Case Presentation Analysis

 

Submit a four (4) page analysis of the case that is outlined below. Spelling and grammar count, so be sure to check/review your paper prior to submission. Use APA formatting for citations and references (at least 3) to support your arguments. The reference page is not included in the page count.

In the introduction paragraph, include your position on whether or not the IRB should approve the study.

1.  What are the ethical issues and points of conflict in this case? (one full page, double spaced, and bulleted)

2.  Who are the interested parties affected by the issues/conflicts and what are their reasonable expectations? (one full page, double spaced, and bulleted)

3.  If the interested parties acted on their expectations what would be the probable consequences? REMEMBER: Consequences can be multifaceted. (one full page, double spaced, and bulleted)

4.  What are the obligations of the Amazing IRB? (one full page, double spaced, and bulleted)

HCR561: IRB Case Presentation Analysis

Student Name:

Instructions: Remove any text in italics.

Introduction: State your stance on the case study here. The four criteria listed below will then take you through the process to look at the ethical impact the decision will have.

1. Issues and Points of Conflict
(Submit as many issues as needed to cover the given case study – one page required.)

· Issue One: Name the issue and describe the nature of the moral conflict

· Issue Two: Name the issue and describe the nature of the moral conflict

· Issue Three: Name the issue and describe the nature of the moral conflict

· Issue Four: Name the issue and describe the nature of the moral conflict

2. Interested Parties
(Name as many as possible– one page required.)

· Name of interested party #1 has:

· interested party’s legitimate/reasonable expectations are considered here

· Name of interested party #2 has:

· interested party’s legitimate/reasonable expectations are considered here

· Name of interested party #3 has:

· interested party’s legitimate/reasonable expectations are considered here

· Name of interested party #4 has:

· interested party’s legitimate/reasonable expectations are considered here

· Name of interested party #5 has:

· interested party’s legitimate/reasonable expectations are considered here

3. Consequences

· Submit the consequences here for any action or inaction on the expectations noted above for the interested parties.

4. Obligations

· Submit the IRB obligations here and the ethical principles that support the position you have taken on whether or not Amazing IRB should approve the consent (as stated in Introduction).

References

Page 1 of 5

HCR561: Sample Case Presentation Analysis

As you read through the following case, it is important to restate that the learning outcomes in

HCR561 is the acquired ability to objectively utilize ethical principles in the decision making

process. Do not feel intimidated by the comprehensive ethical deliberations outlined by Bebeau

(Bebeau, Pimple, Muskavitch, Borden, & Smith, 1995). Your case presentations will be focused

on the specific concepts that are presented in your assigned reading and will not cover all of the

issues outlined in this particular case presentation. Refer to your textbook for related issues to

provide you with guidance.

Jessica Banks, a Ph.D. student in Professor Brian Hayward’s lab, has recently defended her dissertation

and is now ready to file it and leave for her new job. During her second year, when starting research in

Hayward’s lab, Banks divided her time among three projects. Then in her third year, after consultation

with Hayward, she decided to continue and expand upon one of the three lines of investigation for her

dissertation research. This was also the project most closely related to Hayward’s grant at the time. Later,

Banks’s experimental plan and early results were included in Hayward’s grant renewal. The other two

promising lines of research were left incomplete.

Banks’s new job is a tenure-track position in a mid-sized western liberal arts college. Shortly before

leaving for her job, she comes into the lab to pick up her notebooks. Although her new faculty position will

place a heavy emphasis on teaching, she is looking forward to continuing to do some research as well. In

particular, she is eager to pick up where she left off with the two uncompleted projects she worked on

before.

Professor Hayward meets Banks on her way into the lab, and their genial conversation abruptly changes

when she mentions she has come to take her notebooks.

Hayward exclaims, “You can’t take those notebooks away — they belong to the lab!”

Banks is confused. “But I did the work, and I wanted to follow up on it. I can’t do that without the

notebooks.”

Professor Hayward is adamant. “I’m sorry, but you should understand this. This lab is a joint enterprise,

and all the work you did was funded by money I brought in via grants. The notebooks don’t belong to you,

nor to me; they belong to the lab, and the work will be continued in this lab.

