Notes on Lecture 10/3/2022

 

• I previously chose Kim, the grad student. Now I have decided Hardik.

• I decided to let it go. I do not think what he said was a big deal.

• I chose to scrap the appointment and go with my wife.

• I decided not to go to the seminar. If Hardik already understands the responsibilities, he should prioritize his wife. Also, it would be bad to go back on a promise I made to my wife.

• I decided to take a break and eat. I Hardik has not talked to JD in a while so he needs to socialize.

• I scraped the experiment. I should see my wife and her parents. I did not want to join late because I do not know how my wife and family would feel.

• I told the truth. The PI should understand but of course, he favors Greg.

• I offer to go with Kim. I think it would be best to support Kim.

• I tell Kim to speak in hypotheticals. This is to ease her into telling the truth.

• I got scooped. But I believe that the outcome was not fair. Hardik is a PI and he already understands the information in the seminar. I do not believe that such a great PI would make a mistake like that. But that's the plot I guess.

• I tried again and went to the seminar. This time the article got published.

HWCase3 Question 1

 

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://www.scu.edu/ethics/focus-areas/more-focus-areas/engineering-ethics/engineering-ethics-cases/inhibited-reaction/.

 

Eight important facts are:

1. Dr. Naseer was doing research on reactor design.

2. Dr. Naseer was in the process of publishing a paper about reactor design.

3. Dr. Alston would be hosted as a famous chemical engineering professor in lab for three months.

4. Dr. Alston observed various group meetings presented.

5. Dr. Alston learned a lot about the research that Dr. Naseer was doing in the field of reactor design.

6. Dr. Alston soon after leaving with no plans of collaboration with Dr. Naseer published a paper that used identical theorems, background information, and results as Dr. Naseer.

7. Dr. Naseer felt betrayed and upset but there had not been a non-disclosure agreement between the two parties.

8. Dr. Naseer was supported by his colleague who also expressed disappointment in Dr. Alston’s actions.

 

Five questions to ask about the case are:

1. Do you think Dr. Alston copied Dr. Naseer intentionally?

2. How should Dr. Naseer have reacted in a situation like this?

3. How would you have pressed the issue with Dr. Alston?

4. Do you think that if Dr. Naseer took proper action to resist Dr. Alston’s actions that he would be successful?

5. Do you think Dr. Alston could have published a paper with only information learned from Dr. Naseer or could he have gotten access to computer data from Dr. Naseer?

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?