Promoting Integrity in theNext Generation of Researchers

A Curriculum for Responsible Conduct of Research in Occupational Therapy (2005)

Funded by the Office of Research Integrity through the

American Association of Medical Colleges

Abbreviated Cases – Part 1Human SubjectsData ManagementConflicts of InterestPeer ReviewCollaborative Science

PROTECTION OF HUMAN SUBJECTS Subject Recruitment 1 - Kissima Martin

Study is nearly complete. Has a homogeneous sample.

Potential subject who is diverse contacts interested in entering study.

Participation of this subject will complicate study treatment and data analysis.

Questions for Protection of Human Subjects –Subject Recruitment 1 - Kissima Martin

1. Describe Kissima’s dilemma in terms of beneficence, autonomy, and justice?

2. What should Kissima do regarding the interested person?

3. Could Kissima allow the person to attend sessions, but not include his data or report his participation in the study?

4. Is there anything that could have controlled or prevented this dilemma?

PROTECTION OF HUMAN SUBJECTS Subject Recruitment 2 - Rodney Manoweh Trouble recruiting parents into a pediatric study

leaves Rodney feeling that his job and his thesis plans are at risk.

Rodney asks help from a clinician friend at a local research hospital.

The friend gives Rodney a list of interested potential participants.

Rodney calls and recruits these potential participants into the study.

Questions for Protection of Human Subjects- Subject Recruitment 2- Rodney Manoweh

1. Rodney has his participants and his friend has helped a friend. Are there any procedural or ethical problems with the recruitment? If so, what?

2. What conflicts of interest are possible in Rodney being both a student and employee of his advisor?

PROTECTION OF HUMAN SUBJECTSData Collection - Anita Manosaen The PI forgot to gather the height and weight data

needed for her study, and now must get this data two months after the fact.

A colleague outlines the options. She can get the data by:1) Reviewing participants’ current medical charts to which

she has access, as a clinical therapist.2) Calling participants’ parents and asking them.3) Mailing participants’ parents a request for the height and

weight, with return-address and pre-stamped envelope.Or…that Anita can toss current data and recollect.

Questions for Protection of Human SubjectsData Collection - Anita Manosaen

1. What other options are there? Which options are/aren’t ethically sound? Why?

2. Does Anita need to contact anyone before she enacts her decision?

3. Is gathering the needed data more or less ethical than starting the project anew? Consider what a researcher owes his or her participants.

4. In future articles or presentations, does Anita need to inform her audience that the weight and height data were collected after the fact?

PROTECTION OF HUMAN SUBJECTS Unexpected Event - Julie White During an interview about a job placement

program, a participant (Amy) discloses unrelated physical abuse to Julie White, a relatively inexperienced researcher and asks for her help.

Julie asks Amy for permission to call her back after checking with a supervisor.

Amy gets angry and hangs up without giving this permission.

Questions for Protection of Human Subjects Unexpected Event - Julie White

1. What could Julie have done differently?

2. What are the potential positive and negative consequences for each of Julie’s option?

3. How would Julie’s options differ if Amy’s disclosure had occurred in occupational therapy treatment instead of during a research interview? Why?

4. How could a principal investigator reduce the likelihood that another interviewer would face a similar situation?

DATA MANAGEMENTData Collection- Laura Schmidt

Laura is gathering qualitative interview data on job experiences of persons with disabilities. Participants are paid $30 per interview for 5 interviews in 1 year.

Laura and Jay (a study participant) begin dating. Laura continues to interview Jay and to pay him for

the interviews. Toward the end of Jay’s participation in the study,

Laura informs her advisor about the relationship, by announcing that she and Jay are engaged to be married.

Questions for Data ManagementData Collection - Laura Schmidt

1. Is there anything wrong with Jay and Laura’s relationship?

2. Now that the advisor knows about the relationship, what are her obligations?

3. What should become of Jay’s data? Can it be retained in the study?

4. Are there any agencies that need to be informed about Jay and Laura’s actions?

5. What could have prevented or stopped the issues that you see in this case?

DATA MANAGEMENTData Storage - Elena Jevehirjian Elena is conducting an itinerant study. When she finishes work on Friday, she stores study

materials from 3 participants in her car’s locked trunk.

Returning after the weekend, she finds that her car was burglarized and the briefcases in which she kept her data (e.g., taped interviews, transcriptions), participant demographic, screening forms, and addresses with MapQuest™ instructions are missing or damaged.

