Report on the research ethics workshop, 29 June 2009:
Professional integrity & ethics of engineering research

The workshop aimed to:

  1. Raise awareness and understanding of ethical issues related to engineering research;
  2. Identify, via group discussion, what the key ethical issues relating to engineering research are;
  3. Facilitate more tailored support in the future from the University Research Ethics Committee.

The workshop opened with three presentations:

  1. Introduction by the Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Research (Professor Richard Jones)
  2. The role of the University Research Ethics Committee (Professor Richard Jenkins, Chair of the UREC)
  3. Integrity and ethics in engineering research (the speakers were from the University of Leeds: Professor Peter Jimack, Pro-Dean for Research for Engineering, and Dr Alice Temple, Research Ethics Training and Development Officer)

and concluded with the following presentation:

  1. The changing undergraduate curriculum for ethics in engineering and its potential impact on postgraduate training needs (Professor John Yates, the department of Mechanical Engineering).

Professor Jones gave an oral presentation. All the other presentations can be viewed at:

Key messages from the workshop:

  • Researchers should undertake research with professional and personal integrity;
  • Researchers should be encouraged to reflect upon the ethical challenges that their research raises or might raise – e.g. potential for dual use, e.g. potential impact on the environment;
  • Engineering projects generate new possibilities and risks, engineers share responsibility for creating benefits, preventing harm and advising on dangers;
  • Researchers should reflect that they have important roles to play as expert witnesses – i.e. expert regarding a particular research area or field of study – but that this does not signify that they can act as expert witnesses on subjects outside of their particular expertise;
  • Moral values & judgements are embedded in engineering research –in basic standards of safety & efficiency; in the structure of research groups as communities of people engaged in shared activities & goals with shared credit & rewards & in the idea that engineering research seeks to combine advanced skills with a commitment to the public good;
  • Learning about ethics helps students to develop critical thinking skills judgment, to understand practical difficulties & use suitable approaches techniques to help people produce better outcomesdevelop ethical identities to carry forward to their working lives;
  • Although each discipline has its own ethical traditions, proper ethics are the common ground on which all disciplines meet and there are general lessons to be learned by all researchers;
  • Ethics is about quality and research integrity, doing the best possible research;
  • Properly ethical research demands that ethical considerations should be in the forefront of our thinking and routinely inform all that we do.

Perspectives of researchers – The group discussion activity

The day involved lively andinformed discussion that was enriched as a result of the diverse makeup of the workshop’s participants. Participants included researchers, both members of staff and postgraduate research students, from a range of academic departments (Automatic Control and Systems Engineering, Chemical and Process Engineering, Engineering Materials, Information Studies, Mechanical Engineering).

Half way through the workshop the audience split into small groups in order to analyse a diverse range of case studies that presented ethical challenges to researchers. The cases presented scenarios that are relevant to engineering research. The purpose of the exercise was to heighten ethical sensitivity and illustrate the breadth of potential ethical challenges.

The six case studies are presented at Annex 1.

1

Research ethics workshop facilitated by the University Research Ethics Committee (UREC)

/ / / Professional integrity & ethics of engineering research
Annex 1: The six case studies

CASE STUDY 1: Acknowledgment / credit – The engineering work design competition

Engineer A is retained by a city to design a bridge as part of an elevated highway system. Engineer A then retains the services of Engineer B, a structural engineer with expertise in horizontal geometry, superstructure design and elevations to perform certain aspects of the design services. Engineer B designs the bridge's three curved welded plate girder spans which were critical elements of the bridge design.
Several months following completion of the bridge, Engineer A enters the bridge design into a national organization's bridge design competition. The bridge design wins a prize. However, the entry fails to credit Engineer B for his part of the design
  • Was it ethical for Engineer A to fail to give credit to Engineer B for his part in the design?
  • What should Engineer A do?
  • What should Engineer B do?

Participants made the following points about this case study (points are not listed in order of importance – all points have equal merit):

  • Participants explored the fact that legal and moral obligations did not necessarily coincide – e.g. it is possible that Engineer B assigned ownership of intellectual property over to Engineer A and his/her employing organisation, but were this the case then it might have been morally desirable or reasonable, however, for Engineer A to give credit to, or at least acknowledge, Engineer B’s contribution;
  • Participants considered whether the fact that Engineer B’s contribution was critical (i.e. because s/he designed ‘critical’ elements of the design) was the decisive factor determining that Engineer A should give credit to Engineer B;
  • Were credit to be given to Engineer B, it is possible that Engineer B might then have demanded greater credit or, indeed, first author status with credit being given to Engineer A;
  • Participants considered whether the fact that Engineer A won a prize increased the pressure on Engineer A to give credit to Engineer B – i.e. because a prize implies that Engineer A undertook the work entirely on his/her own;
  • The possibility was noted that Engineer A may have been seeking to fraudulently enhance his/her reputation;
  • The group felt that the responsibility lay with Engineer A to provide a written explanation of his/her actions;
  • The group suggested that Engineer A could write to Engineer A congratulating him/her on winning the prize and stating words to the effect that ‘I expect you recognised my contribution when accepting the prize’.

