PHI 735, Spring 06
Write on any 5 of the following 7 questions.
1. Define FF&P and illustrate with examples. What justifies limiting the offenses covered by the new Federal Misconduct Policy to FF&P? Why do the codes of ethics of scientific societies typically speak to a broader range of research ethics issues?
2. Explain the differences between what the Macrina text calls, 1) a conflict of interest, 2) a conflict of effort, and 3) a conflict of conscience. Illustrate these differences with a particular scenario of each kind, and explain how each of your three scenarios could be most effectively handled.
3. What are the core values of the mentor-trainee relationship in science? Describe three common problems or pitfalls that undermine the potential value of this relationship, and provide a practical suggestion as to how each of these kinds of problems can be effectively avoided or mitigated.
4. Consider our intellectual property system (patents, copyrights, trade secrets, trademarks): is the justification for this system primarily consequentialist (Utilitarian) or deontological, and what specific features of our system lead you to this conclusion? (Say enough about each theoretical perspective such that it's clear how you reach this conclusion.) The Bayh-Dole Act of the early 1980s gave universities intellectual property rights to discoveries that resulted from federally funded university research. What, would you guess, is the rationale for such a policy? Since federally funded projects are in effect funded by the people, why should any particular parties get intellectual property rights as a result (i.e., why shouldn't the gov't own the resulting intellectual property rights)?
5. Explain three sorts of problems or issues that commonly arise with regard to assigning authorship or credit. Describe a particular policy or policies (i.e. rules) that would settle these disputes in a reasonable way. (You need not try to articulate an entire authorship policy, but you need to address at least the three kinds of problems mentioned.)
6. The USM misconduct policy includes the statement: Every member of the University family has the responsibility to abide by this policy and to report violations when they are known or suspected to have occurred. (italics added) How should this be understood? Does it mean, for example, that any time some member of the University has a suspicion that misconduct has occurred, no matter how insubstantial those suspicions are, that this person is morally obligated to blow the whistle and report the problem to an authority? Why or why not? As a practical matter, would it be wise to stick your neck out every time there is a suspicion of wrongdoing? How would you sum up the moral responsibilities of graduate students in dealing with the suspected research misconduct of peers and superiors?
7. Along with Drs. Hopkins and Carpender, you have submitted a coauthored paper reporting on the regulation of a gene introduced by transfection into fibroblasts. The paper is returned by the editor of the journal with two very positive reviews, suggesting only minor revisions. While the paper is being revised, one of Dr. Hopkins's postdoctoral fellows presents data at a lab meeting demonstrating that the results of the gene regulation experiments are dependent on the concentration of DNA used to transfect the cells. She presents data showing that if the concentration of the gene construct is increased fivefold, the previously reported regulatory effects are completely abolished. In light of these results, Dr. Hopkins argues that the paper should be withdrawn and not allowed to go to press. Dr. Carpender strongly objects to this. He argues that the results of the paper are reproducible and the interpretations of the results are straightforward. He further argues that the new results may be the basis for a whole new paper and that these data should not even be mentioned in the paper. Dr. Carpender argues that the paper should be published with minor revisions suggested by the reviewers. Discuss the appropriate way to handle this case, giving reasons for your position.