Engineering Research Ethics Workshop scenarios (A F)

The following scenarios have been drawn from various web sources (UK and US based) and are intended to stimulate critical discussion about a range of potential ethical challenges in research (scenario E is a scenario for an engineer working in an engineering profession). All scenarios have been carefull selected in the e!pectation that the are relevant to engineering research.

"

(A) Acknowledgement / credit The engineering work design competition Engineer A is retained b a cit to design a bridge as part of an elevated highwa s stem. Engineer A then retains the services of Engineer #$ a structural engineer with e!pertise in hori%ontal geometr $ superstructure design and elevations to perform certain aspects of the design services. Engineer # designs the bridge&s three curved welded plate girder spans which were critical elements of the bridge design. Several months following completion of the bridge$ Engineer A enters the bridge design into a national organi%ation&s bridge design competition. The bridge design wins a pri%e. 'owever$ the entr fails to credit Engineer # for his part of the design. Discussion Questions (as it ethical for Engineer A to fail to give credit to Engineer # for his part in the design) (hat should Engineer A do) (hat should Engineer # do)

(!) Doing research together how much input can "e e#pected $rom postgraduate students +oe ,c-rath is a postgraduate student who will begin to write his master&s thesis at the end of the term. +oe has worked e!tremel hard during his master&s program$ regularl working si! or seven da s a week. The effort has paid off. 'owever$ +oe alread has four publications with two additional papers in preparation and$ most importantl $ a starting date for a new .ob at a small engineering compan . The compan is ver e!cited to have hired +oe because the are starting a new initiative and need +oe&s e!pertise to get the pro.ect off the ground. This situation puts +oe on a ver tight time schedule to finish his last set of e!periments and write his thesis$ but the .ob is e!actl what he had hoped for. /t is 0rida afternoon. 0or the past week$ +oe has put his e!periments on hold. /nstead$ he has been making graphs and figures for a presentation that 1r Smith$ his supervisor$ will be making at a conference the following (ednesda . Smith has re2uested specific figures based on data from e!periments completed b +oe and his predecessors. At 3 p.m.$ Smith comes into +oe&s office and sa s$ 4/ hate to ask ou to work on a weekend$ but will ou come in and work tomorrow) /t is reall important that the presentation is read on ,onda .4 +oe hesitates. 'e was a bit taken aback b Smith&s re2uest$ because he almost alwa s comes into the lab Saturda mornings$ 4/sn&t Smith aware of this after two ears)4 he asks himself. 0urthermore$ he had planned to start the last set of e!periments he needs for his thesis$ which he has been dela ing all week. 0inall $ +oe replies$ 45es$ / can come in and finish up these figures tomorrow.4 4Thanks$ +oe$4 Smith sa s. 4/ reall appreciate the fact that ou have spent so much time compiling and anal %ing the data collected b 1ave and 0rank$ who left without finishing their degrees6 without that information$ the presentation would have been ver thin. # the wa $ /&ve decided to list ou as the fourth author on the presentation$ because it was the other students who actuall collected the data$4 Smith sa s. Although +oe feels disappointed that he will be listed as the last author on the presentation$ he doesn&t want to 2uibble about whether doing the data compilation and anal sis was more significant than collecting the raw data. After discussing a few more details about the presentation with Smith$ +oe closes the conversation b sa ing$ 4(ell$ have a good evening and /&ll see ou tomorrow74 Smith stops as he is leaving the lab and replies with a surprised tone$ 4/&m not working tomorrow.4 Should +oe spend Saturda making the figures for the presentation$ or should he start his e!periments as planned) Discussion Questions /s it appropriate for Smith to ask +oe to work on Saturda ) /s it appropriate in light of the fact that Smith is not going to work) Are there valid reasons wh Smith might ask +oe to work although he is not planning on working himself) (ould it seem less onerous a re2uest to complete the figures and graphs at the sacrifice of his dissertation work if +oe were compiling and anal %ing data from his own e!periments rather than data from students who left the program) (hat are the proper roles and responsibilities of graduate students in preparing presentations that include the entire research group&s efforts) (hat are appropriate criteria for authorship) /s data collection alwa s more significant than data compilation and anal sis) Should +oe ask to be placed higher on the list of authors) 'ow should he approach Smith about his concerns)

