Causes of Misconduct in Science

¶ … causes of misconduct in science can be divided in two separate categories: individual and collective or institutional causes. In terms of individual causes, the most obvious seem to be causes labeled a and e. Obviously, the material gain, translated here in the capacity to further fund one's career, pushes individuals towards research misconduct. This is, however, strongly correlated with point e, the ever growing competitive environment in which the individual operates and works in and which is sometimes so challenging that individuals may feel the need to appeal to other help to gain an advantage over the competitors.

A solution to the factors previously mentioned and identified would be to create the appropriate training environment so that all individuals will have access to the appropriate training that would make them similarly or equally competitive on the market. At the same time, one could probably also think about increasing and diversifying the numbers of opportunities one benefits from.

On the other hand, there are institutional causes, especially causes such as the inadequate institutional oversight. The rules here should be extremely simple: research misconduct should be defined in a code of conduct at the institutional level. However, this is not enough: an implementation mechanism, consequent with a proper feedback, monitoring and reporting framework should be put in place so that research misconduct can be efficiently monitored and stopped in its incipient stages if such a situation does occur at any given time. One will probably need to emphasize the managerial and leadership at the institutional level to commit to Question II

The issue of research misconduct is a very complicated one, particularly because of two issues. First, pinpointing a colleague in that position is usually an embarrassment not only for the two persons involved (the one being revealed and the one who does the revealing), but usually also for the institution from which the person who has done the research misconduct belongs to. In this sense, it may be the case that the reputation of individuals who had absolutely nothing to do with the act of misconduct will be tarnished because of the misconduct, with the revealer indirectly bearing the burden.

On the other hand, it is also usually a delicate issue, because it means unmasking a colleague, but also being able to support the psychological burden of standing face-to-face with him and demonstrating to everybody else (usually to all the other colleagues) the respective research misconduct. This is not an easy task, especially since the person charge with the misconduct will defend himself or herself using all instruments.

Last, it is also difficult to know who is the appropriate entity or individual to approach and tell about the suspicions on research misconduct. Often, if the words gets out before an actual measure is taken, the person who reveals the case can be subjected to the opprobrium of the other colleagues and of the person charged with research misconduct. The institution's 'honor board' would be a proper entity to deal with such a situation. However, if such a board does not exist or is not available, then probably the highest instance on the institution, its head or president will be the appropriate entity to be announced of the conduct since he can decide what the next required steps should be following the denunciation.

Question III

Despite the fact that the population should be randomized, it should still be from the same group of individuals, which, in terms of alcohol tolerance, is probably unlikely to occur. It is difficult to determine whether alcohol tolerance is encouraged by a larger body weight or by additional other factors. However, the students selected for the experiments will need to have a similar alcohol tolerance, which is very difficult to calculate in practice.

In terms of its legality and ethical nature, one needs to refer to the potential harm that could come out of such an experiment. With such an experiment, the potential outcome could be harmful. Indeed, one could conclude that light beer is not harmful for the students, while, in fact, this could encourage them to drive after consuming a light beer, a situation which in fact could endanger their lives. In my opinion, such an experiment and of random selection into experimental and control groups is really somewhere at the limits of legality, exactly because of the implications that such a situation could have.

My advice to the president would be to (1) assume a different message for the beer in case, one that would not imply that drinking it allows the individual to still perform actions where his life or others may be endangered and (2) conduct the research and the subsequent experiments following this new line, which will be less likely to bring about any questions on legality and/or morality. At the same time, to address the randomization issues, one can select a quasi-experiment, which would imply using matching rather than randomization, for example.

Question IV

The issue of cultural differences would be fundamental to start with, even if the task is that of creating a Research Department in an already existing branch. The differences between the U.S. Or Europe and China are enormous and someone setting up a research department in China will need to be aware of this because it may affect the research methodologies, the ways in which the data is collected and analyzed, qualitatively and quantitatively etc.