Karrie: Case No. 1
Karrie was an intelligent, ambitious, young graduate student researcher. She chose her doctoral program on the basis of the reputation of one of the lead researchers in the discipline. She was thrilled to be accepted by her mentor and believed she was well on her way to a full-fledged academic career. As soon as she arrived at the university, she became involved in one of her mentor's research projects. As a research assistant in her mentor's lab, Karrie was responsible for monitoring and collating data generated from an online survey. Because she was involved in several academic courses and had a part-time job outside of school, Karrie found herself under intense deadline pressure. With time running out, she filled out a number of online survey forms herself and added these results to the master database. When Karrie's mentor later discovered that the data were fabricated, Karrie asserted that it wasn't her fault because the mentor had never told her about scientific misconduct or responsible conduct of research principles.
Mary: Case No. 2
Mary, an associate professor, was becoming well established as a productive speech scientist. She worked in a high-pressure academic department in which the race for publications and grants was intense. Mary was building her reputation on studies of EMG biofeedback. One of her projects involved individuals with flaccid dysarthria acquired as a consequence of brainstem strokes. A few of her research participants-those with sensorimotor impairment in the distribution of the Trigeminal nerve-experienced significant facial pain during the experimental procedure. Because all individuals had given their informed consent, she believed her work was ethically sound, so she did not report any adverse events in her published manuscript. Another researcher had a special interest in EMG and based his research on Mary's work. Unfortunately, two of his research participants developed chronic facial pain. When this researcher looked back at Mary's work, he could find no indication of this type of adverse reaction. He was stymied and disappointed by his results and the time and financial resources he had spent pursuing this research path. His granting agency was disappointed, too, and discontinued his funding.
Wes: Case No. 3
Wes had completed his dissertation and was beginning to apply for academic positions. He was an honest and energetic individual, who had benefited enormously from a close working relationship with his mentor. In anticipation of an assistant professor position, Wes submitted a grant to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in his specialty area, the genetics of hearing loss. Despite the fact that his grant was not funded, he continued to conduct small research projects, and avidly read a number of journals in his special interest area. About a year after his disappointing submission to NIH, he read a research article that seemed very familiar. Upon closer review, he realized that someone on the grant review panel must have stolen his original ideas and published them as her own. Disheartened and disillusioned, he gave up his dream of becoming a scientist.
Michael: Case No. 4
Michael, a doctoral student, was an aspiring language scientist. He worked in a laboratory in which the competition among graduate students was extreme, and students were required to submit their own NIH grant applications. In his application, Michael listed 11 manuscripts as "accepted" or "in press." All had been rejected for publication, but he fully expected that, with a few revisions, they would eventually be published. A year later, Michael had received an NIH grant. He was ready to move on to an academic position. Coincidentally, one of the members of a search committee had been a reviewer on Michael's successful grant application. He wanted to share Michael's publications with the search committee, but could not find them in MEDLINE or any other database. When he asked Michael for reprints, Michael stated they were still "in press." Unfortunately, Michael could not produce editors' letters of acceptance, and the search committee ultimately declined to invite him for an interview.
|