Reference no: EM13900280

Respond to discussion-

Respond in one or more of the following ways:

Ask a probing question.
Share an insight from having read your colleague's posting.
Offer and support an opinion.
Validate an idea with your own experience.
Make a suggestion.
Expand on your colleague's posting.

COLLAPSE

Researchers of the Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (2009) used the case study "A Conflict of Commitment" to outline ethical dilemmas in research. The authors focus on the graduate student Sandra, who starts her research for her dissertation under the guidance of her mentor Dr. Frederick. He, the authors added, is recognized for his work in her field of research. Within a couple of months, Sandra realizes the funding for Dr. Frederick's work comes from federal grants, while her research project is funded solely by one particular company. In addition, Sandra is concerned company-sponsored research includes confidentiality agreements, which will later reduce her ability to discuss her work with peers and eventually limit her possibility to publish her work. Subsequently, Sandra brings these circumstances to the attention of Dr. Frederick, who responded to her by stating he "did not think that the company's support would conflict with her education" (p. 45).

Sandra faces the following ethical dilemmas. First: is she free to come to her own research-based conclusions, or is the company expecting a certain research outcome, and funds her research with the expectation that she would support the company's agenda. Further, will the company continue to fund her work, even though her research will not support the company's free market strategy? In addition, can her research be considered independent, free, and unbiased if only one specific organization with certain interests and a focus on increasing revenue, funds her work? Lastly, is she free to publish her work without restrictions, even though her research results may hurt the funding organization and not benefit its success in a free market economy? Her questions could be answered as follows:

If it is true that Dr. Frederick is a leading scholar in his field, he should have not only recognized Sandra's concerns, but he should have reviewed the current process and funding sources with her. He must take into account that a company, participating in our free market economy, always has an interest to increase revenue; and no company will knowingly fund research which will jeopardize the company's free market participation. Therefore, Dr. Frederick fails to protect his student and fails to protect research from unethical and biased influence. He could ask a second company, working on the opposite side of the first organization, to add equal funding to balance influence. He could ask both companies to continue funding research, even though the research results might not support their economic strategy. Dr. Frederick did, as the authors of the text ask, do something wrong, because he ignored valid concerns of a student and failed to ensure the research remains independent and protected from criticism regarding research outcome, bias, and the researcher's motivation. Employees of the NIH, the Federal National Institute of Health (2011) defined the term justice in research and argued every valid research must "include a fair distribution of benefits and burdens to those who participate in research" (p. 88). Therefore, Sandra could ask NIH representatives to help her ensuring possible confidentiality statements do not violate fair, just, and ethical distribution of benefits, and her ability to receive credit for her research. If she signs the confidentiality agreements and agrees to keep data, information, and research results classified, she cannot review and evaluate her research results and strategies with peers and mentors, and cannot publish her findings as part of her dissertation. If she violates this agreement she could be hold accountable and makes herself available for legal actions against her.

In summary, I believe Dr. Frederick's approach is unethical and questionable. He, at least, ignored a student's valid concerns. He further ignored free market strategies and did not take into account that company's work for profit and gain. Sandra, on the other hand, recognized the dangers of confidentiality agreements in research and will hopefully reach out to the NHI to receive some guidance and recommendations.

References

Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. (2009). On being a scientist: A guide to responsible conduct in research (3 ed.). Washington, D.C.: National Academic Press.

Federal National Institute of Health. (2011). Protecting human research participants (2 ed., Rev.). Washington, D.C.: NIH Office of Extramural Research.