CASE STUDY 2: Doing research together – how much input can be expected from postgraduate students

Joe McGrath is a postgraduate student who will begin to write his master's thesis at the end of the term. Joe has worked extremely hard during his master's program, regularly working six or seven days a week. The effort has paid off. However, Joe already has four publications with two additional papers in preparation and, most importantly, a starting date for a new job at a small engineering company. The company is very excited to have hired Joe because they are starting a new initiative and need Joe's expertise to get the project off the ground. This situation puts Joe on a very tight time schedule to finish his last set of experiments and write his thesis, but the job is exactly what he had hoped for.It is Friday afternoon. For the past week, Joe has put his experiments on hold. Instead, he has been making graphs and figures for a presentation that Dr Smith, his supervisor, will be making at a conference the following Wednesday. Smith has requested specific figures based on data from experiments completed by Joe and his predecessors. At 3 p.m., Smith comes into Joe's office and says, "I hate to ask you to work on a weekend, but will you come in and work tomorrow? It is really important that the presentation is ready on Monday."
Joe hesitates. He was a bit taken aback by Smith's request, because he almost always comes into the lab Saturday mornings, "Isn't Smith aware of this after two years?" he asks himself. Furthermore, he had planned to start the last set of experiments he needs for his thesis, which he has been delaying all week.Finally, Joe replies, "Yes, I can come in and finish up these figures tomorrow." "Thanks, Joe," Smith says. "I really appreciate the fact that you have spent so much time compiling and analyzing the data collected by Dave and Frank, who left without finishing their degrees; without that information, the presentation would have been very thin. By the way, I've decided to list you as the fourth author on the presentation, because it was the other students who actually collected the data," Smith says. Although Joe feels disappointed that he will be listed as the last author on the presentation, he doesn't want to quibble about whether doing the data compilation and analysis was more significant than collecting the raw data.
After discussing a few more details about the presentation with Smith, Joe closes the conversation by saying, "Well, have a good evening and I'll see you tomorrow!" Smith stops as he is leaving the lab and replies with a surprised tone, "I'm not working tomorrow."
Should Joe spend Saturday making the figures for the presentation, or should he start his experiments as planned?
  • Is it appropriate for Smith to ask Joe to work on Saturday? Is it appropriate in light of the fact that Smith is not going to work? Are there valid reasons why Smith might ask Joe to work although he is not planning on working himself?
  • Would it seem less onerous a request to complete the figures and graphs at the sacrifice of his dissertation work if Joe were compiling and analyzing data from his own experiments rather than data from students who left the program?
  • What are the proper roles and responsibilities of graduate students in preparing presentations that include the entire research group's efforts?
  • What are appropriate criteria for authorship?
  • Is data collection always more significant than data compilation and analysis?
  • Should Joe ask to be placed higher on the list of authors? How should he approach Smith about his concerns?

Participants made the following points about this case study (points are not listed in order of importance – all points have equal merit):

  • The group made the following observations:

-The Supervisor (Dr Smith) needed to receive training on time management, good management and on supervisory skills (two PGR students, whom he had supervised, had already left without finishing their degrees);

-The student (Joe McGrath) was making the right choice in leaving to work for the small engineering company, given that the Supervisor was unreasonably demanding and a poor role model;

  • The group entered into a wider discussion about authorship (triggered by the fact that in the case study the Supervisor planned to name the student as fourth and last author, despite the fact that he was doing the data compilation and analysis & the second and third authors had left). It was noted that what constituted acceptable authorship practice differs from research discipline to discipline and, indeed, can differ between research groups/teams within the same academic department. The following points were made:

-In some disciplines and groups/teams the last author is actually recognised as having made the most contribution – the opposite is true for other disciplines and groups/teams;

-At CERN, given that it is often the case that individual researchers will contribute to research projects that can involve several hundred colleagues it is acceptable practice for all the researchers (i.e. 100s) to be listed (otherwise they would never have the opportunity to build up a track record of publications);

-Sometimes authorship practices need to be adapted to meet the expectations of different research funders;

-Members of promotion boards need to understand what stands as acceptable authorship practice within the research group, team or discipline of the researcher whose case for promotion is being considered.

CASE STUDY 3: Credibility and reputation – the ‘distinguished’ external examiner

A distinguished academic has been appointed as an external examiner at your University. He has published controversial research suggesting that the ecological quality of rivers and lakes would be safeguarded in a sustained way if a particular new chemical, called ‘AquaClean‘, were to be deliberately introduced into the water in a controlled, regulated manner.

You are a Pro Vice Chancellor and receive an anonymous letter stating that it is well known within the academic’s department at his institution that some of the data supporting the controversial research has been fabricated and that the research is directly linked with funding from an agropharmaceutical company called ‘Environmental Clean Solutions‘.

What should you do, if anything?