(%) %redi"ilit& and reputation ' The (distinguished) e#ternal e#aminer A distinguished academic has been appointed as an e!ternal e!aminer at our Universit . 'e has published controversial research suggesting that the ecological 2ualit of rivers and lakes would be safeguarded in a sustained wa if a particular new chemical$ called 8A2ua9lean8$ were to be deliberatel introduced into the water in a controlled$ regulated manner. 5ou are a :ro ;ice 9hancellor and receive an anon mous letter stating that it is well known within the academic<s department at his institution that some of the data supporting the controversial research has been fabricated and that the research is directl linked with funding from an agropharmaceutical compan called 8Environmental 9lean Solutions8. Discussion Question (hat should ou do$ if an thing)

(D) Doing research together ' The sla*e dri*er *s+ the la,& student Eileen :atton$ a fourth> ear engineering student$ has .ust been denied permission b her thesis committee to begin writing her thesis. /n general$ the committee considered her a strong :h.1. candidate with good classroom and laborator performance$ but found a surprising absence of abstracts and papers. 9iting this lack of publication$ the committee advised her to focus on her pro.ect for at least another ear before meeting again. :atton is frustrated. She feels that she is read to begin the dissertation$ and she thinks her supervisor$ 1r. ?aura Santiago$ is a slave driver who can never be satisfied. :atton&s presentations at various biotech firms have been well received and have resulted in both research mone and e2uipment$ but none of her work has been published. Abstracts of her work presented at national conferences list her supervisor&s name as first and presenting author. Santiago has asked her to write up her results on man occasions$ but she has told :atton she will not submit the work without the approval of the industrial collaborators who are sponsoring the work. :atton knows her department usuall re2uires :h1 candidates to have at least one first>author paper before a degree is granted. She feels her chances to graduate in a timel fashion and get a competitive position are severel diminished b her lack of publication. :atton and Santiago have e!perienced conflicts over :atton&s numerous vacations and e!tracurricular activities$ which Santiago regards as distractions and evidence of :atton&s lack of dedication. /n addition$ Santiago has been unsuccessful in attracting new students the past two ears$ and :atton suspects she would like to dela her departure for as long as possible. Santiago had an e!tremel successful post>doc. 1uring her four ears as associate professor$ she has won numerous awards$ and the head of her department has often publicl complimented her on her work ethic and commitment to research. Santiago&s affiliation with various companies has attracted significant research funding and e2uipment that benefits her lab and the department as a whole. :atton$ her first graduate student$ has been pushing her to submit manuscripts for publication. Santiago believes the work to date is good$ but not enough has been done. /f :atton would onl focus on her work and put in more effort$ Santiago is sure :atton could get more of the high 2ualit data re2uired. Santiago doesn&t want to .eopardi%e her fine reputation and funding b submitting inferior manuscripts. /f :atton wants to graduate sooner$ Santiago feels she can either start working harder or tr to graduate without publishing. /f the committee re2uires it$ Santiago is prepared to continue supporting :atton until the time is right to publish$ which$ she admits$ ma still be two or three ears in the future. Discussion Questions Are Santiago&s standards unreasonable) /s :atton&s work ethic lacking) (hat are some possible 4ob.ective4 criteria for determining when a :h1 has been completed) (hat$ if an thing$ can the committee members do to resolve this conflict) 'ow could an institution prevent situations like this one) 'ow can a department or institution encourage good supervisor@student relationships) Santiago does not want to publish :atton&s work because she feels that publication will not benefit her own career. (hat$ if an $ are her obligations to her students& careers) Suppose Santiago&s industrial collaborators do not want the work to be made public. 'ow does that affect Santiago) 'ow does it affect :atton) 1oes Santiago&s relationship to industr have priorit over her relationship to her students)

