1- Why do you think scientists would fabricate, falsify, or plagiarize?

Macrina posed the questions, “Can it be profitable to fabricate or falsify results? Has the competitive nature of scientific research placed pressures on scientists that lead to misconduct?” (Macrina, 2014) These questions are answered with a resounding yes by scientist who fabricate, falsify, or plagiarize for their self-gain not always for the advancement of science. The example in the text was of Louis Pasteur’s development of vaccines for anthrax and rabies. This work was not of his accord. However, Pasteur is credited for these discoveries to this day. He was later awarded the Nobel Prize, which includes a monetary award. When results are populated that are unable to disprove a hypothesis resulting in a theory, this equates to more funding through grants and notoriety in the research and industry arena such as a Nobel Prize.

What punishments are appropriate for scientists who have been convicted of scientific misconduct?

Mark 8:36 states, “What shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul”? (Mark 8:36, American Standard Version). Jesus was speaking to a crowd about what they need to do to be a disciple of Jesus by losing themselves. He was speaking of crucifying themselves for Christ and denying themselves in order to save their soul. There was a punishment attached to those who rather save themselves, in turn losing their soul. Similarly, punishments need to be assigned to scientists who are convicted of scientific misconduct. This includes fines, discredit in the form of blackballing based on the gravity, or the removal of their doctoral letters. Intentionally and maliciously falsifying, fabricating, or plagiarizing research is a punishable offense by Congress due to the damage it causes by fracturing trust between the public, the government, and the scientific community.

Should retaliation against a whistle-blower be considered an act of research misconduct and added to the definition of research misconduct?

Yes, retaliation against a whistle-blower be considered an act of research misconduct and added to the definition of research misconduct. The Commission of Research Integrity includes a whistleblower’s bill of rights. According to their bill of rights, they have protection from retaliation against good-faith whistleblowers. They are executing their right by identifying acts of research misconduct to the Commission of Research Integrity. Psalm 37: 1-3 states, “Do not fret because of those who are evil or be envious of those who do wrong; for like the grass they will soon wither, like green plants they will soon die away. Trust in the Lord and do good; dwell in the land and enjoy safe pasture.” (Psalm 37:1-3, New International Version).

Reference:

Macrina, F. L. (2014). Scientific integrity: Text and cases in responsible conduct of research (4th ed.). Washington, DC: ASM Press. ISBN: 9781555816612

2- RE: Discussion Questions 1,4,5

The practice of science has always encompassed values that include honesty, objectivity, and collegiality.1 In other words, scientists should not lie, cheat, or steal, in the course of doing their work.1 Sir Peter Medawar may have summed it up in the fewest possible words.1 In writing about a case of scientific misconduct, he sought some lesson or truth from the incident but in a final analysis concludes that “it takes all sorts to make a world.”1 Another Nobel laureate, Salvador Luria, suggests that a peculiar pathology exists in the personality of one who would cheat in science.1 He argues that only a distorted reality could account for someone who would falsify or fabricate results.1 Thinking one could get away with such behavior in science, where external and internal control measures continually demand verification, would be a delusion.1

Reference

1. Macrina FL. Scientific Integrity: Text and Cases in Responsible Conduct of Research. 4th ed. Washington, DC: ASM Press; 2014.

Reference

Macrina, F. L. (2014). Scientific integrity: Text and cases in responsible conduct of research. John Wiley & Sons.

4- The geneticist acted appropriately while the biochemist acted inappropriately.

Explanation: To determine that the geneticist acted appropriately, we need to begin by establishing their legitimacy as an author. From Macrina, “Authorship is limited to those who have contributed substantially to the work. The corresponding author must have obtained permission from all authors for the submission of each version of the paper and for any change in authorship” (Macrina, 100). Substantial contribution is accounted for by the information given in the prompt (“well-defined, collaborative project” and “abstract reflects equal contributions”) and the geneticist also obtained permission to prepare and present the abstract (“approved by his collaborator”). Therefore, according to the PNAS standards, the geneticist is indeed an author and acted appropriately in that capacity. The biochemist meets the “substantial contribution” requirement but fails to obtain permission for submitting changes to the manuscript (as it is not explicitly stated as in the case of the geneticist). He is, under the PNAS standards, therefore not an author and is unjustified in publishing his version of the manuscript. “The wicked person earns an empty wage but the one who sows righteousness, a true reward” (Pv 11:18) The geneticist is correct because he presumably chose to follow the rules chosen as standards, while the biochemist stumbled due to disregard for the standard.

End result: The geneticist will be allowed to publish as planned while the biochemist can either

5- The geneticist acted appropriately through research integrity along with professional courtesy and conduct.1 Integrity in research is envisioned as a collective responsibility of the community of science.1 At the level of the individual, scientists must embrace the values and best practices of responsible research, apply them habitually, and pass them on to trainees through institution and by example.1 Professional courtesy and conduct occurred through approval of his colleague and statement of equal contributions of both scientists within the abstract. The biochemist violated the rules of research integrity and professional courtesy and conduct and was thereby inappropriate. Written codes, laws, and policies have existed for some time.1 Codes that define the basis of authorship credit and responsibilities are being promoted by publishers, scientific societies, and other organizations.1 And standards that deal with data sharing and with issues of collaborative research are now readily available.1 A simple conversation with the geneticist before publishing would have been appropriate to gather approval of a second abstract and also state equal scientific contributions within the second abstract.

“False weights and unequal measures—the Lord detests double standards of every kind” Proverbs 20:10, NLT

Reference

Macrina FL. Scientific Integrity: Text and Cases in Responsible Conduct of Research. 4th ed. Washington, DC: ASM Press; 2014.

6-With scientific integrity, we are for the belief that science and its research should be based ontrust as well as good intentions towards each other. It can be best described as professionalcourtesy and practices. From the case study, the geneticist can be viewed as having actedpositive to scientific integrity 1 . Through both scientists contributing equally and allowingcolleague involvement, it shows that professional courtesy was practiced. On the other hand, thebiochemist can be said to have violated the rules governing scientific research integrity by notbeen courteous. To resolve the issue, it would have been advisable to discuss with the geneticistbefore publication which would have helped state equal scientific contributions that was missedin first abstract.

Reference
Macrina FL. Scientific Integrity: Text and Cases in Responsible Conduct of Research. 4 th ed.Washington, DC: ASM Press; 2014.