I’ve already talked to one of the new students about working on those projects this fall.”

Banks, seeing her plans fall apart around her, protests, but Hayward is implacable. After a few minutes,

she stalks away, without the notebooks.

Later that afternoon, Banks gets together with her classmate Paul Larson, and during their conversation,

she tells him about her run-in

with Hayward.

“Look,” says Larson. “Hayward has no right to deny you access to the information in the notebooks. Even

if the books should remain in the lab, you did the work that generated all the data.”

“I know!” says Banks. “But Hayward wouldn’t listen to that argument when I made it.”

“Here’s my suggestion,” says Larson after some reflection. “Just stop by the lab and photocopy the books

some time during the weekend. I happen to know Hayward will be out of town, so he’ll never know. That’s

the fair thing to do: He gets to keep the notebooks in his lab, and you get a copy of the data you

collected.”

Banks seems uncertain, but says she’ll think about Larson’s suggestion and decide before the weekend.

The question that you are asked to consider: Should Banks photocopy the notebooks? Why or why

not?

HCR561: Sample Case Presentation Analysis

We will look at this particular case using the four steps that have already been introduced to you by Bebeau and outlined in the

document

A. Whether the response addresses each of the issues and points of ethical conflict presented in the case or problem;

B. Whether each interested party’s legitimate expectations are considered;

C. Whether the consequences of acting are recognized, specifically described (not just generally mentioned), and

incorporated into the decision; and

D. Whether each of the duties or obligations of the protagonist (in this case it is Jessica Banks) are described and

grounded in moral considerations.

Researcher’s value being able to pursue any line of inquiry and maintain control over their ideas and data

until they are ready for publication. At the same time collaboration and sharing of research materials is

also valued within the scientific community. There is an expectation especially by those agencies

providing grants that collaborative efforts are made between various researchers. Thus we see in this

case competing values, but at the heart of the case is the priority of discovery. As with all intellectual

property the question of ownership can become clouded when there are a number of collaborators

involved whether they be individual researchers, academic institutions or funding agencies. Bebeau

states that “Banks can be viewed as appealing to cooperation in her desire to take the notebooks with the

preliminary data — but so can Hayward when he essentially asks Banks to respect his prior claim to a

project he wants to continue. Then again, in saying that she plans to continue the project, Banks is

appealing to independence of inquiry, as is Hayward when he refuses her request in order to maintain

control over the data.” The following is a summary of Bebeau’s discussion of the case.

1. Issues and Points of Conflict
To provide a convincing ethical analysis, you will want to move beyond naming the issue (e.g., data ownership and

access, plagiarism, etc.) to describing the nature of the moral conflict. What constitutes an ethical conflict? A dilemma, by

definition, is a situation in which rights or obligations of interested parties’ conflict. Real-life dilemmas often present

choices between equally unfavorable or disagreeable alternatives. Consider the case of the researcher considering data

enhancement of preliminary findings to assure continued funding for his research lab. He sees a conflict between his

obligation to report his data honestly and his obligation to secure enough funds to keep his lab technicians employed. You

might reason that honesty is a more important consideration than maintaining jobs for lab technicians, but such practical

considerations can influence professional judgment. Note that identifying the points of ethical conflict is often one of the

hardest jobs in ethical analysis. Most people find it easier to begin by considering interested parties, consequences, and

obligations before trying to describe the issues more fully.

 Issue #1: Banks’s (perceived) right to the notebooks vs. Hayward’s (asserted) right to

keep the notebooks in his lab. There are misperceptions about ownership of research data

and ownership and control of intellectual property (i.e., plans, ideas, and projects not yet

brought to fruition). Banks’s believes that she could take the notebooks, and her

understanding of the conversation with Hayward reveal a lack of understanding about the

legal issues (which are not open to debate) surrounding ownership of the products of

research. Hayward correctly asserts that the notebooks belong to the lab. When Banks gives

reasons for wanting the notebooks — to continue a line of research she began earlier —

