Page 20 - DCOM404_CORPORATE_LEGAL_FRAMEWORK

Unit 1: Laws of Contract

Repeat the experiment (at a cost of approximately 6 months, 300 animals, and $40,000). Notes

Repeating the experiment is an ethically permitted and ethically encouraged approach.
One of the role related responsibilities of scientists is to achieve accurate reproducible
results. Whatever the reasons, unless the experiment is repeated, Dr. Leyos cannot attest
that the results are accurate or reproducible.
However, the grant that funded this project did not budget for repeat of the experiment.
So while Dr. Leyos wants to repeat the experiment, he must now decide among a number
of courses of action.
1. Take $40,000 already approved by the funding agency to support a post-doctoral
student and use that money to cover the additional experiment.
2. Apply for other funding to repeat the experiment. In the proposal, Dr. Leyos explains

that the results are currently just shy of statistical significance, but does not give
details about the earlier problems.
3. Explain the problems that have occurred to the funders and request additional funds
to support the testing required for statistical signifi cance.
Take $40,000 already approved by the funding agency to support a post-doctoral student
and use that money to cover the additional experiment
Altering the use of research funds without permission of the funder is usually illegal.
Funders sometimes specify that small amounts of money (in the neighborhood of $500)
can be redistributed between approved categories. Reapportioning a great deal of money,
such as $40,000 in this case, is legally and ethically prohibited. It is not an example of
fabrication, falsification or plagiarism, however it does seriously deviate from conventional

practice and is likely to violate contractual terms between the funder and the institution.
Although not technically classified as research misconduct, it is usually directly disallowed

in the agreement between the grantor and the grantee institution. It is within the funder’s
prerogative to have the opportunity to agree or disagree with proposed major changes in
the budget or work plan.

Apply for other funding to repeat the experiment. In the proposal, Dr. Leyos explains
that the results are currently just shy of statistical significance, but does not give details

about the earlier problems.
This choice is ethically permitted. Additional funds should be requested with explicit
description of how those funds would be used. Withholding information about the
laboratory’s woes does not necessarily count as deception. Deceiving potential funders
is ethically prohibited. However, it is a matter of convention as to how explicit Dr. Leyos
would need to be about his previous problems. Choosing not to tell a potential funder
about the freezer failure or the missing labels counts as deception only if Dr. Leyos has
a duty to offer such information. Although Dr. Leyos would be ethically and legally
required to report disconfirming data, these results he currently has are ambiguous, not

disconfi rming.
Explain the problems that have occurred to the funders and request additional funds to
support the testing required for statistical signifi cance.

This choice is ethically permitted. Additional funds may be requested from the funder
with explicit description of how those funds would be used and why additional funds
are needed. Dr. Leyos does not necessarily have a duty to detail the catastrophes that

have caused the results to be shy of statistical significance and, thus, resulted in the new
request, but it is ethically permitted, perhaps even ethically encouraged, to offer the full
explanation.
Contd...

LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY 15