Published by the MIT News Office at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass.
Published by the MIT News Office at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Cambridge, Mass.
By Eve K. Nichols Whitehead Institute At first everyone agrees that Sandra has violated the norms of good scientific behavior; the only issue is whether the correct response should be public sanctions or private guidance. Then questions begin to arise: Were her actions appropriate in the context of her particular laboratory environment? Was the lab director at fault for failing to establish clear guidelines? How does one safeguard intellectual property in a laboratory setting? Sandra is an imaginary post-doc in a scenario created for a program called "Ethical Dilemmas in Research," developed at the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research. Dr. Gerald Fink, director of the Whitehead Institute, explains the origins of the program: "We began 'Ethical Dilemmas in Research' in response to NIH guidelines requiring that all National Research Service Award (NRSA) institutional training grants include provisions for a program dealing with the principles of scientific integrity. But the project quickly took on a life of its own. In the beginning, there was considerable debate within Whitehead about the appropriate format for the discussion; and when we actually presented the scenarios to the community, they elicited a spectrum of viewpoints that we couldn't have predicted beforehand." Dr. Fink adds, "The scenarios we developed were designed to stimulate conversation about the 'gray areas' of ethical behavior that arise in all human activities, including scientific research. Some actions are clearly unethical; in 1989, the National Academy of Sciences produced a document called On Being a Scientist that provides straightforward definitions of proscribed behaviors such as fraud and plagiarism. But most situations we encounter in daily life are not so clear-cut. Sometimes misunderstanding of the gray areas can lead people to inadvertently violate more serious rules. It is important to provide a common framework for exploring ethical dilemmas that might not have a single answer." Three scenarios, including Sandra's story, were selected for a panel discussion at the 1991 Whitehead Institute Retreat in Waterville Valley, New Hampshire. Dr. Lawrence Susskind, a Professor in the Department of Urban Studies and Planning at MIT and formerly Executive Director of the Program on Negotiations at Harvard Law School, led panel members and more than 250 Whitehead scientists and guests in a fast-paced discussion of the behaviors and attitudes presented in the scenarios. For example, Sandra is a post-doc who "accidentally" discovers the solution to a problem that has plagued others in her laboratory for months. Instead of discussing her idea with the graduate student working in the area, she secretly performs a series of experiments (lying to cover her actions) and then writes two papers--one excludes the graduate student completely. She brings the finished papers to her lab director as a fait accompli. Her rationale: "I want [this paper] to stand out in the journal with just two authors [referring to herself and the lab director]." Initial comments by panelists dealt almost exclusively with Sandra's behavior--her lies and the manner in which her behavior violated the atmosphere of trust inherent in the laboratory group. Gradually, though, the focus of the discussion shifted to the environment itself. "Would anyone like to work in a community where it was open hunting season on your project?" one panel member asked. "If somebody working at the next bench had a good idea for your next experiment . . . and they did it, and then they came in the next morning and said, 'I just made your plasmid,' how could you function in a community like that?" But a graduate student in the audience countered, "Whether you or anyone else in science would like to work in a lab like that, there's a kind of natural selection process that makes those labs most successful. They rush into print without bothering to slow down and address complicated issues, such as competition within the lab. They get into print, they publish before others working in the same area, and they amass publications--that's the definition of success in science. Other labs--labs that would slow down to say, 'Sandra, you have to work out the authorship issue with John [the graduate student in the scenario] before that gets into print'--they don't publish first." Other members of the audience jumped in: "What did Sandra have to gain from revealing her ideas to the rest of the lab group?" "Intellectual property often isn't recognized in a group setting." "Many PIs [principal investigators] travel a lot; the PI might not be around to resolve a situation like this before it gets out of hand." "Sandra probably would have received second authorship--and second authorship isn't worth anything." The exchange of ideas intensified until Professor Susskind stopped it to address the next scenario. Before doing so, however, he identified an agenda of specific considerations raised by the case: (1) Under what circumstances, if any, is it legitimate to go off and conduct experiments on your own? or does each lab have a specific set of norms in this regard? (2) When a member of the laboratory has behaved in a certain fashion and you, as the lab director, think it is inappropriate, what are your obligations--how do you reestablish norms within the community? do you impose sanctions? do you allow the rumor mill to take its course and then initiate a public discussion without identifying specific individuals? (3) What is the responsibility of the lab director in creating an environment in which the norms of behavior are clear to everyone? "Larry Susskind's leadership was extremely important," Dr. Fink says. "He crystallized the issues and made sure that graduate students and post- docs on the panel had the same opportunity to speak as the faculty. He also encouraged members of the audience to respond to each other's comments." The other two scenarios raised different questions, but provoked an equally broad range of responses. One concerned a new graduate student who suspects that a post-doc preceding her in a project has falsified data. The other dealt with a lab group that inadvertently obtains information about unpublished results in a competitor's lab. Informal discussion of these cases at the Whitehead Retreat continued through the dinner hour and into the next day. A young faculty member said that he had never before realized the pivotal role of the principal investigator in setting the tone of the laboratory environment. The session, he said, had prompted him to examine his own views on the norms of scientific behavior and changed his outlook on the importance of discussing these views openly with members of his lab. In subsequent evaluations, graduate students commented that discussion of the imaginary scenarios had made people more willing to address real life problems. Some asked for an opportunity to take part in writing a new set of scenarios from the student's perspective. "I think that the program greatly enhanced the sense of community at the Whitehead Institute." Dr. Fink says. "Everyone benefited from the exchange of ideas--the opportunity to hear viewpoints expressed by those at different stages in their scientific careers." Dr. Fink adds that he and others at the Whitehead Institute are exploring different alternatives for a follow-up program. Copies of "Ethical Dilemmas in Research" can be obtained by calling the Whitehead Public Information Office at 258-5183.