Questions for Data ManagementData Storage - Elena Jevehirjian

1. What went wrong? Is there a policy of behavior that would have protected against this?

2. Under what conditions is it acceptable to keep data outside of a research clinic or office?

3. Do Elena and the principal investigator need to inform any persons or agencies of this theft? If so – whom?

4. Can Elena ‘re-interview’ these 3 participants or ‘re-constitute’ the data from her recollection, so that the information is not lost ?

DATA MANAGEMENTData Cleaning - Michael Marshall

Michael is analyzing a database on assistive technology (AT) choices, costs, and satisfaction.

He finds and alters several discrepancies in the data: Cases where cost is atypically high and the data

collector has a history of not including notation. He alters entries of $25000 to read as $250.00

Cases where data on satisfaction is missing, and data forms are illegible. He inserts a neutral (middle) option.

Cases where there are illogical responses, e.g., people state that they were very unsatisfied with AT but would definitely refer others to the agency. He alters data to indicate very satisfied.

Questions for Data ManagementData Cleaning - Michael Marshall

1. What do you think of Michael’s approach to data cleaning? Are any of Michael’s choices more or less responsible?

2. What other options could have been used to address the questionable items (i.e., costs and satisfaction ratings)?

3. Michael later discovers that his actions were not reasonable or responsible and inappropriately altered the study findings:a. Is there any action that Michael should take now? b. Who else is responsible for the situation? What

actions should they take? c. What actions could have helped avoid the problems?

DATA MANAGEMENTData Reporting - A Collaborative Group

A collaborative study used two methods of sampling. The group argues how they should describe their sampling

process in the article they are writing: Dr. Grove thinks they should say they used a convenience

sample (claiming nothing but the weakest form, without noting that some subjects were otherwise sampled).

Dr. Lou thinks that the change in sampling is a fatal problem, and that the work should not be published

Jan suggests reporting the estimated numbers of each sample based on the approximate dates for each sampling.

Bridget suggests that they avoid mentioning their sampling technique unless a reviewer requires it.

Questions for Data ManagementData Reporting – A Collaborative Group

1. Are any of the options more or less responsible? Why?

2. Are there better alternatives for describing the study’s data sampling?

3. How should a researcher determine which research weaknesses or problems to disclose when disseminating?

4. How could the current problems have been avoided by better data management and project planning?

DATA MANAGEMENTDissemination - Connie Friedland Connie studied the effects of services received by

women living in a shelter. Each participant is at risk of violence from her former partner.

Connie submits her serial case study to an AMA journal, disguising the shelter’s location and participants’ names and other data.

The editor discovers Connie’s use of false descriptors, and characterizes it as falsification of data.

Questions for Data ManagementDissemination - Connie Friedland1. Is it ethical for Connie to seek participants’ permission to

publish data, if she fears it increases the risk to these women?

2. Is it responsible for Connie to eliminate the fabricated data if it deadens the potency of her findings?

3. Are there any changes needed for the article if Connie decides to withdraw her manuscript from the first journal and submit it to a non-AMA journal?

4. Is it responsible for Connie to withdraw the work, as described in #3, if this reduces the influence that her study is likely to have on policy?

DATA MANAGEMENTData Retention - Nick Ramcharan Nick completed his degree 2 years ago and co-

published his master’s thesis with his advisor 13 months ago.

Before moving, he gave his advisor the study consent documents and data collection forms.

Nick and his advisor have been accused of plagiarizing their model.

Nick has thrown out the draft diagrams and notes that show their process of model development.

The advisor is angry at Nick’s data storage and retention. Nick is confused and defensive.

Questions for Data ManagementData Retention - Nick Ramcharan

1. What constitutes “data” in research? 2. Nick and Dr. Johns published over a year ago. For

how long should research materials be kept? 3. What responsibility do Nick and his advisor each

have for the materials that are missing? 4. What can Nick and Dr. Johns do, now that the needed

materials are not available? 5. What strategies could help avoid this type of problem

and still avoid drowning in paper (as Nick phrases it)?

DATA MANAGEMENTData Sharing - Virginia Mathers Virginia got federal funding for her dissertation

study of the effects of a wellness program on falls in community elderly.

The intervention used a commercial DVD on tai chi, donated by its creator at no cost.

Virginia has published her outcome data. Focus group data have not been published.

Two groups want access to Virginia’s raw data: Researchers want to compare Virginia’s data to their own

study of a more costly program. A company that makes tai chi DVDs want to use the

focus group transcriptions to improve and competitively market their product for home use by the elderly.

Questions for Data ManagementData Sharing - Virginia Mathers

1. What should Virginia do?

2. Is Virginia under any obligation to share her data with either or both of these requesting groups?

3. Is Virginia under any obligation not to share her data with the DVD company that competes with the one used in the study?

