Please apply ORI's guidance regarding the obligations of complainants in research misconduct cases
and Babeau's guidance on how to make a well-reasoned response to an ethical problem to assess the
postdoc's response to the issue described in the hypo below. Discuss what ethical or regulatory
breaches the postdoc engaged in, to the extent applicable, and provide your thoughts on how the
postdoc may have more ethically addressed the same concerns. Discuss what obligations, if any,
Assistant Professor Upright has in this scenario. Please be mindful of the two-page limit for your
response:
Professor Murky asks her postdoc to run some experiments related to research first published when
Professor Murky worked at another university. Although the postdoc runs the same experiments described
in the former publications, she is unable to replicate the results. She shares her results with
Professor Murky who becomes agitated and accuses the postdoc of incompetence. Professor Murky,
with publication deadlines looming, takes over the postdoc’s assigned research and ultimately
reports results that are consistent with the prior publications. The postdoc discusses her concerns
with several colleagues in the department, accusing Professor Murky of data falsification. Rumors
begin to swirl, and, as a result, colleagues within the department are hesitant to engage Professor
Murky in other research endeavors. Assistant Professor Upright learns of the concerns and where
they originated, and suggests that the postdoc report them to the appropriate University authorities
who handle research misconduct allegations. The postdoc is concerned about the impact such a report
could have on her own reputation and chooses not to do so; instead, she submits an anonymous complaint
regarding her concerns to the publication in which Professor Murky's research appeared, outlining
her concerns.
After carefully reading the problem statement I think the postdoc was engaged in several ethical and regulatory breaches. Here in this assignment, I will apply ORI's guidance regarding the obligations of complainants in research misconduct and Bebeau's four criteria in making a well-reasoned response.
First, I like to address the issue of conflict. Here, the postdoc found possible research misconduct by Professor Murky. The postdoc was unable to replicate the results of an experiment related to previous research done by Professor Murky. Professor Murky accused the postdoc of incompetence and submitted the prior result in a new publication. Here the postdoc’s issue of conflict is whether it is her incompetence of work vs the result falsification done by Professor Murky.
Here, the primary interested parties are the postdoc and Professor Murky as it is directly related to their work. The secondary interested parties could be the collaborators of Professor Murky’s previous publication, as they may become accused of the result falsification. The conference/journal where Professor Murky’s previous work published may also be considered as an interested party, as it is related to their reputation for publication. The other far interested parties could be Professor Murky’s previous institution, the postdoc’s colleagues in the department with whom she shared the information and Professor Upright who become aware of the information.
Now I like to address the ethical and regulatory breaches done by the postdoc in the given scenario. First, it is mentioned in the ORI guidance that, “the complainants must make a reasonable and responsible inquiry into the facts before making an allegation of research misconduct and not rely solely on their suspicions”. I think the postdoc is safe in this context, as she runs the experiment by herself (following the way described in the former publications). According to the ORI's guidance, once the postdoc observed the possible research misconduct, she should disclose that information to the responsible official at the individual’s institution. Even if she found that the institution has failed to respond to her allegation, she can directly forward the complaint to ORI. Instead of doing that, she discussed her concerns with several colleagues in the department, accusing Professor Murky of data falsification. This is another violation of ORI guidance, where it is stated that under no circumstances the research misconduct information be discussed casually with other individuals, not even with the accused one.
When Professor Upright come to know about the misconduct, he suggested that the postdoc should report this to the appropriate university authorities who handle research misconduct allegations. I think Professor Upright fulfilled his obligations here, as it is mentioned in the ORI’s guidance that, “all staff will create a climate in which the complainant feels confident that he or she can come forward with a good faith allegation of research misconduct and be treated fairly”. So as long as Professor Upright asked the postdoc to make a formal complaint, he has fulfilled his obligation.
The consequences can be analyzed from two different angles. First, the postdoc was already been accused incompetent as she fails to reproduce the results mentioned in the previous publication. So, the postdoc thought about the consequence of the negative impact on her reputation if it proved wrong. Also, the second consequence can be an uncomfortable professional relationship with Professor Murky after the accusation. If proved wrong, still it could lead a bad reputation for Professor Murky. Besides that, the reputation of the collaborators of Professor Murky’s previous publication can lead to a big consequence here. A very far consequence can lead a damage of reputation for the conference/journal of Professor Murky’s previous publication as well.
After all the above discussion, I think it is the postdoc’s duty and obligation to put a formal complaint to the university authority responsible for handling the research misconduct. Besides that, she should also maintain confidentially regarding the complaint and stop sharing the information with the other colleagues.
- [Publication] ORI’s Complainant Issues in Research Misconduct: https://ori.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/Complainantarticle-Pascal-8-06.pdf