HWcase3 Q1

 Q1. Prepare case notes on an ethics case related to ethics in research. Online students: post your notes to your blog. Your notes should include the following.

• A link or other citation to the case you are using, or if it is from personal experience, point that out.
• A list of 8 or more important facts about the case. These could help you tell your group members or anyone or remind yourself what the case is all about.
• A list of questions (4 or more) about the case.
• A 5th discussion question about how computer security relates to or could relate to the case. 

Answer: The source of my case is https://ori.hhs.gov/content/case-summary-nemani-prasadarao

Eight important facts are:

1. Children's Hospital Los Angeles conducted an investigation with Office of Research Integrity on Dr. Nemani, Research Professor of Pediatrics in the Division of Infectious Disease at CHLA.
2. Dr. Nemani had been found engaging in research misconduct by "recklessly including falsified and/or fabricated data" in a public paper and grant applications for Public Health Service funds. These were 5 articles all of similar topic.
3. The five articles included falsified and/or fabricated image data from unrelated experiments to build upon his published paper and grant applications.
4. The data which he was fabricating was supposed to be for an enterobacterial infection-induced intestinal epithelial cell injury in a neonatal murine model.
5. Dr. Nemani entered into a Voluntary Settlement Agreement as punitive measure.
6. The Voluntary Settlement Agreement stated that Dr. Nemani would have his research supervised for four years beginning July 2020. A committee of 2-3 senior faculty members at the institution familiar with his field would provide oversight for the four years and review data from their laboratory on a quarterly basis. The committee would also conduct advanced review of any grant applications or grant related work Dr. Nemani submitted.
7. Dr. Nemani also agreed to exclude themselves from serving in any advisory capacity to Public Health Service.
8. ORI was to be updated and kept in the loop on everything. There has been no update since.

Five questions to ask about the case are:

1. Why do you think Dr. Nemani falsified the data?
2. What do you think the grant money could have been used for?
3. Would you have done the same?
4. Do you think the punishment was fitting of the case?
5. How could computer security relate to the case?

Three additional standard questions:

• What does virtue ethics say about this case?
• What does utilitarianism say about this case?
• What does deontology say about this case?

HWcase3 Q3

 Q3. Write up your case on your blog with the following subheadings:

• “The facts of the case.” Here is where you describe the case in your own words.
• “Analysis.” Examine the case in terms of the questions and/or discussion.
• “Conclusions.” Your analysis, opinions, and conclusions about the case. 
• “Future environment.” 3 sentences of average length or more.
• “Future scenario.” 3 sentences of average length or more.

Answer:

The facts of the case. Dr. Nemani of Children's Hospital Los Angeles was found to be falsifying data for one public paper and four Public Health Service grants after several years. He falsified it with data from a totally different experiment. After being found out and confronted by the Office of Research Integirty, Dr. Nemani agreed to relinquish much of his academic freedom in order to keep his job for the next four years starting from July 2020.

Analysis. The consequentialist approach suggests in this case that this is ethically wrong because the outcome would be that other researchers and doctors would learn falsified information. The deontological approach seems to imply that this is also ethically wrong as well which differs from the consequentialist approach in that it's ethically wrong because the principal of lying to begin with is wrong. It's hard to decide which approach works best because we do not know why he did it.

Conclusions. Dr. Nemani was given a fair enough punishment for his actions. While being highly unethical it's reasoning is vague as we don't know why exactly he attempted to get away with falsifying information. Nor do we fully understand the potentially repercussions it could have had, had it never been found out.

Future Environment. The repercussions of the falsified data could have been potentially damaging at many stages of research and development. There's no telling what issues this may have caused but it's alarming to think about what else in research may have been falsified for the researcher's own gain. Many researchers have different reasons for why they may lie about data but it appears that efforts to combat this are getting stronger as we go further into the future with organizations like ORI.

Future scenario. Should organizations like ORI no longer exist, we could see the repercussions of research across many fields. Medical and biological fields are among the most alarming to think about false research and data in. Doctors and nurses operating off false info could cost patients in a multitude of ways, not just limited to their lives and well-being but monetarily as well.