Posted: May 7th, 2015

Ethics Case Studies;

Ethics Case Studies;

Assignment 3
Overview: In this assignment you will analyse a number of real and hypothetical case studies,
which illustrate common ethical issues in scientific research. You will examine the significance of
appropriate scientific conduct and justify the need for an ethical basis for the practice of science.
Purpose
There are ethical considerations to all research, arising from the topic of research, the methods
and processes used, to the findings, outcomes and publication of the research.
This assignment has been designed so that you can learn to identify the ethical implications and
issues of your own research and to make good decisions as these arise. This assignment will also
help you develop your written communication skills.
Once completed, this assignment will inform a discussion of the ethical considerations
surrounding your research that you can include in your dissertation.
Learning outcomes
This assignment relates to the following unit learning outcomes:
NPSC4000: Honours Science Research
Methodologies 4
NPSC5000: Science Masters Research
Methodologies
2 Examine the significance of appropriate scientific conduct and justify the need for an ethical
framework for scientific practice
4 Professionally communicate scientific knowledge
to a professional audience using a variety of
modes
Interpret and professionally communicate
scientific knowledge, skills and ideas to specialist
and non- specialist audiences
Instructions
Three real-life case studies are provided on Blackboard, you must choose one of these case
studies:
1. Wakefield: The link between vaccines and autism
2. Plag: The subtleties of plagiarism in information systems
3. Poehlman: Falsification of data to win grants
In addition, there is a set of short hypotheticals from which you must choose two.
Therefore you will choose three case studies in total: either Wakefield, Plag, and Poehlman plus
two case studies from the hypothetical case study set. For each case study, answer the following
questions:
1. Analyse the ethical issues relating to the case study.
2. How might the subject of the case study have justified their actions?
3. Argue which of the four primary ethical framework/s the subject of the case study is most likely
to have used to justify their actions.
4. Using one or more ethical frameworks, argue why the actions of the subject of the case study
were unethical.
In your argument, consider the broader consequences for science, i.e. if everyone took these
actions, what is the net outcome for science?
General marking scheme
•
•
•
Case study: 40 marks
Hypothetical case studies: 40 marks in total (20 marks for each hypothetical)
Written communication: 20 marks
Absent
1a. Understanding of
issues relating to
scientific conduct in
the case study
10 marks
Does not distinguish
between behaviours that
comprise appropriate
and responsible
scientific conduct, and
those that comprise
scientific misconduct.
Novice
Merely recognises the
behaviours that
comprise appropriate
and responsible
scientific conduct, and
those that comprise
scientific misconduct: no
linkage to ethical
frameworks or
justification of position.
Competent
Can distinguish between
behaviours that
comprise appropriate
and responsible
scientific conduct, and
those that comprise
scientific misconduct.
Can describe the
significance and
implications of scientific
misconduct; can
describe the need for an
ethical framework for
scientific conduct.
Proficient
Can distinguish between
behaviours that
comprise appropriate
and responsible
scientific conduct, and
those that comprise
scientific misconduct in
complex situations. Can
justify an ethical
framework for scientific
conduct. Can analyse risk
factors that contribute to
scientific misconduct.
Can evaluate conduct
with regard to the
practice of science, and
can argue the
significance and
implications of scientific
misconduct.
Complexities of situation
evaluated; others’ point
of view are considered
within own position;
evidence of a coherent
and logical approach to
issues using an ethical
framework; implications
and limitations of
position considered.
Explains other ethical
perspectives and
critically evaluates the
objections to,
assumptions and
implications of these.
Creates a coherent
argument against the
objections to,
assumptions and
implications of different
ethical perspectives.
1b. Development of
ethical arguments in
the case study
10 marks
Makes argument on the
basis of own position
without consideration of
ethical framework or
implications.
Can state own position
on an issue, may
acknowledge the
influence of external
social, cultural and
religious norms but does
not support opinion with
an ethical framework or
consider implications of
position.
Can state other ethical
perspectives but cannot
state the objections to,
assumptions and
limitations of different
perspectives/concepts.
Complexities of situation
acknowledged; evidence
of a logical approach to
issue using an ethical
framework.
1c. Evaluation of
different ethical
perspectives in the
case study
20 marks
Does not distinguish
between behaviours that
comprise appropriate
and responsible
scientific conduct, and
those that comprise
scientific misconduct.
Describes other ethical
and describe possible
objections to,
assumptions and
implications of these;
responds to the
objections to
assumptions and
implications of different
ethical perspectives.
2a. Understanding of
issues relating to
scientific conduct in
hypothetical 1
5 marks
Same descriptors as Criterion 1a.
Absent
2b. Development of
ethical arguments in
hypothetical 1
5 marks
2c. Evaluation of
different ethical
perspectives in the
case study in
hypothetical 1
10 marks
3a. Understanding of
issues relating to
scientific conduct in
hypothetical 2
5 marks
3b. Development of
ethical arguments in
hypothetical 1
5 marks
3c. Evaluation of
different ethical
perspectives in the
case study in
hypothetical 1
10 marks
4a. Overall structure
5 marks
4b. Paragraph
structure
5 marks
Novice
Competent
Proficient
Same descriptors as Criterion 1b.
Same descriptors as Criterion 1c.
Same descriptors as Criterion 1a.
Same descriptors as Criterion 1b.
Same descriptors as Criterion 1c.
Not given, or
unidentifiable logical
flow.
No identifiable
paragraph structure.
Poor logical flow, lacking
clarity, precision and
sophistication.
Poor paragraph structure
with no identifiable topic
sentence, support for the
topic sentence, and
transition to the next
paragraph.
The scientific writing
style does not flow
smoothly because of
inappropriate syntax,
grammar and formality.
Some logical flow, but
lacking clarity, precision
or sophistication.
Paragraph structure with
an identifiable topic
sentence, but lacking
support for the topic
sentence, or transition to
the next paragraph.
The scientific writing
style flows, but lacks
appropriate syntax,
grammar or formality.
Good logical flow, with
clarity, precision and
sophistication.
Good paragraph
structure with an
identifiable topic
sentence, and support
for the topic sentence,
and transition to the next
paragraph.
The scientific writing
flows well and has
mature syntax, grammar
and formality.
4c. Scientific writing
style
5 marks
The scientific writing
style is inconsistent and
informal.
Absent
4d. Integration of
references
5 marks
Total
100 marks
No references are
integrated.
Novice
References are poorly
integrated, do not
support the argument,
and are not contrasted.
40 – 60
Competent
References are
integrated, but do not
support the argument, or
are not contrasted.
60 – 80
Proficient
References are well
integrated, support the
argument, and are
contrasted.
80 – 100
0 – 40
Self-assessment
Please see the attached marking criteria (in the form of a rubric) above. You are required to assess
yourself using the rubric and complete the self-evaluation questions before you submit the
assignment. However, your final mark will be derived from staff evaluation, rather than your self-
assessment. The purpose of this self-assessment is to clarify our expectations and inform your
successful completion of this assignment.
For each assignment component, indicate and justify with a comment whether you think you have
achieved each criterion on the levels given.
Assignment component
Absent
Novice
Competent
Proficient
Understanding of issues relating to
scientific conduct.
Development of ethical arguments
Evaluation of different ethical
perspectives
Scientific writing style
For any of the assignment components that you have indicated an asset or novice level, please
answer the following questions:
ethical frameworks
•
What prevented you from achieving a competent or proficient mark in this assignment
component?
•
What strategies/resources could you have used to achieve a competent or proficient mark in
this assignment component?