Page 21 - DCOM404_CORPORATE_LEGAL_FRAMEWORK

Corporate Legal Framework

Notes Attempt to publish the findings omitting the questionable samples.

This choice is ethically permitted. While not ideal, Dr. Leyos is meeting role-related-
responsibilities by presenting the results of the experiment in an accurate, reproducible
way, even if the results were less than one would have hoped. Although Dr. Leyos would

be ethically and legally required to report disconfirming data, these results are ambiguous,
not disconfi rming.
Assign the two samples to their likely groups and publish the statistically signifi cant
and convincing results.

This choice is research misconduct, specifically, fabrication. Assigning the samples as one
hopes they belong is equivalent to making up data or results. This choice is legally and
ethically prohibited. This choice could also be seen as falsifi cation. Falsifi cation includes
changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately reported.
Suppose you are the investigator in the lab next door and hear about Dr. Leyos’ choice
from your graduate assistant, who was told by Dr. Leyos’ graduate student.

Don’t pursue it. You have enough to do without getting caught up in a controversy like
this.
This is ethically prohibited as it is a violation of the researcher’s role as an institutional
agent. PHS policy counsels that all employees or individuals associated with the institution
should report observed, suspected, or apparent misconduct, although that expectation is
ethical rather than legal. Any person in a supervisory or administrative role is ethically
required (and in most institutions, legally required) to report suspected misconduct.
Have a discussion with Dr. Leyos in which you attempt to argue for another
alternative.
This choice is ethically ideal. While it is important to talk with Dr. Leyos in a way that
doesn’t implicate the graduate students, this choice gives Dr. Leyos an opportunity to
think through the proposed action with a colleague. Perhaps Dr. Leyos is so sure of the
results that self-deception has set in. Perhaps Dr. Leyos is not aware of the seriousness of
the consequences of his intended action. A conversation provides the opportunity for Dr.
Leyos to change course without allegations of misconduct. However, it is also ethically and
legally required for supervisors to protect the complainants (in this case, students engaged
in informal communication) from retaliation.
Discuss the situation with your graduate students and other colleagues, explaining the
problems with Dr. Leyos’ approach.
This choice is ethically prohibited. Cases of suspected misconduct should be pursued
in conversation with Dr. Leyos or with the Research Integrity Officer. PHS procedures

for responding to allegations of scientific misconduct counsel, “Institutional employees

who make, receive, or learn of an allegation of scientific misconduct will protect, to the

maximum extent possible, the confidentiality of information regarding the whistle blower,
the respondent, and other affected individuals.” Discussing Dr. Leyos’ choice with others
violates his confi dentiality.
Report the situation to your department chair, dean, or other institutional offi cer.
This choice is ethically permitted and may become ethically and legally required. While it is

ethically ideal to talk with Dr. Leyos first and help the scientist understand the seriousness
of the consequences of his intended action, it is ethically permissible to approach offi cers
within the institution who have the responsibility of conducting pre-inquiry review. If a
conversation with Dr. Leyos doesn’t change the intended action, it is ethically required to
bring the allegation to an institutional offi cer.
Contd...

16 LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY