Breakout Sessions
These interactive sessions are intended to stimulate awareness of potential sources of ethical misconduct in an academic setting. Groups of up to 10 students, chaired by a faculty member, watch a short film depicting ethical conflicts, and then have a chance to discuss the issues.
Before registering, the registrant must select four Breakout Sessions he or she would prefer to attend, and will be assigned to attend three. Below are descriptions of the scenarios enacted in each film.
Only a Bridge
Only a Bridge: This video highlights issues related to intellectual property, the disclosure of privileged information, sharing information among scientists, crediting the work of others, and the responsibilities of collaborators who encounter questionable conduct by a colleague.
Abstract: Bruce, under pressure to have his grant renewed, is given information that he did not seek, but that slipped out during a social conversation with his old friend, Charlie. The information enables him to fill in a critical missing piece of a puzzle so that his research can go forward. His collaborators in the laboratory question the means by which he obtained the information. But acknowledging how and from whom he obtained the original information might place Charlie's career at risk.
Noah's Dilemma
Noah's Dilemma: This video explores such issues as the pressures scientists experience to complete projects, to get the data "right", and to publish their findings, the relationship of mentors to those superÂÂvised, loyalty to and honesty with one's collaborators, and the selection and reporting of data and record keeping.
Abstract: Noah, a postdoctoral researcher, is under pressure from his mentor, Dr. Peacham, and colleagues to complete his part of a research project so that the group might submit their results for publication before their competitors. His colleagues have successfully obtained results that Peacham has anticipated, but Noah has achieved the expected result in his part of the project on only eight of his ten runs. During a hastily arranged dinner, Noah's girlfriend (who is clearly unhappy with the amount of time he is spending in the lab) suggests to him that it seems reasonable to simply omit the two runs that do not support the conclusion.
Mice and Mendoza
Of Mice and Mendoza: Sharing in Science: This case focuses on ethical issues related to industrial support of research, including the consequences of such support for the sharing of data and resources and the publication of research results, the role of technology transfer, the effects of commingling public and private funds, and the stresses that scientists encounter when they must make decisions in the face of conflicting professional values, legal obligations, and loyalty to colleagues.
Abstract: Jim and Peggy, collaborators on a large, multi-site research project, meet face-to-face for the first time to review their progress and discuss future collaboration on the project, which is partially funded by a pharmaceutical company. Peggy mentions that she has not received a response to her request for several of Jim's knock-out mice. She acknowledges having received a transfer agreement from the company that would have permitted her to obtain the mice, but claims not to have signed it because of "all sorts of restrictions". Jim shares her frustration and promises to follow up with the company. A company executive, Harry Carter, reminds Jim of the firm's long-term support of his research and stresses how important it is for the company to retain control over its research investment in the highly competitive pharmaceutical industry. Peggy can have the mice when a signed transfer agreement is received. Later that evening, Jim informs Peggy of his meeting with Carter and admits that he simply can't hand the mice over to her. Peggy appears resigned to abandoning this part of her research protocol, when Jim offers her the mice along with the transfer agreement, and tells her she can submit it upon her return home, implying that the decision to do so would be up to her.
Where Credit is Due
Where Credit is Due: This video touches on issue related to authorship - who is entitled to be an author, the career pressures associated with publication, the role of mentors in authorship disputes - as well as the allocation of credit, the responsibilities of collaborators, and the importance of maintaining accurate laboratory records.
Abstract: After months of frustrating disappointments, Peter decides to leave the project. Soon afterwards, his partner, Harriet, looks back over a notebook and computer disk left behind by Aaron Kagan, a collaborator who had tutored Harriet in the early stages of the project and who left the lab some months earlier. In Kagan's notebook, she finds a "missing step" that enables her to achieve the results that had been hypothesized. She presents a draft manuscript to her laboratory director, Dr. Harry Garnett, showing only the two of them as co-authors. Garnett is pleased with her achievement but questions her choice of co-authors. Harriet is firm in her conviction that she had earned the authorship and is not prepared to share it with anyone but Garnett. She reminds him of how critical this publication will be to her hopes of securing a permanent research position.
The Whole Truth
The Whole Truth: Several issues, including the responsibilities and consequences associated with reporting suspected violations of proper research protocol, how institutions should respond to these reports, the responsibilities of mentors and laboratory directors in dealing with such allegations, the capacity of peer review to identify questionable research data or findings, how to handle deviations from research protocol, and the use of animals in research.
Abstract: Kevin, a researcher in the laboratory of Dr. Cornwall, has recently presented a very successful poster session on the effects of an experimental drug on animal behavior. But a more junior laboratory worker, Sandy , becomes concerned about what she believes are discrepancies between what Kevin has reported and what actually occurred during the research. With some hesitation, she voices her concerns to Cornwall , who appears noncommittal. During an ensuing conversation between Cornwall and Kevin, a series of flashbacks is intertwined with Kevin's efforts to explain some discrepancies between his reporting of his research and what actually happened. Cornwall listens attentively, questioning Kevin periodically about details of the way he handled certain aspects of the experiments and cautioning him about some of his responses, but in the end still appears noncommittal about Sandy 's allegations and Kevin's conduct of the research.
Supervisor-Student Relations
Student-Supervisor Interaction: A series of four vignettes illustrate different issues that may arise between students and supervisors. Together, these scenarios will comprise one session.
#1: When is a proposal not a proposal? A supervisor asks her graduate student to be more specific about his research proposal. She calls for a detailed, step-by-step plan of the project, but the student doesn’t want to “lock out” the potential for discoveries during his research. He’s written six drafts and wants to get on with the project.
#2: Buddy, can you spare some time? A harried faculty member meets with a graduate student who is more than prepared for their meeting. When the advisor cannot find the appropriate materials on his desk, the student suggests rescheduling, which proves impossible. Distractions and differences in expectations about preparation lead to a less-than-ideal meeting.
#3: Adios, Amigo. When a professor reminds her graduate student that she will be away for several weeks on a research trip, the student is upset that their communication will have to be through e-mail. He is in the final stages of writing his thesis and is unsettled by the idea that he will not be able to speak to her in person whenever he needs support.
#4: This has to hurt before you get better. A graduate student and seminar instructor meet to discuss the student’s term paper. The instructor plainly states that the writing is not up to a graduate standard. When the student requests specific advice, the instructor recommends remedial writing courses, and the student is left questioning his abilities as a graduate student.
Turning a Blind Eye
Turning a Blind Eye: This video highlights the issue of whistle-blowing that arises when a researcher accidentally uncovers information unrelated to her research but which suggests medical malpractice.
Abstract: Susan, a medical anthropologist, works on a research project being conducted in a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit. Through a chance meeting with the young parents of a NICU graduate, she learns that their now six-month old child has been diagnosed with hypothyroidism. Later, in reviewing patient files, Susan notices that the family had a positive history of PKU and hypothyroidism but that the baby had not been screened. Without medication and changes to its diet that screening would have triggered, the baby has suffered brain damage. The baby's parents have little money for uncovered expenses that care of their child is likely to involve. Susan points out the screening error to Lesley, a research nurse on the project. Susan thinks that the error should be reported so that the parents are informed of the reason for their child's disability and will be able to access resources for his care. Lesley, on the other hand, worries that Susan's whistle-blowing will jeopardize not only the current research project but also any future relationship with the hospital in which they conduct their research. Another friend with no role in the project encourages Susan to report the error.
