ethicsincompsci | My Answers to HWcase3, Q1

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://ori.hhs.gov/content/case-summary-neumeister-alexander

Eight important facts are:

The subject of the case is Alexander Neumeister, M.D. He was found to have falsified findings in a research study funded by 6 grants.
The findings were then published in 4 different papers.
An investigation was done by the New York University School of Medicine, Langone Medical Center as well as the Office of Research Integrity which found that Dr. Neumeister engaged in research misconduct in psychiatric clinical research
He was found to have combined data from multiple subjects into a single subject data so that the study would continue to receive funding, as well as manipulating data in other various forms to get the results he desired.
He would also report that he had the proper training for the personnel conducting the study, but in reality had never obtained the training.
Because of the falsification the data was skewed even more because subjects were included in the trials that did not meet the required criteria.
Neumeister agreed to a settlement and agreed to excuse himself for 2 years from any research projects starting in December 2019. And after the 2 year period is finished he agreed to be supervised on future projects and get approval before he is allowed to submit again.
He also excused himself from serving in any advisory position for the U.S. Public Health Service.

Five questions to ask about the case are:

Do you think he knew on some level that he might get caught?
Do you think he changed that data because he just needed to document what he already knew?
When he was changing or ordering data to be changed, do you think he was doing it because he believed it would help patients in his field? Or do you think it was to make a name for himself?
What do you think his finding would have meant for patients seeking treatment for clinical issues involved in the trials?
How do you think anyone learned of the misconduct in the first place? Do you think someone hacked the computers to obtain the research and then blew the whistle? Or could it have been leaked from inside? How could computer security have prevented either scenario?

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?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Q1: At first I do not think that he thought he would get caught, but when he did not, I bet he thought he could get away with more. This can be seen through his use of the data for 6 grants and paper publications. Considering that he only escaped with a supervision period of 2 years, I am surprised.

On some level he had to know he someone might find out as he didn't just use 1 paper but 4 different papers making it a little easier to find something wrong with his findings. This also explains why somehow he was able to settle rather than just receiving the punishment the University decided.

Virtue ethics suggests Alexander valued money or the grants more the research. His false findings allowed the funds to continue to be granted lacking any case for his character how this may make him look.

5: Based on our lab discussion, I'd assume that he was found out by a colleague and then sent to an RIO who came down with forensics to discover what the actual data was so they could stick him with misconduct. I also think that considering that another University was involved, someone tried replicating his results and could not, which led to contacting his university.

I don't think someone got illegitimate access to the computers, that very rarely happens and when it does it's usually for ransomware.

As I said previously, I believe it was probably leaked from the inside.

If the operating system securely erased deleted data (assuming it was erased) then it would have prevented forensics recovery of whatever data was removed assuming it was erased.

Good computer security also avoids illegitimate access.

Utilitarianism would possibly argue that if the results were of benefit to society, then Neumeister was right to alter his data. He also excused himself from serving in any advisory position, as well as settling - excusing himself for two years from any research project. He did the right thing in benefiting society, and taking himself out of the research pool knowing what he did was technically wrong (even if it did benefit society as a whole).

I don't know if he knew he would get caught, but he had to have known that it was very probable. While this is a bit of a leap, it might show that he had a lot of pride in himself since he did it even with the risk. If so, virtue ethics would condemn him all the more.

Of course, he knew. He took a risk to get ahead and hoped that it would never come to light. People like him always get caught down the line.

Edited 2022-10-11 01:36 (UTC)

I believe he knew. I think any time someone makes a decision to bend or break the rules, they're also acknowledging the risks that come along with it.

2. Do you think he changed that data because he just needed to document what he already knew?

I think he changed the data so he could secure more funding. He knew if he didn't show results then he would lose the ability to do his research so he lied about it.

Do you think he knew on some level that he might get caught? I do think he knew on some level that he might get caught. Because whenever a person does something that involves risks/getting caught, like in his case, they are probably thinking about the consequences in the back of their head.

Questions:
1. I believe he knew he would get caught at some point in time because there is no way that no others notice the false information.

4. If the tests were done correctly this might have saved a lot of people's lives in the future and made the people in the test trials feel a lot safe about what was going on.

7. THe utilitarianism of this case would be that he wanted to save others no matter the costs. This is a good way to think but at the same time put many people at risk as well as your career on the line.

How did they learn of the misconduct? If the subject was hacked and information was found that Alexander Neumeister was found to have falsified findings in a research study funded by 6 grants then that would be a case of deontology. I believe if he was hacked, the information being leaked is still justifiable.

My Answers to HWcase3, Q1

Reply to Question

Question 1

HWCase 3 Q2

My Answer to Utilitarianism for this Case

Answer to Question 1

Response to Question 1

no subject

Answer to Question 2

Answer to question

Homework Case 3 Q2

HWcase3 Q1