Overly Ambitious Researchers:
What kinds of reasons are offered for fabricating data? Which, if any, of those reasons are good reasons--i.e., reasons that might justify fabricating data?
The scientists felt pressured to meet their deadlines with factual information. Also, the machines that the scientists might have been working on were not functioning properly, therefore they felt the need to make up information due to the lack of properly working machines. None of these reasons are good reasons for fabricating data.
Who is likely to be harmed by fabricating data? Does actual harm have to occur in order for fabrication to be ethically wrong?
Scientists who use this information in their own research are often harmed because using false information automatically makes their research fabricated. Whether they are doing this knowingly or unknowingly, they are automatically assumed guilty. It also harms the public, especially doctors if the fabricated research is used in the manufacturing of medicines. Actual harm does not have to occur to make this wrong, but it is often an effect.
What responsibilities does a scientist have for checking on the trustworthiness of the work of other scientists?
Other scientists can check their previous research to see if it has or has not been fabricated. They can also check with associates of the person who is accused of falsifying data. What should a scientist do if he or she has reason to believe that another scientist has fabricated data?
They should first check to see if this conclusion is correct by checking with associates and their previous research. Then, if they believe their assumption is correct, they should report him or her to a higher authority who can resolve the situation.
Why is honesty in scientific research important to the scientific community? Why is honesty in scientific research important for the public?
It is important because other scientists may use the fabricated data, not knowing that is false, in their own research. If they are caught, they are automatically guilty of fabricating data, even though they did not know. Also, if their information is used to make medicine or any type of technology, it can seriously harm the person or people using it.
Friday, March 27, 2009
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Fabricating data is making up false results of an experiment. When scientists fabricate data in studies it is considered scientific misconduct. Even though we have a good grasp on what fabricating data is, it is not always easy to detect.
John Darsee was a brilliant student and medical researcher at the University of Notre Dame, Indiana University, Emory University, and Harvard University. He ran tests on how heart drugs affect dogs. Three people in the cardiac research laboratory noticed Darsee’s data said it was recorded for several days, but really only minutes had passed when he recorded it. When confronted about this, he admitted to it, but insisted that this was the only time he had done it. He was able to continue his research at Harvard but was closely watched for several months. After looking into his previous data, researchers suspected he had been falsifying data for some time because his data looked “too good.” His consequence was that he lost his research position.
Stephen Breuning was also a researcher who studied the effects that psychotropic medication had on mentally retarded patients. Dr. Robert Sprague wrote a letter accusing Breuning of fabricating data. This case was not solved until five and a half years later. During that interval, Sprague himself was a target of investigation in his own studies. People thought he was covering for the fact that he was fabricating data. Sprague was sensitive to mentally retarded patients because he didn’t want the experiment to harm anyone. Breuning’s research on the psychopharmacology of mentally retarded people was cited by 34% of all published research. Most other researchers studying a similar effect used his research in their own, not knowing Breuning’s research was fabricated. Therefore, they were indirectly guilty of falsifying information, also.
John Darsee was a brilliant student and medical researcher at the University of Notre Dame, Indiana University, Emory University, and Harvard University. He ran tests on how heart drugs affect dogs. Three people in the cardiac research laboratory noticed Darsee’s data said it was recorded for several days, but really only minutes had passed when he recorded it. When confronted about this, he admitted to it, but insisted that this was the only time he had done it. He was able to continue his research at Harvard but was closely watched for several months. After looking into his previous data, researchers suspected he had been falsifying data for some time because his data looked “too good.” His consequence was that he lost his research position.
Stephen Breuning was also a researcher who studied the effects that psychotropic medication had on mentally retarded patients. Dr. Robert Sprague wrote a letter accusing Breuning of fabricating data. This case was not solved until five and a half years later. During that interval, Sprague himself was a target of investigation in his own studies. People thought he was covering for the fact that he was fabricating data. Sprague was sensitive to mentally retarded patients because he didn’t want the experiment to harm anyone. Breuning’s research on the psychopharmacology of mentally retarded people was cited by 34% of all published research. Most other researchers studying a similar effect used his research in their own, not knowing Breuning’s research was fabricated. Therefore, they were indirectly guilty of falsifying information, also.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)