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?