Mini Assignment 1- interested parties
Case
Richard, a young associate professor of biochemistry, is a respected and reputable scientist
known at his university and within the science community (Dubois J., 2018). A close friend, his
former Ph.D. advisor, John, asks if he can employ Thomas, a former Ph.D. student who is
having a challenging time finding work, and as a favor to John, Richard accepts but quickly
regrets it (Dubois, J., 2018). Thomas lacks etiquette and work ethic as he performs poorly, holds
grudges over being supervised while being experienced, believes he is better than everyone,
and has made “personal remarks to female graduate student” which all go unreported by
Richard who is aware of it all (Dubois J., 2018). Richard wants to fire Thomas but feels
“immobilized at how he let Thomas manipulate him and get away with his poor performance”
Therefore, he restated his rules and expectations which led to a perfect data set that raised
some alarms (Dubois J., 2018). Richard and his students conducted the same experiment and
realized that the data that was turned in by Thomas were falsified and confronts Thomas who
reported Richard to the Dean of Academic Affairs and claimed that Richard pressured him to
falsify data (Dubois, J., 2018). Richard is nervous that the allegations and consequences may
come down to the truth of Thomas or himself (Dubois J., 2018). Richard should gather all the
evidence and witness that can attest to Thomas’s mediocre performance in order to prove his
malicious attempt at getting Richard in trouble.
Responsibilities
Richard is the associate professor and the principal investigator of the lab. He has the
responsibility of ensuring that all collaborators are experienced and qualified to join his team
instead of hiring Thomas based on his personal affiliation with John and his emotions about
Thomas’s circumstances. He is in a mentoring position, so he is responsible for “preventing
misconduct and promoting research integrity” by ensuring that all collaborators are following the
codes of conduct and guidelines of the university and sponsors (Shamoo, A. & Resnik D.,
2015). As the leader of his team, Richard witnessed and ignored the negligence and
harassment done by Thomas to his female students. He allowed for the misconduct to continue
and created an unsafe environment when he should have set an example, trust, and
accountability (Shamoo A. & Resnik D., 2015).
The harms of falsifying data
By allowing Thomas’s misconduct to go unnoticed and unreported, he harmed himself, his
graduate students, and his employer (the university). Richard allowed the misconduct to occur
without disciple and is now facing serious allegations of falsifying data that are not correct but
are being insinuated. He is experiencing emotional distress as he does not know if the
investigation will deem him innocent of the claims or guilty. If the formal assessment and inquiry
believe there is a case of misconduct, all his work will be impounded and reviewed which means
it may cause financial problems as money has already been spent on his study and while the
data is being reviewed, they will lose time and money. Lastly, he may face reputational damage
if he is investigated and may have the public, the university, and the scientific community view
him as untrustworthy. His students are facing emotional and psychological distress from the