CONFLICTS OF INTERESTIndustry-based Research - Marlene Manella Marlene works collaboratively with a school and a w/c

company to study the effects of the company’s stair-climbing wheelchair (w/c)

The company analyzes the data and finds, unexpectedly, that the stairclimbing w/cs have limited effects.

Knowing that this could limit their w/c sales, Marlene selectively publishes only the positive finding.

With the company’s support, Marlene gathers additional data and presents their positive findings at a national conference

Questions for Conflicts of InterestIndustry-based Research - Marlene Manella

1. What actions are ethically questionable in this case? 2. How do the different missions and cultures of the

manufacturer and researcher mesh? How do they conflict? 3. How would you handle the friendships that naturally

develop when individuals with different responsibilities collaborate closely?

4. Would the case be different if the same parties were involved, but the study was funded by Marlene out of pocket, or by government or a non-profit research agency?

5. Could Marlene meet the need for disclosure by noting that there were other study data that were not being reported?

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Article Review - Charlotte Guthrie Dr. Guthrie is a rare expert on a topic, and has a publicly

known bias against the other major theory. When asked to review an article written from the other

perspective, Dr. Guthrie assumes that the editor knows about her bias and therefore says nothing.

Dr. Guthrie writes a thorough and objective review, recommending that the researcher add opposing interpretations for his or her findings.

The author complains to the editor, arguing that the reviewer had a known bias against her theoretical model.

The editor chastises Dr. Guthrie for not disclosing her bias. Dr. Guthrie is hurt and angry, and considers refusing further

review requests.

Questions for Conflicts of Interest Article Review - Charlotte Guthrie

1. Where could a different action have resulted in a more reasonable outcome?

2. If Dr. Guthrie held the same view, but had never publicly disagreed on the theory, would conflict of interest still be an issue?

3. If Dr. Guthrie’s review was objective, is there any reason to worry about the conflict of interest?

4 . How could this journal’s review protocol be changed to protect against future conflicts of interest?

5. What do you think of Dr. Guthrie’s plan to avoid problems by not reviewing articles again?

CONFLICTS OF INTERESTClassroom Peer Review - Carla LeBeck Carla is assigned as the peer reviewer for Dan Claven’s

thesis. Dan is a friend with a history of not accepting constructive, but negative, input.

Afraid to anger or hurt Dan, Carla’s critiques have been inappropriately mild.

The instructor warns Carla that unless her critiques become more scholarly, her grade will be a “C”.

Carla doesn’t think that’s fair, and also worries that Dan will not accept a turnaround in her critical form.

Questions for Conflicts of InterestClassroom Peer Review - Carla LeBeck 1.What conflicts of interest do you see in this case? 2.What is the faculty role in Dan and Carla’s conflict? Was

the instructor responsible to prevent or help resolve the conflict?

3. In what ways could Dan help resolve the issue? How would he know that there is a problem, and should he be more directly informed?

4. How could the conflicts described in #1 have been avoided by action by the participants or by a change in the protocol (i.e., the mechanisms of the assignment and the peer review)?

PEER REVIEWLearning by Doing - Kayla Thomas Dr. Cefalu is asked to peer review a manuscript

toward publication in professional journal. Dr. Cefalu is mentoring Kayla Thomas, a doctoral

OT student, and invites her to write her own review. Kayal sends electronic copies of the article to her

dissertation discussion/support group, who agree to critically analyze the work at their next meeting.

Kayla summarizes her input on the manuscript, including ideas from her discussion group. Dr. Cefalu incorporates many of these observations into her own review, and sends the work to the journal.

Questions for Peer ReviewLearning by Doing - Kayla Thomas

1. It sounds like everyone benefited from the experience. Is there any issue here?

2. What do you think of Dr. Cefalu’s handling of the review? Why?

3. What do you think of Kayla’s handling of the review? Why?

4. Are there variations that would have made everyone’s actions more appropriate?

PEER REVIEWA Well-Timed Peer Review - Sherry White As a class assignment, Sherry reviews a single-

masked journal manuscript. Sherry is so impressed by the manuscript that she

adopts its theoretical model and one of the questions in its Future Research section for her own thesis.

Sherry’s committee approve the thesis proposal, not realizing that her ideas came from a manuscript in review.

When the thesis proposal is approved for funding, Sherry’s summary explaining the theory and her research are published, without references, on the funder’s website.

Questions for Peer ReviewA Well-Timed Peer Review - Sherry White

1. In what way did Sherry deviate from acceptable peer-review behavior?

2. Have Sherry’s actions caused any harm to the author of the original manuscript? To the journal to which that manuscript was sent for review?