Hayward asserts a proprietary interest in the lines of research initiated in the lab (and

supported by his grants) and his intentions to continue the projects with the help of new

students. Banks’s concludes that Hayward not only intends to deny her access to the

notebooks, but also to the continuation of projects she worked on earlier. Banks and her

classmate believe that she has a right to access to the data in the notebooks as well as to

continue projects she started in Hayward’s lab after she moves on to her new job. Although

Hayward did not explicitly state that she could not have copies of the notebooks, Banks and

Larson seem to assume this. However, ownership and access are not synonymous. Banks

and Larson not only have an unclear understanding of data ownership and access issues, but

seem unaware of the terms of their “employment” as students and faculty. The legal “works

HCR561: Sample Case Presentation Analysis

for hire” principle states that an institution, not its employees, owns the rights to its

employees’ written products or other forms of expression, including primary research data.

 Issue #2: Banks’s (perceived) right to pursue the research she worked on earlier vs.

Hayward’s (implicitly asserted) right to control those lines of research. This case raises

the issue of who has the stronger claim to the lines of research the data represent. To what

extent is Hayward justified in preventing Banks from pursuing a line of research begun in his

lab? Even if Banks is granted access to the data, what right would she have to use the data

without attribution to Hayward? Does he have a legal or moral claim to an incomplete line of

research? What are the institutional policies regarding the questions of whether investigators

or institutions own projects in progress? Whereas the ownership of material objects, such as

data sets, is fairly well-prescribed by institutional policies and laws, ideas and/or intellectual

property are not easily controlled. Whether Banks has a claim to the ideas that were initiated

by Hayward’s grant depends, in part, on the nature of her contributions and their shared

perception of her contributions. Did she simply carry out a research plan designed by

Hayward, or was she a partner in the design?

 Issue #3: Banks’s interest in establishing her independence (by continuing projects

she began in Hayward’s lab) vs. her interest in maintaining collegiality and personal

integrity. Banks is eager to get a start on her career by continuing lines of research she

began earlier as a graduate student. The fact that she is tempted to secretly copy the lab

notebooks implies that she thinks she can continue this research without Hayward’s help or

cooperation. However, even if she no longer needs advice from Hayward, she will still need

his good will because he most probably will be asked to write letters supporting her

subsequent promotions. Aside from the issues raised above concerning Banks’s right to the

notebooks, the data, and the lines of research, an important question for Banks is whether

she has established sufficient competence to function without the mentoring and support of

Hayward. Her need for maintaining collegiality may be greater than she realizes. Students

often begin their research careers by working on projects initiated by faculty. As their

research abilities develop, they are expected to develop their own research interests and

gradually establish their independence. One criterion for awarding advanced degrees is the

ability to complete a research project (thesis or dissertation) that represents an original

contribution to the literature. Because students work under the supervision of a mentor, there

is the potential for differences of opinion as to the origin of ideas in the final product. It is not

uncommon for disagreements to arise about the ownership of ideas in students’ work. One of

the common ethical dilemmas that arises in research is the claim by students that their

mentors published or otherwise used the students’ work without appropriate attribution. Since

work proceeds collaboratively, sometimes students undervalue the contributions of the

mentor. It is easy to undervalue the kind of sharpening and editing that often makes the

difference between acceptance for publication and rejection. This is not to suggest that

students’ ideas have never been used without consent, but many problems may arise from

misunderstandings of the conventions of science that could be corrected by better mentoring

and by students’ taking responsibility for educating themselves about policies.

 Issue #4: Banks’s obligation to treat her mentor and the institution with respect vs. her

obligation to warn other students about conditions of employment and mentoring that

she perceives as an infringement on students’ rights to their data, their ideas, and their

ability to establish independence. It is impossible to tell from the case as written whether

Hayward has clear policies on ownership of products and ideas, and whether he made a

reasonable effort to inform his students of his and the institution’s policies. We also don’t

know how he credits students’ ideas and how he plans to help students establish their

HCR561: Sample Case Presentation Analysis

independence. Good mentoring would require all of these. Both the institution and Hayward

have an interest in the clear communication of policies. But whether Hayward made his

policies clear or not, Banks has both an obligation to and an interest in making sure she is

informed about lab policies. It is impossible to tell which of the two parties is at fault for the

misunderstanding, or to what degree the responsibility for this apparent confusion is shared.

