to other scientific disciplines as well. In addition, it provides the opportunity to have an in-depth discussion about the topics of heavy-element research and organic semiconductors, which cannot be easily treated in a traditional laboratory experiment.
www.JCE.DivCHED.org
•
Summary This exercise takes the form of a guided class discussion sandwiched between two reading assignments in which the students learn about recent cases of research misconduct and questions of authorship in publication. The opening reading assignment includes articles about the now-retracted discovery of elements 116 and 118 at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in 1999 (17), the fraudulent data published in support of a claim to have discovered organic transistors at Bell Labs (18), and about the difficulty encountered by committees established to review the evidence and recommend a resolution in each case (19). These articles are not primary literature, but they are complicated. The students are assigned a set of focus questions to answer before arriving for class and are encouraged to read the articles carefully so that they understand as much as possible. During the class meeting, the students discuss their answers to the focus questions as a group with the instructor acting as moderator. The instructor may have to fill in gaps in the technical background. This is also an opportunity to introduce students to the operation of a research group, including obtaining funding, the relationship between principal investigators and other members of the group, and procedures for publishing completed work. Once the students have a good understanding of the details in each case, they are asked to consider the ethics of the situations. In each case, the class generally agrees that if the researchers actually did what they were accused of, they were in the wrong. They are then encouraged to think about the more difficult questions, such as the proof necessary to conclude that the parties in question are guilty. In a recent semester, one student was particularly troubled by the apparent illogic of the Berkeley case. She kept asking “If he really did it, why would he have faked the processed data and not altered the raw data to cover his tracks?” Questions like this indicate that the students are beginning to consider all of the subtleties of the case. Students are further asked to consider the implications of publishing fraudulent data on the research group, on research at other sites, and on society at large. Finally, they are asked to consider who else in each research organization was responsible for the publication of these fraudulent data and how they should be held accountable. This provides another opportunity to discuss the difficulty of conducting highly complex research when not everyone involved has the knowl-
Vol. 82 No. 10 October 2005
•
Journal of Chemical Education
1521
In the Classroom
edge or time to be well-versed in all aspects of the experiments. As a final assignment, the students are asked to individually evaluate a case to which they do not know the resolution. They read an article about the dispute in which a former postdoctoral research fellow at Northwestern University submitted an article for publication as the sole author after the principal investigator declined to be listed as an author (20). In this case, there has been no allegation of fraud, but the principal investigator asserted that it was his right to withhold publication of data collected by a member of his research group. The students also read letters to the editor of Chemical & Engineering News in which the primary players in the dispute make their cases regarding whether the research should be published (21). This case raises questions about ownership of data, the authority to publish those data, and the relationship between research advisors and scientists carrying out experiments in their research groups. They are asked to apply the principles they have learned in discussion of the Berkeley and Bell Labs cases and decide how the dispute should be resolved. When they have formed a conclusion, they write their report in the form of a letter to the editor of the journal describing why they believe their proposed resolution should be adopted. This exercise has been used in place of one experiment in a three-hour honors laboratory section, but could also be performed in three one-hour class sessions. The group discussion allows students to deepen their understanding of the facts and debate ethical issues raised by the cases. Evaluation of student performance has been made on the basis of their answers to the focus questions and their final letter. The focus questions are checked for completeness, but not accuracy, since not all students will finish the reading with a good understanding of the science involved. The letter is graded on the basis of whether it makes a convincing argument for the position, using the facts of the case and the principles discussed in the group session. Outcomes The primary outcome of this exercise is an enhanced awareness of the importance of ethics in the practice of science. Most students already have a sense that this issue is important in medical research, and the study and discussion of these cases helps them to see that it is crucial in all branches of science. Early in the discussion during the Spring 2004 semester, one student said, “If we tolerate this sort of behavior in this research, people would think that they can get away with it in important research.” While the conclusion that heavy-element and organic semiconductor research is unimportant is debatable, this statement indicates that the students were at least beginning to see the ethical connections. This exercise also provides an opportunity to impress on students the fact that there is more at stake than simply academic honesty. When asked what was wrong with the actions in these cases, one student replied simply “They lied.” How-
1522
Journal of Chemical Education
•
ever, by the end of the exercise, they were beginning to understand that there are financial and time implications for the research groups that are directly involved as well as for others pursuing similar research. Finally, this exercise presents an opportunity to introduce the importance of the peer-review process in science through a discussion of the role editors and reviewers play in publication of data that is later alleged to be falsified. Generally, students do not feel much of a connection to the topic when they come to class for the discussion. In a recent semester, one student said that he “didn’t understand why we had to read this at this point” and another bluntly said “I thought it was kind of blah.” By the end of the lab period, however, they had developed an interest in the topic. In fact, many of the students had developed strong opinions on the issues that were raised, and one of the students quoted above remarked “I can see why this is important.” W
Supplemental Material
Instructions for the students and notes for the instructor are available in this issue of JCE Online. Literature Cited 1. Government Concentrates. Chem. Eng. News 2000, Dec 18, 14. 2. Coppola, Brian P.; Smith, David H. J. Chem. Educ. 1996, 73, 33–34. 3. McArthur, Robert P.; Smith, Wayne L. J. Chem. Educ. 1982, 59, 839–841. 4. On Being a Scientist, 2nd ed.; National Academy Press: Washington, DC, 1995. 5. Kovac, Jeffrey. The Ethical Chemist: Professionalism and Ethics in Science; Pearson Education: Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2004. 6. Coppola, Brian P. J. Chem. Educ. 2000, 77, 1506–1511. 7. Moody, Anne E.; Freeman, R. Griffith. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 1224–1225. 8. Sweeting, Linda M. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 369–372. 9. Rytting, J. Howard; Schowen, Richard L. J. Chem. Educ. 1998, 75, 1317–1320. 10. Mabrouk, Patricia Ann. J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78, 1628– 1631. 11. Schachter, Amy M. J. Chem. Educ. 2003, 80, 507–512. 12. Gillette, Marcia L. J. Chem. Educ. 1991, 68, 624. 13. Kandel, Marjorie. J. Chem. Educ. 1994, 71, 405. 14. Treichel, Paul M., Jr. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 1327–1329. 15. Kovac, Jeffrey. J. Chem. Educ. 1996, 73, 926–928. 16. Moore, John W. J. Chem. Educ. 2002, 79, 1391. 17. Monastersky, Richard. The Chronicle of Higher Education 2002, Aug 16, A16–A21. 18. Voss, David. Fraud Fallout. Boston Globe, Nov 19, 2002, p C1–C4. 19. Jacoby, Mitch. Chem. Eng. News 2002, Nov 4, 31–33. 20. Ritter, Stephen K. Chem. Eng. News 2001, Jun 18, 40. 21. Letters. Chem. Eng. News 2001, Jul 30, 8–11.
Vol. 82 No. 10 October 2005
•
www.JCE.DivCHED.org