3. Are there any corrective actions that need to be taken?

COLLABORATIVE SCIENCE A School Project - Chenoa Bo Chenoa and a school district are collaborating to research

rural teenagers’ risk-taking behaviors. The school district hopes that the data will help them design a risk management curriculum.

The research group includes members of the school board, the school superintendent, a high school principal, and two high school teachers who instruct on health and biology.

When Chenoa pilot’s one of her measures, its frank phrasing about sexual risk-taking shocks the students participants and their parents. The parents complain to the principal.

The principal ends the study before it begins and tells Chenoa she is no longer welcome at the high school.

Questions for Collaborative ScienceA School Project - Chenoa Bo

1. How would you describe the current problem facing this community-based participatory research project?

2. What actions should Chenoa take immediately? Who should these actions involve?

3. Community-based participatory research assumes community investment. Were there people or types of participation that were missing from this case that might have prevented the problem?

COLLABORATIVE SCIENCE Participatory Action Research (PAR)- Carmen Washington

Carmen, an OT with a disability, is collaborating with a consumer advisory board to conduct a study on community integration post-discharge from rehabilitation.

The board includes members with a variety of physical and cognitive impairments.

Many board members oppose taking the required training on protection of participants. They believe that it is unnecessary because they are themselves disabled. In addition, they point out that the training is not adapted to persons with cognitive impairments and will divide the group into those able and those unable to perform the research.

Board members who do not take the training cannot perform paid work in the study or access to the database.

This is tearing apart the group.

Questions for Collaborative Science Participatory Action Research (PAR)- Carmen Washington

1. How could training be made more accessible and more acceptable for the board?

2. Should all board members have equal right to access to the database? Why?

3. Could the board resolve the issue by withdrawing from the auspices of the hospital? Does this create new problems?

4. Issues of privacy and confidentiality often arise in PAR, especially if cognition is an issue. What protections could minimize these risks? How is this different for PAR research vs other forms of research?

COLLABORATIVE SCIENCEData Ownership - Camilo Montoya Camilo is working to publish his dissertation work with his ex-advisor

(Dr. Kim). Camilo will be first author and Dr. Kim second. A new student working with Dr. Kim has increased Camilo’s original

database and further developed the theoretical model. Dr. Kim refuses to publish with Camilo, preferring to wait and publish the

new student’s work, with Camilo as second author. Camilo submits his manuscript as sole author and it is accepted. Dr. Kim asks the journal to rescind its offer to publish. She argues that:

The work is jointly owned, so Camilo can’t publish as sole author. The work is incomplete, so the journal should wait for the better

version, and Not publishing is the only way to protect herself from an unwanted

association with the work.

Questions for Collaborative ScienceData Ownership - Camilo Montoya

1. What should the editor do?

2. Do either of the parties (Camilo or Dr. Kim) have a more ethical claim to their viewpoint and behavior?

3. Were there turning points where different decisions or behaviors could have potentially avoided problems?

Abbreviated Cases – Part 2AuthorshipPublication IssuesMentorshipFiscal ResponsibilityResearch Misconduct and Whistleblowing

AUTHORSHIPDetermining Authorship/Acknowledgment - Case 1- Latisha Doe

Latisha is studying the effects of a device that controls upper extremity tremors and dyskinesias during feeding.

The project has been helped by: Cathy – the clinical OT who screened potential subjects, and

helped gather consent and orient participants to device. Dr. Lange – who heads the clinic and authorized space to

store the devices. He is listed as institutional-PI on the IRB. Mary who developed the first prototype. Dr. Jones –Latisha’s research advisor who helped plan the

study. Alice – an engineering student who helped design and

manufacture 3 prototypes of the study’s device Darnell, the project’s paid statistician

Questions for AuthorshipDetermining Authorship/Acknowledgment - Case 1- Latisha Doe

1. Who should be an author and who should be acknowledged? Be ready to discuss your reasoning for each choice.

2. Did you award anyone authorship as a gift or out of fear of repercussions? Why not take the attitude of the more the merrier?

3. Is Latisha the only one who should decide about authorship? Who else should be consulted? Why

4. Latisha feels pressure to list persons as authors who do not, in her opinion, deserve it. Could this have been avoided? How?

AUTHORSHIPDetermining Authorship/Acknowledgment -Case 2 - Barbara Chan

As a paid student research assistant on Dr. Meyer’s study of a new handwriting assessment, Barbara assesses 300 sets of data.

When Dr. Meyer reports the study’s findings, she lists Barbara and another student data collector as 2nd and 3rd authors on the article.

Barbara doesn’t understand the statistics used by Dr. Meyer, but does understand what the findings indicate.

Barbara conducts her own thesis is on a totally different topic using a different method of data collection and analysis.

