Moral Issues in Scientific Research

Cases for Teaching and Assessment

Poll of users | Sample case | Order form | PDF version

Moral Reasoning in Scientific Research is a unique 80-page booklet of materials for teaching the responsible conduct of science in college and university science courses. Intended as a teaching aid for science faculty members, the booklet was developed at the Poynter Center for the Study of Ethics and American Institutions at Indiana University-Bloomington as part of the Teaching Research Ethics project. A poll of persons who have used the booklet indicates that it is a valuable resource for teaching the responsible conduct of science. The booklet can be ordered at cost for use by educators or downloaded. (You will need Adobe's free Acrobat Reader to read or print this PDF file.)

The materials focus on teaching and assessing moral reasoning, an essential component in ethical decision making. Included are:

• an introduction to our approach;
• instructions on using the materials;
• an essay for students on "Developing a Well-Reasoned Response to a Moral Problem in Scientific Research;" and
• six short (one-to-two page) case studies in research ethics.

Each case study presents a problem in research ethics and is accompanied by a set of "Notes for Discussion and Assessment." The "Notes" provide extensive discussion of the implicit ethical issues and points of conflict, interested parties, consequences, and moral obligations, and includes a checklist for evaluating students' responses to the case. Issues covered include data ownership, plagiarism, whistle blowing, data selection/exclusion, collegial relations, and animal use. A sample case can be found below.

The materials were developed under a grant from the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education by Muriel J. Bebeau, Ph.D., Center for the Study of Ethical Development, University of Minnesota; Kenneth D. Pimple, Ph.D., Poynter Center; Karen M. T. Muskavitch, Ph.D., Biology, Indiana University; David H. Smith, Ph.D., Poynter Center and Religious Studies, Indiana University; and Sandra L. Borden, Poynter Center.

For more information, contact Kenneth D. Pimple, Ph.D., Research Associate, Poynter Center for the Study of Ethics and American Institutions, 618 East Third Street, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana 47405-3602; (812) 855-0261; FAX 855-3315; pimple@indiana.edu.

---

Sample Case

Jessica Banks, a Ph.D. student in Professor Brian Hayward's lab, has recently defended her dissertation and is now ready to file it and leave for her new job. During her second year, when starting research in Hayward's lab, Banks divided her time among three projects. Then in her third year, after consultation with Hayward, she decided to continue and expand upon one of the three lines of investigation for her dissertation research. This was also the project most closely related to Hayward's grant at the time. Later, Banks's experimental plan and early results were included in Hayward's grant renewal. The other two promising lines of research were left incomplete.

Banks's new job is a tenure-track position in a mid-sized western liberal arts college. Shortly before leaving for her job, she comes into the lab to pick up her notebooks. Although her new faculty position will place a heavy emphasis on teaching, she is looking forward to continuing to do some research as well. In particular, she is eager to pick up where she left off with the two uncompleted projects she worked on before.

Professor Hayward meets Banks on her way into the lab, and their genial conversation abruptly changes when she mentions she has come to take her notebooks.

Hayward exclaims, "You can't take those notebooks away -- they belong to the lab."

Banks is confused. "But I did the work, and I wanted to follow up on it. I can't do that without the notebooks."

Professor Hayward is adamant. "I'm sorry, but you should understand this. This lab is a joint enterprise, and all the work you did was funded by money I brought in via grants. The notebooks don't belong to you, nor to me; they belong to the lab, and the work will be continued in this lab. I've already talked to one of the new students about working on those projects this fall."

Banks, seeing her plans fall apart around her, protests, but Hayward is implacable. After a few minutes, she stalks away, without the notebooks.

Later that afternoon, Banks gets together with her classmate Paul Larson, and during their conversation, she tells him about her run-in with Hayward.

"Look," says Larson. "Hayward has no right to deny you access to the information in the notebooks. Even if the books should remain in the lab, you did the work that generated all the data."

"I know!" says Banks. "But Hayward wouldn't listen to that argument when I made it."

"Here's my suggestion," says Larson after some reflection. "Just stop by the lab and photocopy the books some time during the weekend. I happen to know Hayward will be out of town, so he'll never know. That's the fair thing to do: He gets to keep the notebooks in his lab, and you get a copy of the data you collected."

Banks seems uncertain, but says she'll think about Larson's suggestion and decide before the weekend.

Should Banks photocopy the notebooks? Why or why not?

---

This case was featured in Science magazine's "Conduct On-Line" project in the summer of 1995.

---