Law and Ethics Questions

Case 9.3

This scenario is an example of an intellectual property case in relation to research. Theo’s and Lana’s actions relate to the use of copyrighted material in research. One of the legal implications, in this case, is whether Lana had valid obligations to assign rights of the copyrighted material to Theo. Secondly, the case generates concerns regarding the extent to which the sharing of data is legal. Theo and Lana acted in a legal and ethical manner as they did not violate copyright or academic honor code. While the school requires students to purchase the costly software application program, they were not necessarily required to purchase it from the school. Therefore, Theo’s action to purchase the software from an online vendor did not violate the academic honor code and was not tantamount to stealing as shown in Romans 13:9. Lana shared her copy of the program that she had purchased legally from the university bookstore. The institution’s academic honor code does not prohibit students from sharing the software with their classmates. Based on existing copyright laws, anyone can use ideas presented or expressed in copyrighted material accessed electronically (Macrina, 2005).

Case 9.4

The use of copyrighted material in research can raise legal and ethical questions as evident in this scenario. Shamoo & Resnik (2014) contend that ethical conduct is essential to scientific research, which implies that researchers are required to act responsibly. In efforts to avoid copyright infringement, the postdoctoral fellow and mentor are modifying a computer-generated graph that they initially published in a preliminary report. Copyright laws basically safeguard the presentation or expression of an idea, but do not safeguard the idea itself (Macrina, 2005). Therefore, the actions of the two postdoctoral authors do not constitute copyright infringement. These authors have undertaken measures to prevent copyright infringement by modifying the initial graph and indicating its original publication. By planning to indicate its original authorship, these individuals do not present the graph as their own idea. Their actions reflected biblical teachings in Luke 6:31 and moral uprightness.

Case 9.5

This case is an example of a scenario involving potential scientific misconduct, which remains a major issue in the scientific community. From a legal perspective, Dr. Cook is right. Since Dr. Mondello signed a proper transfer agreement, she transferred the copyright for her work to the publishing company. Through this agreement, she assigned the entire copyright to the publishing company. The transfer is legally valid because it was done in writing (DeLoe, 2021). Therefore, I would advise Dr. Mondello not to proceed with the scientific misconduct charges because she assigned the entire copyright to the company. The publishing company did not act illegally or unethically since they own copyright to the manuscript. The publishing company did not steal copyright as stated in Romans 13:9, which warns against stealing. They followed the correct procedure and are not guilty of scientific misconduct.

Case 9.6

Fair use doctrine is a legal doctrine in the U.S. copyright laws that permits the use of parts of copyrighted work without authorization from the author/owner. Based on this legal doctrine, unauthorized use of copyrighted material is deemed justifiable if it meets the fair use principle. The determination of whether the use of copyrighted material is in line with this principle requires consideration of various factors including the nature and purpose of the use (Stim, 2012). Dr. Hefner’s policy is legal and ethical because it is in line with the principle of fair use. First, her research group uses the copyrighted material from a published work, which enhances the credibility of the information. Information obtained from the material is disseminated in a manner that benefits the public. Secondly, Dr. Hefner promotes the use of copyrighted material for research purposes or personal use. She cautions the research group to make copies of the copyrighted material for personal rather than commercial use. By encouraging the group to make copies for personal use only, Dr. Hefner conformed to biblical teachings on treating others the same way you want to be treated as shown in Luke 6:31. Her group used the material for research purposes, which qualifies as transformative use and is therefore excusable (Stim, 2012). Since the purpose and nature of use are consistent with fair use doctrine, the issue of whether the material is used online or printed is invalid.

Case 9.8

From a legal point of view, Dr. Gopal is right as she owns the copyright to the laboratory safety course. At the time of hiring, the university had no course syllabus. Dr. Gopal spent time developing the course material and even published it on a website. While Dr. Latrell argues that the website was developed on a work-for-hire basis, Dr. Gopal never transferred ownership or copyright. Therefore, Dr. Latrell’s argument has no legal backing. Her argument would have legal implications if Dr. Gopal had transferred copyright through a written property transfer agreement as required in copyright laws (DeLoe, 2021). However, Dr. Gopal’s actions are not ethical. She removed the course syllabus from the university’s computer and website as retaliation for losing her job. She did not act in an upright manner as she sought to revenge and bore a grudge as warned in Leviticus 19:18.

Case 9.10

Macrina (2005) notes that modern patent in the U.S. gives a grantee the legal right to use, make, offer to sell, or sell the claimed invention. Patent statutes in the U.S. do not give an individual the right to sell, make, or practice the invention. However, Susan agreed to share research materials with the firm on a non-exclusive basis. Based on this agreement, the company seemingly had permission to practice the invention. Both parties own patent rights to this crucial biosynthetic operon because of the non-exclusive nature of their agreement. The company and scientists did acted legally since the agreement allowed them to practice the invention. However, the two parties would need to cross-license with each other to continue practicing their own invention and to avoid an infringement action (Macrina, 2005). While the company and scientists acted legally, their actions were unethical. Psalm 25:21 encourages us to work with integrity and uprightness. The company and scientists did not act with integrity and uprightness by proceeding to practice the invention without notifying Susan despite the existing agreement between them.

Case Study 7

Robert Kelly’s case raises questions on the role repentance plays in capital sentencing and how remorseful murderers should be treated. As evident in this story, repentant murderers seemingly deserve special consideration when serving their sentences in comparison to those who show no remorse. Cases of genuine repentant murderers should be treated differently from those of unrepentant ones. Genuine repentant murderers should receive legal mercy since their remorse shows real transformation (Murphy, 2007). I believe that the role of incarceration facilities is to transform the lives of criminals rather than simply punish them. By showing genuine repentance, especially as a consequence of religious conversion, such murderers demonstrate the effectiveness of these facilities in transforming inmates. Remorseless murderers should not be granted legal mercy because of the high possibility of recidivism. This would help in ensuring the protection of society and serve as deterrence. Kelly’s example shows that repentance ought to be used as the premise for legal mercy rather than retribution/vengeance, which belongs to God as shown in Romans 12:19. The death penalty is totally unacceptable as it criminalizes an act by using the same kind of punishment. It goes against biblical principles stated in Exodus 20:13.

Case Study 8

Wrongful convictions remain a major issue in the criminal justice system and could even result in the death of the innocent as shown in this case. As evident in this scenario, if the messenger had been detained in traffic, an innocent person, Charles Bernstein, would have been executed for crimes he did not commit. This case alone proves that the death penalty should not be restored. By restoring the death penalty, many innocent people could end up being executed for crimes they never committed in the first place. Moreover, the death penalty contradicts biblical teachings about life and death. Exodus 20:13 explicitly prohibits murder. The death penalty would contradict this teaching as it promotes the murder of other people including innocent people. Capital punishment should be abolished as it contradicts biblical teachings and promotes the use of murder to punish murder. This punishment promotes a miscarriage of justice when innocent people are sometimes executed (Equal Justice Initiative, 2022).