Questions for AuthorshipDetermining Authorship/Acknowledgment -Case 2 - Barbara Chan

1. Do you see any problems or issues in the case? What?

When interviewing for a staff position at a community clinic, Barbara learns that they are especially interested in her because they believe that her research experience with Dr. Meyer may help them evaluate outcome measures for their clinic. During the interview lunch, the therapist asks Barbara to explain why specific statistical analyses were chosen.

2. What should Barbara do? Who is responsible for this dilemma?

AUTHORSHIP So You Want to be Sole Author - Etta Thurn As Etta finishes her thesis, she asks how she can publish

it as sole author. Her school’s policy encourages faculty to include

students in publications, but does not address sole publication by a student.

Etta argues that her advisor’s input did not warrant authorship, and that Etta could have gotten much of the same information by independently reading the advisor’s published work. And, that she had worked more independently had she known that it would allow her to be sole author.

The advisor feels that she deserves authorship because she helped Etta design and analyze her study, and assisted in many other ways on the project.

Questions for AuthorshipSo You Want to be Sole Author - Etta Thurn

1. What do you think of Etta’s reasoning? Why?

2. Neither Etta nor Dr. D’Alessandro discussed authorship as an issue early in the process. Each made her own assumptions. Does this affect who should be author?

3. Can Etta change advisors to avoid this problem?

4. What, if anything, should be done about the school’s policy or about Dr. D’Alessandro’s approach to advising?

AUTHORSHIPAuthor Order - Valentine Quin & Aggie Bickford Valentine Quin, designs, conducts, and analyzes a study on the

effects of a fatigue management program for people with HIV, using a single group pre-post design. Her findings on 8 participants are promising.

Aggie Bickford, another OT student working with the same advisor, continues the project. She gathers and analyzes data on an additional 42 persons (total n=50). The findings for this larger group are exciting.

Valentine and Aggie are committed to publishing their work. Their advisor will be final author. Both new graduates reason that they deserve to be first author.

Aggie plans to start a PhD. The targeted journal does not permit authors to explain their

author order.

Questions for AuthorshipAuthor Order- Valentine Quin & Aggie Bickford

1. Who should be first author? What criteria did you use?

2. Who should be making this authorship decision? Why?

3. What, if anything, could have helped prevent this dilemma at this late point in the process?

PUBLICATION ISSUESA Quick Publication - Olivia Eggert Olivia and her advisor planned to publish Olivia’s thesis in a peer

reviewed journal. Last week, the advisor was surprised to find an article listing

herself and Olivia as co-authors in a non-refereed journal. She is upset because: She never read the manuscript and did not know that it had been

submitted. The literature review is out of date and the Discussion and

Conclusion sections make unreasonable assertions. The journal is not peer reviewed.

Another faculty member was acknowledged by name without that faculty’s permission.

Olivia does not understand that there is a problem. She wanted to publish something quickly and didn’t want to bother her advisor. She still plans to work with her advisor to publish the research in a peer reviewed journal.

Questions for Publication IssuesA Quick Publication - Olivia Eggert

1. How would you define the issues facing the advisor, the person cited for her help, Olivia, and non-refereed journal? Do you think that they are minor or substantive? Why?

2. Does publishing the study in this journal affect future publication in a more rigorous journal?

3. Can anything be done about the overstatements made in the piece? Would statistical errors in the article be addressed in some way?

4. What safeguards could have prevented this situation?

PUBLICATION ISSUESMultiple Publications - Teresa Garcia Ramirez Teresa used a two-group randomized controlled design to

study the effects of a program for persons with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. One group received the program, and the other group spent the same amount of time in a support group. There were several outcome measures.

Data were gathered at baseline (pre), at the end of the program (post), and one month after the program ended (follow-up), and at corresponding times for the control group.

Continued next slide

PUBLICATION ISSUESMultiple Publications-Teresa Garcia Ramirez- Continued

Teresa derived 5 articles from her data, publishing in: An Internet-based psychology journal, describing the

intervention and reporting the changes in depression of the treated group from pre to post.

Two rehabilitation journals, one article comparing community integration of the program and control groups at the end of the intervention (post), and the other explaining the theoretical basis of the treatment and reporting on all outcomes.

AJOT, comparing the control and treatment groups’ follow-up outcomes on depression, level of avocational activity, and level of community integration.

A nonrefereed nursing journal, advocating avocation and describing the program in detail.

Questions for Publication IssuesMultiple Publications - Teresa Garcia Ramirez

1. Is there any problem with the way that Teresa disseminated her research?

2. Would the problem be resolved if each article reported on a different outcome?

PUBLICATION ISSUESGroup Work- Margaret Singer & Kerri Scopes Margaret and Kerri are working on a proposal as a team. Both

are strong students. Together they search the literature, and find, copy, and outline journal articles.

