Assignment
Read the case below. In a 600 to 750 word essay make an ethical argument that answers the question at the end of the case—What should Joseph do?—using expectations and obligations of Joseph.
Each of the Ethical Decision-Making Essays focuses on one element of ethical analysis. For this essay, your argument should be focused on the responsibilities and privileges of the interested parties. This assignment builds on Engaging with Ethics 1: Role Related Responsibilities and Ethics Exercise 1: Decision-Making Spheres. For the EwE1 prompt, you described responsibilities and privileges professionals may have based on their roles. In this assignment the responsibilities of and privileges of interested parties will be the key to the reasoning that supports your thesis.
In particular, your essay will demonstrate your grasp of Joseph’s varied responsibilities as a Principal Investigator (PI) of a lab including his professional obligations to people who supervise him, those whom he supervises, and even to broader interested parties, such as the scientific community. Your essay must also reflect how other interested parties have responsibilities and expectations to help guide your answer to the question, “What should Joseph do?”
Case: Accusations of Falsifying Data[1]
Joseph is a young Associate Professor of biochemistry at a major research university. He is unmarried, lives with his parents, and devotes all his time to establishing his scientific career and develop his lab into a highly successful scientific enterprise that is turning out world class publications. He has remained in close touch with Mary, his PhD advisor, and although she works at an institution in a different state, thinks of their relationship as a warm mutual friendship.
Mary tells Joseph that one of her former PhD students, Greg, had fallen on hard times. He’d lost his first and second academic appointments and was currently unemployed due to "misunderstandings" according to Mary. Mary goes on to suggest that Joseph hire Greg to work in his lab, believing in his ability to furnish a good working relationship with Greg and give him the opportunity he needs to get his career back on track.
Joseph helps Greg with the paperwork and hires him as a favor to his old mentor. He has Greg work with some research assistants in his lab. For the first six months, Greg's work is poor, and he resents Joseph’s supervision especially since he's 10 years older than Joseph. Greg not only insists that his work is superior to that of others, he also makes unacceptable personal remarks to female graduate students which Joseph does not report to administration. Other colleagues also inform Joseph that Greg has been disparaging him and his lab on social media.
Joseph becomes totally fed up with Greg’s attitude and is upset at himself for taking Greg in. Joseph begins thinking about the steps he needs to take with Human Resources to fire Greg but feels somewhat immobilized at how he has let Greg manipulate him and get away with his poor performance and dissidence.
One day, Joseph becomes more assertive and states what he expects of Greg in terms of conduct and performance. He, of course, addresses the alleged harassment, but also demands that Greg closely follow the protocol on the experiments they’re running. He's running out of patience and time. In response, Greg produces a dataset that fits Joseph's hypotheses a little too perfectly. Understandably suspicious, Joseph has a graduate student repeat the protocol over the weekend. The results do not resemble Greg's data at all. When Joseph confronts him with this discrepancy, Greg storms out of the lab.
The next morning, he bristles with hostility as he hands a copy of a letter to Joseph, saying “You thought you could cross me, didn’t you? I just sent this.”
Greg’s letter was to the Dean of Academic Affairs. In it he claimed that Joseph had required him to falsify data and that much of the data Joseph had published in the last two years was falsified. He also accused Joseph of circumventing the hiring procedures to give him the job. Greg may foresee that his time here is short and seemingly wants to take Joseph down with him.
In a way, Joseph is not surprised, but in another he is incredulous that Greg would do such a thing. Joseph is sure the Dean will not take the accusation seriously since Greg lacks standing. Nevertheless, Joseph is troubled that this alleged complaint may come down to his word against Greg’s.
What should Joseph do?
The Fine Print
Responses should:
- Be submitted via Canvas
- Be 600 - 750 words
- Use 1 distinct citation from course material to support your argument
- Use a standard 10 or 12-point font
- Use standard 1 to 1.25-inch margins
When you draw on course materials, you need to cite them appropriately. Your essay should include in-text citations and works cited list in APA format. Although including page numbers in APA citations is not required unless you're using a direct quotation, citations to our text are not very illuminating without them. In short, please also include page numbers in your in-text citations using the following schema: (author last name, year, page number).
Background and Grading Rubric
See Introduction to Ethical Decision-Making Essays and How to write a thesis statement for an argumentative essay for background.
See Rubric below for grading schema.
Hints
Who are the interested parties?
As you prepare to write this essay, identify the relevant actors: people that are doing things, entities and institutions that are affected by the things other people do, etc. Cases typically have major and minor parties. Major parties are directly affected by actions taking place in the case. In addition to people, institutions (e.g., universities, journals, funding agencies), animals, and common goods (e.g., the environment, knowledge) can be interested parties.
How do I figure out responsibilities, obligations, interests, and reasonable expectations?
An easy place to start thinking about responsibilities, obligations, interests, and reasonable expectations is to imagine yourself in the position of the party that needs to make a decision, and think about what you actors around you expect from you, what your goals are, and what professional privileges you have in this situation. Ask: what would be happening if everything was going well in this situation?
Your background readings from Shamoo and Resnik should also be helpful. What are the professional ethical expectations of scientists as they interact with each other, research subjects, and the broader public as they create knowledge?
[1] DuBois, James M. “Case Four: Accusations of Falsifying Data.” In RCR Casebook: Stories about Researchers Worth Discussing. Office of Research Integrity. Accessed October 28, 2018.