(E) Energ& -olic& 5ou are an independent consulting engineer specialising in advice on energ s stems and energ polic for private companies and public organisations. The UK 1epartment of Energ has given ou a cop of an article from a ma.or national newspaper and asked for our views on how this might affect national polic on energ provision over the ne!t 3B ears. #elow is an e!tract from this article (which 2uotes the views of the distinguished scientist and inventor$ +ames ?ovelock$ on energ $ fossil fuels$ nuclear power$ and living things)C D...fossil fuels are literall beginning to cost the earth and meanwhile the -reen campaigners are re.ecting at least one eas answer to the great problem of how to power an econom without shutting down the biosphere with polluting greenhouse gases. This answer$ ?ovelock sa s$ is ecologicall clean and tid and has a ver bad press. /t is nuclear power. 4/ can envisage somewhere about *BAB$ when the greenhouse reall begins to bite$ when people will start looking back and sa ingC whose fault was all this) And the will settle on the -reens and sa C &if those damn people hadn&t stopped us building nuclear power stations we wouldn&t be in this mess&. And / think it is true. The real dangers to humanit and the ecos stems of the earth from nuclear power are almost negligible. 5ou get things like 9hernob l but what happens) Thirt >odd brave firemen died who needn&t have died but its general effect on the world population is almost negligible. 4(hat has it done to wildlife) All around 9hernob l$ where people are not allowed to go because the ground is too radioactive$ well$ the wildlife doesn&t care about radiation. /t has come flooding in. /t is one of the richest ecos stems in the region. And then the sa C what shall we do with nuclear waste)4 ?ovelock has an answer for that$ too. Stick it in some precious wilderness$ he sa s. /f ou wanted to preserve the biodiversit of rainforest$ drop pockets of nuclear waste into it to keep the developers out. The lifespans of the wild things might be shortened a bit$ but the animals wouldn&t know$ or care. Eatural selection would take care of the mutations. ?ife would go on.<F" Discussion Question (hat steps would ou take to protect ourself against possible accusations of unprofessional bias) SourceC 'G(AH1$ /.$ *BBI$ 8Energ :olic <$ Inter-Disciplinary Ethics Resources Database$ ?eedsC /1EA 9ET? Universit of ?eeds JAccessed *K.BL.BKM Available fromC httpC@@www.idea.leeds.ac.uk@resources

(F) Authorship ' The stolen paragraphs A post>doctoral researcher comes to see ou$ as 'ead of 1epartment$ and tells ou the following stor . 'e had submitted a paper to the Journal of Next Generation Defence Ideas nine months earlier. After a wait of five months he received a re.ection note. Although the tenor of the referees< comments was in general not hostile$ and in two out of the three cases positive and favourable$ the editor said that in the light of referee 9<s comments about the high degree of overlap between the paper and the arguments and anal ses of (atkins$ to whose work insufficient acknowledgement had been made$ the paper could not be published. (atkins is a colleague of the editor. Three months after that re.ection$ the researcher attended a conference on 8Space lasers and robots< in Amsterdam$ to present another paper. (atkins presented at the same conference$ in a different stream. The researcher read (atkins< paper$ because he was interested in the theme and was thinking of re>.igging the original re.ected paper for submission elsewhere. To his anger$ he discovered several paragraphs that were$ almost word for word$ straight out of his own$ re.ected$ paper. Since then he had been chewing the matter over. 'e had decided that (atkins was the .ournal referee responsible for the paper<s re.ection$ hence his access to the paper. Discussion Questions (hat$ he asks ou should he do) The situation is complicated b the fact that his post>doctoral grant is nearl over$ and there is a permanent .ob coming up in (atkins< department. SoN (hat should he do) (hat should ou do) (hat are the ethical issues here)