They are expected to write the proposal together, but instead they divide the responsibilities. Kerri writes the literature review and Margaret writes the rest of the proposal.

The literature review plagiarizes works, citing as paraphrase when exact quotes are needed, and providing no citation for a table taken verbatim from a Web source.

The professor is concerned about the plagiarism and also worries that the students do not appear to know or understand their topic’s literature.

Questions for Publication IssuesGroup Work -Margaret Singer & Kerri Scopes

1. Who is responsible for the plagiarism in the literature review? Why?

2. What do you think will happen to these two students?

3. If a similar situation existed for a published article, who would be responsible?

PUBLICATION ISSUESA Literature Review - Cathy Schmidt As part of her dissertation, Cathy conducted a systematic

literature review of a popular pediatric intervention. She later presented her findings at a parents’ conference

and her findings were disseminated to the broader community by a local television news and city newspaper.

When Cathy submitted her work for publication, a peer reviewer found several instances where Cathy confused the data and reversed the findings.

There were so many errors that Cathy’s overall interpretation and recommendations are wrong.

Questions for Publication IssuesA Literature Review - Cathy Schmidt

1.What should Cathy do about this major error in her dissertation?

2. What should Cathy do about her past presentation to the parent association? About her past newspaper and television coverage? About her formal paper that has not been published, yet?

MENTORSHIPChoosing an Advisor - Janet Kearns Janet has selected Dr. Martin to replace her major advisor,

who is retiring. For her dissertation Janet is creating an outcome tool for persons with UE amputations. Dr. Martin is an expert in outcome tool development and has worked with Janet for several months.

When Janet brings the paperwork to her department chairperson, Dr. Fine, he asserts that he’d be a better major advisor than Dr. Martin because he: Uses a below-the-elbow prosthesis. Holds a patent on an upper-extremity prosthetic device. Has 3 years of experience in clinical prosthetics. Has a broad academic network that will help when Janet looks for an

academic job. Dr. Fine alters the forms to name himself as Janet’s major

advisor.

Questions for MentorshipChoosing an Advisor - Janet Kearns

1. How can Janet respond to Dr. Fine’s actions? What are the positive and negative outcomes of these responses?

2. What characteristics should a student consider when selecting an advisor? How are these characteristics demonstrated in this case?

MENTORSHIPAdvisor Issues- Janet Kearns (continues) Janet accepts Dr. Fine as her advisor, and finds that he does

not respond to inquiries nor attend scheduled meetings. Janet asks Dr. Martin to talk to Dr. Fine, which she does. At the next dissertation committee meeting, Dr. Fine

announces that Dr. Martin will work closely with Janet. Dr. Martin does just that, and Janet completes her work and

graduates. When Janet looks for a job, Dr. Fine writes a glowing generic

letter, and Dr. Martin writes a more specific glowing letter. Janet gets a faculty job at another research university.

Questions for MentorshipAdvisor Issues - Janet Kearns (continues)

1. What were Dr. Fine’s responsibilities to Janet as his doctoral advisee? Did he fulfill these?

2. What do you think of Dr. Martin’s actions?

3. Who would have been accountable if Janet had been unsuccessful or had significant problems in her dissertation?

4. What could Janet have done to resolve the problem without relying on Dr. Martin’s unofficial advisement?

MENTORSHIPSeparating from Advisement–Doris Collins Doris is an ambitious but overcommitted student. Involved in

extra research activities and several student and professional associations, Doris is failing to meet her core research responsibilities.

When confronted by her mentor, Dr Williams, Doris promises to focus her effort on her research obligations.

With that promise, Dr. Williams helps Doris to receive a post-doc fellowship at another institution.

In spite of her promise, Doris’ research performance continues to decline.

Continues on next slide

MENTORSHIPSeparating from Advisement–Doris Collins - Continued

Dr. Williams realizes that Doris has manipulated her dissertation committee, taken time off from her research without permission, and falsely told the new institution that it is the committee that is delaying her graduation when it is really Doris’ own unscheduled and unapproved vacation that is responsible.

When, the post-doc institution contacts Dr. Williams and asks when she will issue a final grade for Doris, Dr. Williams does not know how to answer. She feels betrayed by Doris’ behavior.

Questions for MentorshipSeparating from Advisement–Doris Collins

1. What went wrong in this case? What could Dr. Williams have been done to change the process and outcome of this case?

2. Does Dr. Williams have an ethical obligation to address her concerns with Doris? Does she have an obligation to express or withhold information from the post-doctoral institution?

