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:

1. 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.
2. The findings were then published in 4 different papers.
3. 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
4. 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.
5. He would also report that he had the proper training for the personnel conducting the study, but in reality had never obtained the training.
6. Because of the falsification the data was skewed even more because subjects were included in the trials that did not meet the required criteria.
7. 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.
8. 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:

1. Do you think he knew on some level that he might get caught?
2. Do you think he changed that data because he just needed to document what he already knew?
3. 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?
4. What do you think his finding would have meant for patients seeking treatment for clinical issues involved in the trials?
   
5. 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?