This said, it cannot be concluded that just because a lab director has a policy and

communicates it effectively, her or his students will (or should) adhere to that policy under all

circumstances. Policies can be unjust, wrong, and even illegal. Setting policies and

communicating them are issues of concern to Hayward, the institution, and students. One

problem Banks is facing is her conflicting obligations to Hayward and the institution vs. her

duty to right (what she takes to be) an injustice and help other students avoid the problems

she has encountered.

2. Interested Parties
(Name as many as possible) Skills in perspective-taking are called for by this criterion. Other parties, besides those

directly mentioned in the case, may have a stake in the protagonist’s decision. You might think of interested parties in

progressively larger groupings, from the person facing the ethical problem, to the person(s) immediately affected (such as

that person’s students, teachers, or research subjects), to the people in the relevant institution (the laboratory or

university), to the scientific community and society in general. Consider the reasonable expectations (rights) of each

interested party. Frequently, consideration of the interested parties will bring more issues to mind.

 Banks has:

i. a right to be informed of lab policies, such as on the disposition of lab notebooks

ii. a right to have her own ideas and creative contributions respected

iii. an interest in continuing/furthering her scientific career from a solid base

iv. an interest in keeping a good working relationship with her mentor

v. an interest in protecting her integrity and her reputation

 Hayward has:

i. a right to have access to notebooks and data produced at his lab, funded by grants

he wrote

ii. a right to control access to notebooks and data produced at his lab

iii. an interest in developing the talent of students and in respecting their ideas

iv. an interest in continuing research started at his lab

v. an interest in providing good projects for his new students

vi. an interest in maintaining good relationships with his former students

 Hayward’s students and postdoctoral students have an interest in knowing his

policies.

 Hayward’s university has:

i. an interest in his maintaining a productive lab

ii. an interest in seeing that students are treated fairly

 Banks’s new college has an interest in her ability to do her job well.

 Hayward’s funding institution has an interest in having data produced with their funds

adequately safeguarded and reasonably accessible.

 Science as a whole has:

i. an interest in fostering reasonably open access to data

ii. an interest in maintaining and fostering cooperation in science and research

independence

3. Consequences
For each action considered, there are often several possible outcomes. The challenge in identifying consequences is not to

identify every remote consequence, but to identify those that have a good probability of occurring, or those that would have

very serious consequences even if the probability of occurrence is not particularly high. For example, the possibility that

HCR561: Sample Case Presentation Analysis

someone might die due to the release of a small amount of a toxic substance during an experimental procedure may be

relatively remote, but the consequences would be so devastating that the potential benefit may not even be worth a remote

risk. When considering consequences, be sure to consider, in turn, each of the interested parties and the probable

consequences of the proposed action on those parties. When considering consequences to the protagonist, keep in mind that

consequences may be multifaceted. On the one hand, he or she might get caught in an unethical act and face a lawsuit, loss of

funding, loss of reputation, or other serious negative consequences. On the other hand, he or she may get away with an

unethical act and get a publication or grant more easily and quickly than if he or she had acted ethically. But whether or not the

act is detected, engaging in actions we believe are wrong undermines our sense of integrity. The effects of an action on a

person’s character may appear to be minor in the short run, but often have a cumulative and debilitating effect on one’s self-

confidence, self-esteem, and habits — each time we reap the benefits of questionable acts and successful avoidance of the

negative consequences, we enhance the probability that these acts will be repeated.

 There are several possible consequences to Banks, most notably to her relationship with

Hayward, to her career, and to her self-esteem.

i. If Banks copies the notebooks, she may be caught, have her relationship with

Hayward damaged or ruined, and get a reputation as a troublemaker, plagiarist, or

thief. If she ever publishes anything based on these experiments without Hayward’s

assent, Hayward is sure to find out (they work in the same field, after all), and he is

likely to guess that she copied the notebooks. Of course, she may not be caught, in

which case she will have a faster start on her career. But whether she is caught or

not, her self-esteem and integrity may be damaged and (depending on how she

justifies the action to herself) she may have this duplicitous act on her conscience.