3. What concerns would you have about Doris’ career as a researcher?

MENTORSHIPConflicting Roles–Laura Tung Dr. Hammer is Laura’s employer, research mentor, and thesis

advisor. They meet formally and informally to discuss research. Originally, Laura’s job was to supervise data entry, perform

statistical analyses, and draft the preliminary report of findings. Her work was designed to improve Laura’s understanding of statistics and earn her second authorship on the study publications.

When the study’s consulting statistician changes the statistical plan, Dr. Hammer decides to hire a statistician to analyze the data and write the preliminary report. Laura’s job changes to data entry.

Laura does not complain, but she is unhappy with her new work. She disconnects from the study, and no longer meets with Dr. Hammer.

When it is time to publish, Dr. Hammer writes the report and Laura makes a minor comment. The paper is published with Dr. Hammer as first author, the statistician as second, and Laura as third.

Questions for MentorshipConflicting Roles–Laura Tung

1. How do you define the problem (s) in the case?

2. How did Dr. Hammer’s and Laura’s roles as employer/employee and mentor/trainee contribute to these problem(s)? How could these roles have helped avoid the problem(s)?

3. What can be done to put the mentorship and employment on track?

FISCAL RESPONSIBILITYA Series of Studies –Orlando Sims Dr. Sims gets a 3 year grant from Attending 2 Attention Deficit

(A2A) foundation to study an intervention called Cog+Sens. Midway through the grant, Dr. Sims applies for and gets a

second grant, from Best Attention! (another ADHD foundation). The new study examines CASP, an intervention developed by Dr. Sims, based on the original Cog+Sens, integrating the changes suggested by Dr.Sims’ A2A study.

Dr Sims included the A2A study’s first year’s findings in his application to Best Attention!.

The study shows that CASP improves children's’ behaviors. Dr. Sims patents and markets the treatment, sharing royalties with his college.

A2A and Best Attention! are furious that their grants and A2A’s original product are being sold for profit by Dr. Sims.

Questions for Fiscal ResponsibilityA Series of Studies –Orlando Sims1. Did Dr. Sims have the right to apply for a grant from

a second organization while still working on the first grant?

2. There are four entities in the current mess: A2A, Best Attention!, Dr. Sims, and the college. Who owns Dr. Sims’ data from the first study? Is this different from the entity owning data from the CASP study?

3. What could Dr. Sims do now to address the issues, assuming he wants to continue researching ADHD?

4. How could Dr. Sims have conducted his studies so that all parties were content with the final outcome?

FISCAL RESPONSIBILITYMultisite Project, First 3 months - Anchieta Angelina

Dr. Angelina is conducting a 2 year study of an after-school program at 4 inner city, rural, county, and private schools spread across the state. Sites are coordinated by monthly virtual meetings using real time interactions, and monthly written reports by the onsite coordinators (OCs)

The OC at the Rural site is not an active participant in the virtual meetings, is tardy in her 2nd and 3rd month written reports, and is too ill to attend a face-to-face meeting in the 3rd month.

Efforts to reach the Rural OC by telephone fail to connect. After she missed the 3rd month meeting, she emailed that everything was going well and that she would attend the next meetings.

Questions for Fiscal ResponsibilityMultisite Project, First 3 months - Anchieta Angelina

1. Is anything going wrong in the study?

2. Is it reasonable for Dr. Angelina to press the OC from Rural about her less meaningful participation or missed report deadlines? Would you press these issues?

3. What is the relationship between Dr. Angelina’s fiscal responsibilities to the funder and her supervision of site OCs?

FISCAL RESPONSIBILITYMultisite Project, 9 Months into the Grant (continued) At the 9 month point, the OC’s at Inner City, County and

Private schools have strong recruitment and data collection.

The Rural OC’s monthly reports show low recruitment (n=2) and no data collected.

The Rural OC reports several reasons for poor progress, including that she has not had the time originally planned because a colleague is battling cancer and the OC is responsible for both her own and the other teacher’s work.

In her email communication, the Rural OC promises to catch up and asks that Dr. Angelina not bring this issue to the attention of the OC’s administrator.

Questions for Fiscal ResponsibilityMultisite Project, 9 Months into the Grant (continued)

4. Are Rural’s OC’s explanations for delayed recruiting and programming reasonable?

5. What issues must Dr. Angelina weigh before acting?

6. What action(s) should she take?

FISCAL RESPONSIBILITYMultisite Project, 12 Months into the Grant (continued)

In spite of Dr. Angelina’s frank discussion and explicit expectations, the Rural OC has recruited only 3 of the 10 participants needed for the study’s first year.