Participants made the following points about this case study (points are not listed in order of importance – all points have equal merit):

  • You should ask the academic to declare whether s/he has a potential conflict of interest or commitment.

CASE STUDY 4: Doing research together – the slave driver vs/ the lazy student

Eileen Patton, a fourth-year engineering student, has just been denied permission by her thesis committee to begin writing her thesis. In general, the committee considered her a strong Ph.D. candidate with good classroom and laboratory performance, but found a surprising absence of abstracts and papers. Citing this lack of publication, the committee advised her to focus on her project for at least another year before meeting again.
Patton is frustrated. She feels that she is ready to begin the dissertation, and she thinks her supervisor, Dr. Laura Santiago, is a slave driver who can never be satisfied. Patton's presentations at various biotech firms have been well received and have resulted in both research money and equipment, but none of her work has been published. Abstracts of her work presented at national conferences list her supervisor's name as first and presenting author. Santiago has asked her to write up her results on many occasions, but she has told Patton she will not submit the work without the approval of the industrial collaborators who are sponsoring the work.
Patton knows her department usually requires PhD candidates to have at least one first-author paper before a degree is granted. She feels her chances to graduate in a timely fashion and get a competitive position are severely diminished by her lack of publication. Patton and Santiago have experienced conflicts over Patton's numerous vacations and extracurricular activities, which Santiago regards as distractions and evidence of Patton's lack of dedication. In addition, Santiago has been unsuccessful in attracting new students the past two years, and Patton suspects she would like to delay her departure for as long as possible.
Santiago had an extremely successful post-doc. During her four years as associate professor, she has won numerous awards, and the head of her department has often publicly complimented her on her work ethic and commitment to research. Santiago's affiliation with various companies has attracted significant research funding and equipment that benefits her lab and the department as a whole.
Patton, her first graduate student, has been pushing her to submit manuscripts for publication. Santiago believes the work to date is good, but not enough has been done. If Patton would only focus on her work and put in more effort, Santiago is sure Patton could get more of the high quality data required.
Santiago doesn't want to jeopardize her fine reputation and funding by submitting inferior manuscripts. If Patton wants to graduate sooner, Santiago feels she can either start working harder or try to graduate without publishing. If the committee requires it, Santiago is prepared to continue supporting Patton until the time is right to publish, which, she admits, may still be two or three years in the future.
  • Are Santiago's standards unreasonable? Is Patton's work ethic lacking? What are some possible "objective" criteria for determining when a PhD has been completed? What, if anything, can the committee members do to resolve this conflict?
  • How could an institution prevent situations like this one? How can a department or institution encourage good supervisor/student relationships?
  • Santiago does not want to publish Patton's work because she feels that publication will not benefit her own career. What, if any, are her obligations to her students' careers?
  • Suppose Santiago's industrial collaborators do not want the work to be made public. How does that affect Santiago? How does it affect Patton? Does Santiago's relationship to industry have priority over her relationship to her students?

CASE STUDY 5: Energy policy

You are an independent consulting engineer specialising in advice on energy systems and energy policy for private companies and public organisations. The UK Department of Energy has given you a copy of an article from a major national newspaper and asked for your views on how this might affect national policy on energy provision over the next 30 years. Below is an extract from this article (which quotes the views of the distinguished scientist and inventor, James Lovelock, on energy, fossil fuels, nuclear power, and living things):
“...fossil fuels are literally beginning to cost the earth and meanwhile the Green campaigners are rejecting at least one easy answer to the great problem of how to power an economy without shutting down the biosphere with polluting greenhouse gases.
This answer, Lovelock says, is ecologically clean and tidy and has a very bad press. It is nuclear power. "I can envisage somewhere about 2050, when the greenhouse really begins to bite, when people will start looking back and saying: whose fault was all this? And they will settle on the Greens and say: 'if those damn people hadn't stopped us building nuclear power stations we wouldn't be in this mess'. And I think it is true. The real dangers to humanity and the ecosystems of the earth from nuclear power are almost negligible. You get things like Chernobyl but what happens? Thirty-odd brave firemen died who needn't have died but its general effect on the world population is almost negligible.
"What has it done to wildlife? All around Chernobyl, where people are not allowed to go because the ground is too radioactive, well, the wildlife doesn't care about radiation. It has come flooding in. It is one of the richest ecosystems in the region. And then they say: what shall we do with nuclear waste?" Lovelock has an answer for that, too. Stick it in some precious wilderness, he says. If you wanted to preserve the biodiversity of rainforest, drop pockets of nuclear waste into it to keep the developers out. The lifespans of the wild things might be shortened a bit, but the animals wouldn't know, or care. Natural selection would take care of the mutations. Life would go on.’”1
  • What steps would you take to protect yourself against possible accusations of unprofessional bias?
Source:
HOWARD, I., 2007, ‘Energy Policy’, Inter-Disciplinary Ethics Resources Database, Leeds: IDEA CETL University of Leeds [Accessed 29.06.09] Available from:

CASE STUDY 6: Authorship – the stolen paragraphs