Ethical issues in graduate research  (Page 5/9)

Enron cautionary tales

• Enron Broadband (as well as the Dot.Com corporations that failed at around the same time): Promising technological projects turn out bad when the values embedded in the technology conflicts with those embedded in the surround socio-technical system. (See the module on socio-technical systems for more information.)
• Why did Dahbol work? (Dahbol, the failed India power plant, is the second cautionary tale.) Local opposition, misfit of technology with surround STS, and poorly thought-out transfer of technology all contributed. A commentator in the documentary remarked how India is a bad place to build good technology. But another case detailed in the article, "People's Science in Action," shows how another energy projected succeeded through a participatory design strategy. Those in Puerto Rico may reflect on whether there are lessons to be learned both from the failed Dahbol plant and the successful Uchangi dam in the Maharashtra state. (Witness current opposition to building a windmill farm in Guanica.)
• Are financial and accounting tools like mark-to-market, financial risk distribution tools, (collateralized debt obligations and credit default swaps), and SPEs inherently bad or harmful? Can we treat financial and accounting tools as technologies? (Not value-neutral, fit or don't fit with underlying STS, exhibit a trajectory...).
• These cautionary tales show how Enron issues overlap with research ethics and ethics of technology issues.

Materials and profiles on Enron are based on McLean and Elkind, The Smartest Guys in the Room . Complete reference below. Malcolm Gladwell's New Yorker article on Enron (see complete reference below) provides a full discussion of the relevance of the distinction between puzzle and mystery to this and other cases.

Baltimore case

The baltimore case: a rasamon approach

• When Margot O'Toole was unable to duplicate research scientist Thereza Imanishi-Kari's observations, she first supposed that it was due to her lack of expertise. But repeated failures (and brusque treatment by Imanishi-Kari) led her to think otherwise. O'Toole blew the whistle on Imanishi-Kari and on the project leader, David Baltimore (a Nobel prize winner) leading to an NIH investigation and a Congressional hearing led by Representative John Dingell. Initially found guilty of fabrication by the National Institute for Health, Imanishi-Kari was cleared of all charges of fraud in the form of fabrication in 1996.
• You are David Baltimore , a Nobel Prize winner in biology in 1975 for groundbreaking work in virology. Now your interests have turned to immunology. The study of the production of antibodies (substances in the body which defend against disease) in mice have led you to partner with promising young researcher Theresa Imanishi-Kari, an expert in serology. Together with David Weaver and Imanishi-Kari, you have co-authored a paper published in the well-known journal, Cell . Now Imanishi-Kari stands accused by one of heer post-doctorates of fabricating some of the data used in this article. You stand by her research; she may have been sloppy in some of the documentation but her work has always been solid in the past. Outline and defend your intention to stand by Imanishi-Kari and the conclusisons you, her, and Weaver have published in Cell . How do you respond to those who accuse you of bullying O'Toole?
• Your name is Margot O'Toole . You are a post-doc researcher in biology and have been working in a laboratory supervised by Teresa Imanishi-Kari. Recently you and Imanishi-Kari have become more and more estranged. First, she makes unrealistic demands of you in terms of devotion to research. You are a mother and a wife and don't want to sacrifice these responsibilities to your academic career. You also have a Ph.D. in biology with good recommendations from past teachers and mentors, you are unable to duplicate Imanishi-Kari's experimental results. Because she grew up in Brazil and her family is Japanese, English is her third language; at times you find it difficult to understand her and follow her directions. She is also blunt to a fault. She has told you that you don't have the skills to make it as a researcher. You disagree. The problem is not with your research skills but with Imanishi-Kari's sloppy methods and documentation. Furthermore, you suspect her of having fabricated some of her data, especially when you see discrepancies between the data you found in her notebooks and the data she reports in the Cell article. Taking these concerns to Imanishi-Kari is out of the question given your recent estrangement. But other team members, including Baltimore, have also proven unreceptive to your concerns. In fact, MIT's investigation has been nothing if not perfunctory. Should you blow the whistle? To whom? Outline your concerns, develop a course of action, and justify it. How do you respond to those who have labeled you as a trouble-maker on the basis of their interpretation of your past work and studies?
• Your name is Theresa Imanishi-Kari . You are a promising young researcher born in Brazil of Japanese parents. English is your third language; sometimes those who work under you have trouble understanding your instructions and even your supervisor and mentor, David Baltimore, has to take pains to make sure he has successfully communicated with you. You have been asked by Baltimore, a Nobel Prize winning biologist, to work with him on a study into how the immune system produces antibodies. Your specialty is serology. Your work is difficult, painstaking, requires extensive documentation, but years of hard work have begun to pay off with interesting--even surprising--results. Now you find out that one of the post-doctorates under your supervision has accused you of fabricating data. MIT, your home institution, has just completed an internal investigation and has found nothing improper. But the NIH has begun a much more intensive investigation where they have asked you for your laboratory notebooks and have begun to question you on discrepancies between what you have recorded there and what you report in the Cell article. While Baltimore has stood by you so far, he is under increasing pressure to denounce you and your research. The situation with O'Toole, the Post-Doc accusing you, is incomprehensible. She understands the basic concepts of your research but lacks the practical skills required by a good researcher. She has been unable to duplicate your results because she lacks the necessary skills; her accusations arise out of her refusal to acknowledge her own limitations. You have made her aware of this, bluntly to be sure, but you believe it is better to be open and direct with people. Now you have to defend your actions in the context of an increasingly politicized investigation. Outline your position. Defend your research against the accusations of O'Toole and the NIH. Discuss the demands of research documentation, the complexity of your experiments, and the need for science (and scientists) to function without undue public and government scrutiny.
• You are John Dingell , Congressman from the state of Michigan. You see yourself as a crusader, a defender of the little-guy, and upholder of justice in the face of corrupted and powerful vested interests. The community of practicing scientists is your next target. Scientists compete ruthlessly for millions of tax dollars to set up their labs and carry out their research. They have a responsibility for conducting their research and upholding the pubic trust while maintaining the highest standards. Now you have become aware of a specific case of scientific fraud, a case of fabrication of data to maintain a well-funded scientific project. A brave young woman, Margot O'Toole, has tried to bring this problem to the attention to the faculty at MIT but they have closed ranks. In the center of this case is Nobel Prize winner, David Baltimore, who, when brought news of fraud committed by a researcher under his supervision, responded by shooting the messenger (O'Toole) instead of responding to the message. You are holding hearings into O'Toole's accusations. You are determined to use the power of Congress to stand up to the cronyism rampant within the scientific community.