It is unlikely that the Rural site will meet its commitment of 20 participants for the 2 year study.

Dr. Angelina meets with the Rural OC and her administrator. Both acknowledge that the OC has not had suitable work time allotted for the study. The administrator guarantees Dr. Angelina that the OC will have the time originally planned, plus some additional time to help her catch up on the project.

Questions for Fiscal ResponsibilityMultisite Project, 12 Months into the Grant (continued)

7. What are Dr. Angelina’s fiscal responsibilities at this point?

8. How should Dr. Angelina weigh her investment in this Rural site vs. the prospective productivity of the site?

9. What actions do you think Dr. Angelina should take about the Rural site?

10. How should Dr. Angelina report the study’s recruitment to the funder?

FISCAL RESPONSIBILITYMultisite Project, 18 Months into the Grant (continued) Things have improved only slightly at the Rural site. Data

have been gathered on 4 participants, with 1 participant in process (total n = 5). The Rural OC reports that she has a number of participants almost recruited.

Dr. Angelina decides to terminate her current contract, and recruit a different rural school to conduct the program and gather data for the remaining 15 participants

The Rural OC and administrator are unhappy. They feel that they tried to meet the study’s needs, and that the study must offer the program to the students who are almost recruited.

When Dr. Angelina requests that Rural return 50% of the money paid to Rural, the administrator counters with an offer to continue to collect data at the original site at a reduced rate.

Questions for Fiscal ResponsibilityMultisite Project, 18 Months into the Grant (continued)

11. Is Rural obliged to return Dr. Angelina’s money to permit the study to be completed elsewhere?

12. What obligations does Dr. Angelina have to the final participant at the current Rural setting? What obligations does she have to students who were interested in starting but had not yet formally committed to the program?

13. Who must be informed of the site’s termination? Why?14. Is Dr. Angelina obligated to find another rural site to

complete her study? If so, how would she fund this replacement program now that a significant proportion of the money has been spent?

FISCAL RESPONSIBILITYFiscal Stewardship - Adara Manoukarakis Adara has worked all summer as a paid research assistant for

Dr. Pella, who is also her research advisor. The study is ending and Dr. Pella does not need all of Adara’s

remaining time. Not wanting to renege on her employment, Dr. Pella assigns Adara to assist other researchers and the OT Office staff.

As Adara is signing her pay request, she realizes that her signature verifies that she has “performed X hours of work on the project listed”.

Adara brings her concern to Dr. Pella, noting that she did non-study work for about 10% of her summer time, and more recently about 25% of her time was spent on non-study work.

Continued on next slide

FISCAL RESPONSIBILITYFiscal Stewardship - Adara Manoukarakis Dr. Pella assures Adara that signing the form is

okay. That the funder will care only that the study is done. Adara hesitates to sign and Dr. Pella gets irritated. He gives her the option, “If you don’t feel comfortable signing the form, you can change the numbers of hours for this last two weeks. But, I don’t have any way to pay you for unlisted hours, so you’ll get less pay. It’s your choice.”

Adara doesn’t think signing is right, but she needs the money.

Questions for Fiscal ResponsibilityFiscal Stewardship - Adara Manoukarakis 1. Dr. Pella sees the alternatives as a) pay Adara for no work, b) stop

paying Adara when there was no work, c) pay Adara for necessary but unrelated work. Dr. Pella chose the last alternative as the most responsible option. What does this tell you about Dr. Pella’s priorities? Do you believe that the decision is reasonable and responsible? Why?

2. Compare options that Dr. Pella did not consider regarding Adara’s work and payment. Which alternatives are more or less responsible?

3. What option should Adara take? Should she sign or not sign the pay request? Should she discuss the issue – and with whom? What are each options’ outcomes, benefits, and costs?

RESEARCH MISCONDUCT & WHISTLEBLOWINGAmong Friends - Fumiko Kobayashi & Leslie Bakker

Fumiko and Leslie are close friends and are working together on a study supervised by Dr. Beesla.

Fumiko has gathered her portion of the data. Leslie has been under several stressors lately, and has fallen behind in her recruitment of participants.

When Fumiko enters their shared office, she discovers Leslie in the act of forging a participant’s consent and fabricating data.

Leslie assures Fumiko that all of the her other study data are real, that this was a first desperate act, and that she’ll never do it again!

She asks that Fumiko keep her secret.

Questions for Research Misconduct and WhistelblowingAmong Friends - Fumiko Kobayashi & Leslie Bakker

1. What are Fumiko’s options and what are the ramifications of each if Leslie is telling the truth? If she is not telling the truth?

2. To whom is Fumiko responsible?