My Answers to HWcase 3, Q1

 Q1 (33 pts. max, 16.5 min) Prepare case notes on an ethics case related to ethics in science or engineering research. An ethics case is an example, event, experience, legal case, medical case, and so on from real life, a movie, your imagination, and so on, which has some ethics related aspects to consider. Online students: post your notes to your blog. Your notes should include the following.

• A link or other citation to the case you are using, or if it is from personal experience, point that out.
• A list of 8 or more important facts about the case, in your own words. You can refer to these as reminders when you tell your group members about the case.
• A list of questions (3 or more) you could ask your group members in order to get an interesting and enlightening discussion going (for in-class students), or that you could consider yourself or ask someone else about (for online students); see the “Questions to ask during discussion” tab on the course web page for some suggestions in developing your discussion questions.
• A 4th discussion question about how computer security relates to or could relate to the case. The computer security question could be about hacking, viruses or worms, theft of information, piracy, abuse of privileges, destruction of assets, information privacy, disruption of operations, unauthorized access, corporate abuse of information or computing, government abuse of information, physical harm, or any other issue in the general area of computer security.

 

Answer: My source is https://ori.hhs.gov/TheLab/TheLab.shtml                                                                            

Eight important facts are:

1.)     This case is fictional, and I played the role of Aaron Hutchins, the PI in a lab which has made several recent high profile discoveries.

2.)     Being the PI of a lab is hectic and Aaron frequently has to juggle all the responsibilities that come with it.

3.)     Aaron frequently has grad students interrupt him by asking for help when he’s in the middle of important work.

4.)     In this scenario, he has the option of brushing off these requests or taking time to try to resolve them.

5.)     One of Aaron’s postdoc’s Greg, has been having a lot of positive results with his experiments recently and Aaron has been pretty happy about that.

6.)     One of his grad students, Kim comes to him with discrepancies between Greg’s paper and what was actually recorded in the lab. She doesn’t want to accuse Greg of misconduct but feels obligated to report this problem.

7.)     Aaron has the option to handle this matter himself or report it to the Research Integrity Officer (RIO).

8.)     It turns out Greg was actually producing fraudulent research. Although this negatively impacts his lab it would have been far more damaging had he not had Kim’s accusations investigated.

 

Three questions to ask about the case:

1.)     Greg didn’t set out to produce fraudulent research at first, he simply justified cutting corners when things got tough. Is this usually how unethical behavior starts? Do people just want to take the easy way out?

2.)     Greg helped his scientists act correctly in his lab by taking the time to mentor them. Do personal relationships with good people help us to remain ethical?

3.)     Scientists are under a lot of pressure to publish frequently in order to further their careers which may pressure them to behave unethically. Is a better system possible?

A fourth question related to computer security:

4.)     Aaron tried to foster a culture of openness and transparency in his lab in order to prevent problems from occurring. Can fostering this culture in other kinds of organizations prevent security problems from occurring?

Three additional standard questions:

1.)     What does virtue ethics say about this case?

Answer: I think virtue ethics really highlights the role of personal qualities in producing ethical behavior. Aaron takes the time to mentor his scientists which helps them behave correctly but also identify misconduct when it occurred. In the case with Greg, his personal qualities also led him to cut corners rather than work through his experiments problems.

2.)     What does utilitarianism say about this case?

Answer: There was definitely a cost/benefit analysis to be made by some of the people involved. Kim was aware that she was ruining Greg’s career by coming to Aaron with what she knew. But she also understood that the more important good was the integrity of the lab’s research. Utilitarianism views this as ethical even though this decision ended up harming Greg since a more important outcome was obtained.

3.)     What does deontology say about this case?

Answer: Deontology probably makes the simplest and most direct statement on this case. Greg lied about his research results and lying is wrong. Every ethical system in history views lying as wrong. Furthermore, Kim had the choice of being honest about what she knew or lying by omission. I think Deontology would view Kim’s actions as ethical since she was behaving according to the rule of honesty.