skip to main content
research-article

Ethics in context: a scandal in academia

Published:01 July 2014Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

The delivery of ethical instruction within formal educational contexts is a task that is fraught with difficulties. Real world situations and examples of misconduct abound, but sourcing sufficient material within the constraints associated with developing course materials can be time-consuming. The availability of resources to illustrate relevant aspects may not be available, or may not fully emphasize the issues that educators wish to incorporate into their discussion of the material. At best, such an approach can only highlight in isolation - larger, overarching connections are rarely available. The provision of ethical instruction is now a core aspect of many undergraduate and postgraduate courses across a variety of disciplines, and accreditation bodies often include meeting the need for instruction in ethical and professional issues as a pre-requisite. In this paper we present a wide-ranging ethical case study called 'A Scandal in Academia'. It is a spiritual successor to the Case of the Killer Robot first published in the very early 1990s. The Scandal in Academia study has been trialed with students at all levels of the undergraduate curriculum and has been very effective in offering a coherent jumping-off point for a discussion of the implications of ethical and unethical activity. It is hoped that the provision of this study will be a useful tool for educators and others looking to investigate and present issues of professional responsibility within formal and informal contexts.

References

  1. Altman, D. G. (1994). The scandal of poor medical research. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 308(6924), 283.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Altman, D. G. (2002). Poor-quality medical research: What can journals do?.Jama, 287(21), 2765--2767.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Åstebro, T., Braunerhjelm, P., & Broström, A. (2013). Does academic entrepreneurship pay?. Industrial and Corporate Change, 22(1), 281--311.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Babor, T. F., & Robaina, K. (2012). Ethical issues related to receiving research funding from the alcohol industry and other commercial. Genetic Research on Addiction: Ethics, the Law, and Public Health, 139.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Baghurst, D., Pollard, T., Helmers, C., & Rogers, M. (2009). A Literature Review on the Efficiency and Effectiveness of University Intellectual Property IP Models for the Generation. Identification and Exploitation of "Soft" Non-Patent and Non-Trademark IP, SABIP Report.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Bastian, H. (2006). 'They would say that, wouldn't they?' A reader's guide to author and sponsor biases in clinical research. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 99(12), 611--614.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Bhattacharjee, Y. (2013). The mind of a con man. New York Times.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Bonaccorsi, A., & Daraio, C. (Eds.). (2007). Universities and strategic knowledge creation: Specialization and performance in Europe. Edward Elgar Publishing.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. British Computer Society. 2012. Guidelines on course accreditation: Information for universities and colleges. {Available online from http://www.bcs.org/upload/pdf/heaguidelinesfull-2012_1.pdf}Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Charles, D. and Conway, C. (2001) Higher Education -- Business Interaction Survey, HEFCE, LondonGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Cross-Tab (2010). Online Reputation in a Connected World. {Available from http://download.microsoft.com/download/C/D/2/CD233E13-A600-482F-9C97-545BB4AE93B1/DPD_Online%20Reputation%20Research_overview.doc}Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Epstein, R. G. (1994). The case of the killer robot (part 1). ACM SIGCAS Computers and Society, 24(3), 20--28. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Epstein, R. G. (1994). The case of the killer robot (part 2). ACM SIGCAS Computers and Society, 24(4), 12--32. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Epstein, R. G. (1997). The case of the killer robot: stories about the professional, ethical, and societal dimensions of computing. New York/Chichester: Wiley.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Fanelli, D. (2009). How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PloS one, 4(5), e5738.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Fanelli, D. (2012). Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries. Scientometrics, 90(3), 891--904. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Fang, F. C., Steen, R. G., & Casadevall, A. (2012). Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(42), 17028--17033.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Farrell, M. (2008). Universities that turn Research into Revenue. Forbes. {Available online from http://www.forbes.com/2008/09/12/google-general-electricent-tech-cx_mf_0912universitypatent.html}Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Festinger, L. (1962). A theory of cognitive dissonance (Vol. 2). Stanford university press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Gulbrandsen, M., & Slipersaeter, S. (2007). The third mission and the entrepreneurial university model. Universities and strategic knowledge creation, 112--143.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Harris, A. H., Reeder, R., & Hyun, J. K. (2009). Common statistical and research design problems in manuscripts submitted to high-impact psychiatry journals: What editors and reviewers want authors to know. Journal of psychiatric research, 43(15), 1231--1234.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Harris, A., Reeder, R., & Hyun, J. (2011). Survey of editors and reviewers of high-impact psychology journals: statistical and research design problems in submitted manuscripts. The Journal of psychology, 145(3), 195--209.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Heron, M. J. (2011). The ACCESS Framework: reinforcement learning for accessibility and cognitive support for older adults (Doctoral dissertation, University of Dundee).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Heron, M. (2012). Inaccessible through oversight: the need for inclusive game design. Computer Games Journal, 1(1), 29--38.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Heron, M., Hanson, V. L., & Ricketts, I. W. (2013). Accessibility support for older adults with the ACCESS framework. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 29(11), 702--716.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Heron, M., Hanson, V. L., & Ricketts, I. (2013). Open source and accessibility: advantages and limitations. Journal of Interaction Science, 1(1), 1--10.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Heron, M. & Belford, P. (2014). It's Only A Game: Ethics, Empathy and Identification in Game Morality Systems. The Computer Games Journal, 3(1).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Hopewell, S., Dutton, S., Yu, L. M., Chan, A. W., & Altman, D. G. (2010). The quality of reports of randomised trials in 2000 and 2006: comparative study of articles indexed in PubMed. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 340.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Joint Task Force on Computing Curricula. 2013. Computer Science Curricula 2013: Curriculum Guidelines for Undergraduate Degree Programs in Computer Science. DOI: 10.1145/2534860 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Krimsky, S., & Rothenberg, L. S. (2001). Conflict of interest policies in science and medical journals: editorial practices and author disclosures. Science and engineering ethics, 7(2), 205--218.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Langley, C., & Parkinson, S. (2009). Science and the corporate agenda. Scientists for Global Responsibility.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Levelt, W. J., Noort, E., & Drenth, P. (2012). Flawed science: The fraudulent research practices of social psychologist Diederik Stapel. Final report. Retrieved from: https://www. commissielevelt. nl/wp-content/uploads_per_blog/commissielevelt/2012/11/120695_Rapp_nov_2012_UK_web. pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Lundh, A., Sismondo, S., Lexchin, J., Busuioc, O. A., & Bero, L. (2012). Industry sponsorship and research outcome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 12.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Macho-Stadler, I., Pérez-Castrillo, D., & Veugelers, R. (2008). Designing Contracts for University Spin-offs. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 17(1), 185--218.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Mahaffy, K. A. (1996). Cognitive dissonance and its resolution: A study of lesbian Christians. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Markman, G. D., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2008). Research and technology commercialization. Journal of Management Studies, 45(8), 1401--1423.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. Meyer, M. S., & Tang, P. (2007). Exploring the "value" of academic patents: IP management practices in UK universities and their implications for Third-Stream indicators. Scientometrics, 70(2), 415--440.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. Milgram, S. (1965). Some conditions of obedience and disobedience to authority. Human relations, 18(1), 57--76.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Nath, S. B., Marcus, S. C., & Druss, B. G. (2006). Retractions in the research literature: misconduct or mistakes?. Medical Journal of Australia, 185(3), 152.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. Normile, D. (2012). A New Record for Retractions?. Science Insider (American Association for the Advancement of Science), 2.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., Autio, E., Broström, A., D'Este, P.,... & Sobrero, M. (2013). Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university--industry relations. Research Policy, 42(2), 423--442.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. Retraction Watch (2012). UConn Resvatrol research Dipak Das fingered in sweeping misconduct case. Retraction Watch. {Available online from http://retractionwatch.com/2012/01/11/uconn-resveratrol-researcher-dipak-das-fingered-in-sweeping-misconduct-case/}Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Siegel, D. S., & Wessner, C. (2012). Universities and the success of entrepreneurial ventures: Evidence from the small business innovation research program. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(4), 404--415.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. Smith, R. (2010). Classical peer review: an empty gun. Breast Cancer Res, 12(Suppl 4), S13.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  45. Smith, A., & Duggan, M. (2013). Online dating & relationships. Pew Internet & American Life Project.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Stanners, P. (2012). Controversial neuroscientist faces fresh fraud allegations. The Copehnagen Post. {Available online from http://cphpost.dk/news/controversial-neuroscientist-faces-fresh-fraud-allegations.2344.html}Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Sterling, T. D. (1959). Publication decisions and their possible effects on inferences drawn from tests of significance---or vice versa. Journal of the American statistical association, 54(285), 30--34.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Sterling, T. D., Rosenbaum, W. L., & Weinkam, J. J. (1995). Publication decisions revisited: The effect of the outcome of statistical tests on the decision to publish and vice versa. The American Statistician, 49(1), 108--112.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Thumma, S. (1991). Negotiating a religious identity: The case of the gay evangelical. Sociology of Religion, 52(4), 333--347.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Tilburg University (2011). INTERIM REPORT REGARDING THE BREACH OF SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY COMMITTED BY PROF. D. A. STAPEL. {Available from http://www.tilburguniversity.edu/upload/547aa461-6cd1-48cd-801b-61c434a73f79_interim-report.pdf}Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Turner, C., & Spilich, G. J. (1997). Research into smoking or nicotine and human cognitive performance: does the source of funding make a difference?.Addiction, 92(11), 1423--1426.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Washburn, J. (2008). University, Inc.: The corporate corruption of higher education. Basic Books.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. Zimbardo, P. G. (1972). Stanford prison experiment: A simulation study of the psychology of imprisonment. Philip G. Zimbardo, Incorporated.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. Zimbardo, P. (2007). The Lucifer effect: Understanding how good people turn evil. New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Ethics in context: a scandal in academia

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader