Introduction

According to Office of Research Integrity, an American organization tasked to scrutinize

cases of research fraudulent, scientific misconduct is the fabrication, falsification or
plagiarism in proposing, performing or reviewing research, or in reporting research
results. It can be done not only in the final publication but also in all parts of the research
process starting from the proposal to the experimental results of the study. There are
many forms of scientific misconduct, the most common is falsification. It is defined as the
form of scientific misconduct where the researcher manipulates materials, equipment or
alters experimental data. It involves changes in the experimental setup or results which
makes the research non-repeatable disallowing further improvements to the research.
Another form of scientific fraudulent is fabrication. Fabrication is making up data or
results. Compared to falsification where results are changed, in fabrication, experimental
results are completely made up or simply invented. On the other hand, plagiarism is
defined as the appropriation of another persons ideas, processes, results without giving
the appropriate credits. It is the most common form of misconduct in education but is the
least popular in the field of research. These scientific misconducts do not just exist in the
books as a mere definition. In fact, there have been many cases of scientific misconduct
in the field of chemistry throughout the years. Such examples include what took place on
May 1994 in Brgenstock Stereochemistry Conference. On this conference, the
participants received a copy of a paper entitled Enantioselective Reactions in a Static
Magnetic Field. The remarkable results included 98% enantioselectivity (either + or -) in
the reaction of 2-naphthaldehyde with methyl magnesium bromide in a magnetic field of
1 tesla and a number of similarly startling results of Grignard and metal hydride reactions.
This was presented by G. Zadel. In the discussion in the conference, it was revealed that
at least two other laboratories had tried to reproduce the findings discussed by G. Zadel
and ended up not getting the same results. Others even went as far as going to their
laboratory in Bonn, bringing their own glassware and chemicals, to be guided by Zadel in
doing the experiment. It was found to be irreproducible unless Zadel was in Bonn during
the experiment. It was then found out when Angewandte Chemie published a short paper
entiteled No Enantioselective Reactions in a Static Magnetic Field that the results were
fraudulent in nature. Zadel then admitted that he had been placing optically active
products before exposure to magnetic fields in order to produce a 98% enentioselectivity.
The result of this misconduct led to G. Zadels doctorate degree being revoked by the
University of Bonn. (Rubin 2011)
Other examples of these misconducts have appearead throughout history. In the 1940s,
Goldwasser and Taylors analysis of hexane mixtures by fractional distillation was
checked by Whitmore et al. who then obtained different results using the same
equipment. In 1943, Stocktrom had published results about the synthesis of Vitamin D
but was retracted by his supervisor due to the results not being applicable in actuality. In
1944, Paranjape and coworkers reported that they had identified how to totally synthesize
racemic santonin but was proven to be false. In 1957, Hammond and Ravve reported the
reaction of triphenylmethyl radical with aromatic compounds. This was then corrected by
Benkeser, Gosnell, and Schroeder leading to the results being found out to be fabricated.
In 1963, Benkeser, Grossman, and Stanton reported their findings of synthesizing
silacyclopentadiene and related compounds but was then retracted due to Grossman
fabricating their results. The fraud was exposed when the experiment was repeated by
different researchers and found that the results could not be produced. This led to
Grossmans doctorate being revoked by Purdue University. Lastly, a most recent example
of scientific misconduct was identified in 2010 by Harrison, Simpson, and Weil. They had
reported at least 70 fabricated X-ray crystallographic structures by T. Liu and H. Zhong
from Jinggangshan University, China. The Chinese took sets of published X-ray data,
replaced one or more of the atoms, made minor adjustments to the structure, and
submitted the results to Acta as a set of original data for the accompanying new structure.
They have admitted to 70 such fabrications and more are expected. (Rubin 2011)
Scientific misconduct can affect not just the scientific community but also our society. The
main objective of research which is to improve things is not met when it is committed. In
this paper, various ethical principles will be applied to study the case of the finicky
reactions. These ethical principles will also be used to make the appropriate conclusions
on how the characters in the story should address the dilemma that they are facing.
Case Study: The Finicky Reactions
This kind of issue is very sensitive as it may deal with the emotional side of Dr. Green
and may result into Annas early dismissal from the research group. As it should be
handled with tact, Anna Bijou should not bring her concerns to Dr. Green so easily. She
should first consult other professionals, especially those that specialize in organometallic
reactions, in what she could do in order to have a positive outcome. She should then
employ as much as she can in being able to do her part as a researcher in being able to
go to Dr. Green with conviction that the doctoral thesis is irreproducible. She should have
brought with her, the present work done by Anna, the laboratory notebooks produced by
Carole Lee and Tony Pham, and the laboratory notebooks written by Paul Fanning,
stating that the organometallic reactions proposed by Paul Fanning were indeed not
probable.
Due to the discussion that Anna and Tony had about Paul Fannings doctoral thesis
leading to the dismissal of both he and Carole Lee, Anna may soon follow if she tries to
communicate her concerns on the topic. If Anna Bijou shares her concern with Dr. Green
the best reaction she could hope for is that Dr. Green will then take personal action on
the doctoral thesis proposed by Paul Fanning. This can then lead to her being able to
either prove that the doctoral thesis proposed by Paul Fanning is irreproducible and thus
amend all the paper works of all the incorrect data; or she, Pham, and Lee will be able to
learn and discover about Paul Fannings doctoral thesis and how it is supposed to be
done, assuming that it is factual.
Dr. Greens influence is deemed very important and could very much so affect Anna
Bijous career and her continuing study as a graduate student. If Anna Bijou chooses to
keep Dr. Green happy by keeping her concerns to herself, the people that will benefit will
be Dr. Green and Paul Fanning. It is Dr. Greens research group that was able to produce
a doctoral thesis that was deemed worthy enough for a doctoral student. For Paul
Fanning, it has benefited him as he had obtained his doctoral degree through the research
that was seemingly irreproducible according to Anna Bijou, Carole Lee, and Tony Pham.
In this course of action, if the study was proven to be inaccurate, it could hurt the world of
science all together. If this journal article would be cited and referenced for other works
and it was found out to be impossible and non-factual, it could lead to other scientific
studies based on false assumptions. This course of action could also hurt Dr. Green and
Paul Fanning as it could make them seem as irresponsible and incompetent holders of a
doctorate degree. If the doctoral thesis of Paul Fanning was proven to be reproducible
however, keeping her concerns to herself would not hurt anyone.
Anna Bijou should be very careful in discussing her opinion on the ethical standards set
by the person in charge. She should carefully assess the situation at hand and determine
the best course of way to tackle the dilemma. Anna Bijou could turn for help to other
professors that she trusts and knows what other steps she could take. She could also try
to talk to guidance counselors on the ethical issue of what Dr. Green had done. Another
option on who could have the power to assist her is Paul Fanning himself. She could talk
to him directly and gain information on how he was able to perform his doctoral thesis.
Another person responsible to assist her would be other professors within the
establishment that uphold the standard of being able to help in identifying if there are any
fallacies that could affect the scientific community.
Fabrication and falsification of experimental results both cause harm to scientific
community as researchers try to reproduce the results of a given study for deeper and
more elaborate studies. It can waste time, efforts as well as resources of other
researchers if they are trying to replicate results that are not really observed in the
laboratory. Such act is punishable in accordance to the chemistry law but we cannot set
aside the fact that there are also legal consequences of accusing someone committing
these scientific misconducts that can be given to someone if their accusation was proven
to be malicious. As a coauthor of the published work of Paul Fanning, Dr. Martin Green
should really be concern on whether there was a scientific misconduct committed when
the study was conducted because it can jeopardize both his reputation and the integrity
of his research group. But, given the situation, it is more appropriate for Dr. Martin Green
to investigate first and to look for more concrete evidences that can prove his initial
intuition so that he will have a basis once he started confronting Paul Fanning about his
publication. In addition, Dr. Martin Green should hear his student, Anna Bijou, about what
she has to say about the finicky reaction. He also has the responsibility of telling his
student about the possibility of fabrication and falsification of results of the experiment
that may have cause the failure of his two to students to replicate the result of the
experiment because he is the associate professor of the research group. But, unless he
finds enough proof to support his claims, he has no choice but to only hear Anna Bijou
about her findings and give the appropriate advice-to stop the experimentation. This is to
prevent Anna Bijou from wasting more efforts and resources like the two students who
has been dismissed in trying to replicate an experiment with questionable integrity. These
responsibilities will not change despite of what Anna Bijou is telling about the reaction.
Dr. Martin Green must learn to control his fear and personal feelings in investigating so
he should hear her no matter how hurtful or humiliating it is for him as the coauthor of the
said article. It is also his responsibility to allow the students, Tony Pham and Carole Lee,
that he dismissed for telling the possibility of scientific misconduct behind the experiment
to join the group. He owes the group so much for not listening and allowing these students
to tirelessly repeat the experiment despite the facts that he has been told based on the
results that these students obtained through experimentation. Unfortunately, in the event
that Dr. Martin Green was able to prove that Paul Fanning committed scientific
misconduct in his published study, it could affect both his and his research group
reputation. Since he was the coauthor and the professor of Paul Fanning, it is his
obligation to guide his researcher which means he also have to verify the results obtained
by his student. Clearly, based on the events that transpired in the story, Dr. Martin Green
failed to do so. He was so carried away by the success of his student that he did not even
bother to check even the lab notebook of Paul Fanning. Although it may not be a
requirement, he should have considered that he is handling a research group wherein
other student who are interested in doing studies related to their published studies. He
should have taught and required his students to kept their laboratory notebooks as neat
and readable as possible for repeatability and reproducibility of the researches performed
because as much as it could affect him, it could also cause harm to other researchers in
the field of chemistry. Because of his short comings as the associate professor of the
group, he could be accused of being involved in the falsification and fabrication of the
experimental data produced by Paul Fanning. Once again, he will face another difficult
decision making. But, on the basis of morality and ethics itself, it is more appropriate for
him to identify and address the problems with his publications no matter how much it
would cost him because as a member of the scientific community and a researcher, he
should uphold his integrity and do what is right. In doing so, he could make up for the
mistakes that he committed by not supervising Paul Fanning enough because it will allow
formulation of a new ideas to correct the finicky reaction.
After learning the alterations made on the NMR spectra in Paul Fannings Notebook, Dr.
Martin Green is now backed up with sufficient evidence to confront his student about the
scientific misconduct committed. But as a coauthor, he should first contact Paul Fanning
about his plans of retracting the papers. He should also invite his student personally so
they can discuss the findings of other researchers who repeated his study. He should
also make Paul Fanning explain why he did not order for elemental analyses to
characterize his product, why he did not have any NMR account that he should have used
in testing his compounds and the alterations found in the NMR spectra that he presented.
Unfortunately, even if Dr. Green learns that his intuitions were correct, his responsibility
as the professor and coauthor of the article will not change. Dr. Green will be left again
with two choices- quietly handle the situation with Paul Fanning or retract the published
paper and expose the scientific misconduct that his student committed. If he chooses the
former, he will be able to protect the reputation of Paul Fanning, his research group and
himself. The success earned through Paul Fannings finicky reaction will remain as it is
as well as the group and his reputation. But in doing so, he will fail the whole scientific
community and himself as a scientist. He will allow other researcher to repeat the same
finicky reaction knowing the outcome of each and every attempt which is failure. He will
prevent other researcher from discovering other methods because they have Paul
Fannings work as the basis. Also, it can potentially harm himself and the research group
because if he will not retract the published work, other competitive researcher may work
to disprove it. If these researchers succeeded, it could ruin everything that he worked
hard for. Logically and morally speaking, it is best for Dr. Green retract the published work
and suffer for short-term consequences than to cause long-term effect to other people
and to the scientific community. After which, he should implement regulations in his
research group to prevent fraudulent results from being published. Upon joining the
group, he should properly orient the group about the importance of their laboratory
notebook. He should explain to them what should be in it and require each one of them
to show it to him upon consultation. He should also monitor his student to ensure the
quality of their works. He should also ask reports from the laboratory manager to validate
works of his student. As an associate professor, he should be very strict about scientific
misconduct. He must not also let his emotions influence the decisions that he makes for
the group. In failing to do so, he should let the two students join back the group. Dr. Green
also owes the students an apology for dismissing them due to his fear of the
consequences of the scientific misconduct that Paul Fanning committed.
References
Katra, P. (2016, November 11). Scientific Misconduct Research. Retrieved from
https://moodle.med.lu.se/pluginfile.php.
 Mapa University
School of ChE-CHM-BE-MSE

CASE STUDY 1

CHM70/T1
PASIA, Abraham Paul L
PULIDO, Froileth S.

Submitted to:

Professor Dahlia C. Apodaca