ii. If Banks does not copy the notebooks, she may get a slower start to her career, but

she may be able to salvage a working relationship with Hayward. This is important to

her because she will need Hayward’s support (i.e., letters of recommendation, etc.)

as her career advances. She may also still have a chance to get Hayward to take a

position closer to her own — e.g., sharing the data, collaborating on one or both of

the projects, etc. If she can do this, it will be a good investment in the future of her

career.

iii. There are also possible consequences to Hayward. Whatever Banks does,

Hayward’s reputation may suffer if his lab policies are so vague that they lead to ill

will among his students and post docs, or possibly to lost data or other unfortunate

consequences.

4. Banks’s Obligations
For each case, consider primarily the obligations of the protagonist toward the various interested parties. It is sometimes

tempting to dismiss the obligation of the protagonist when some other person fails to live up to his/her moral obligation One

party’s failure to live up to his/her moral obligations can have an impact on another party’s moral obligations, but this kind of

reasoning often amounts to nothing more than a rationalization — an excuse to do whatever one wanted to do in the first place

— without real regard to the moral questions at hand. When writing about the obligations of professionals such as scientists, it

is not enough to say that someone has a duty to do “x.” You must say why the professional has that duty. That is, you should

refer to the moral justification in terms of values, principles, character, or outcomes. When describing ethical obligations,

consider the various responsibilities of scientists.

 To conduct herself with integrity. Honesty is an essential value for the conduct of science,

and science is furthered through supportive and collegial relationships.

 To treat Hayward and his decision with respect, even if it is wrong. When Banks was

accepted into the program, she surrendered some of her autonomy in order to gain the

education and assistance she needed to complete her degree. Although it is true that

Hayward should have made her aware of the conditions under which she was working, she

did consent to work for him, benefited from the education, from his recommendations and,

probably with his help, secured a job. While she has a right not to be taken advantage of, she

also has a responsibility to follow acceptable procedures to raise any issues.

HCR561: Sample Case Presentation Analysis

 To establish her independence as a researcher. Banks has an obligation to herself and to

her new employer to develop an independent program of research that will allow her to meet

the conditions for advancement. Her ability to accomplish this will depend on collegiality with

Hayward and/or with other researchers. By engaging in critical self-assessment and peer

review, including a frank assessment of her competence from her mentor, she will better be

able to set goals for her future.

 To inform herself on data sharing policies and lab policies. Before Banks discusses

anything with Hayward, she ought to inform herself about the policies of funding agencies.

She might discuss a full range of issues with other researchers at her institution, or familiarize

herself with references on the subject. Banks is about to move from the role of student to

professor. She needs to be able to view the situation from the perspective of the professor

and grants manager, both for her own benefit and to prepare herself to discuss the issues

with Hayward.

 To seek clarification of Hayward’s policies. Banks seems to assume that Hayward’s

prohibition of her taking the lab notebooks would also extend to having copies of the

notebook pages. Banks needs to think through an approach to Hayward that is collegial and

avoids a counterproductive confrontation that further alienates him. She needs to know how

inquiries about her dissertation data should be handled. Unless he wants all inquires to be

addressed to him, she would need copies of the lab notebooks.

 To foster scientific collegiality and cooperation. All scientists have this responsibility.

 To empower students to pursue the issues of lab policies if her efforts are

unsuccessful. As someone who has advanced from student to graduate, Banks has a

responsibility to mentor her younger colleagues, and a responsibility to think about how she

best helps them — by undermining their trust in the institution and their mentor, or by

empowering them to take responsibility for their learning.

References

Bebeau, M. (2010). Developing a Well-Reasoned Response to a Moral Problem in Scientific Research.

Retrieved February 23, 2012, from The Poynter Center for the Study of Ethics:

http://poynter.indiana.edu/mr/mr-developing

Bebeau, M. J., Pimple, K. D., Muskavitch, K. M., Borden, S. L., & Smith, D. H. (1995, December). Moral

Reasoning in Scientific Research: Cases for Teaching and Assessment. Retrieved February 22, 2012,

from Poynter Center for the Study of Ethics and American Institutions:

http://poynter.indiana.edu/mr/mr