Trends 4:3 (August 1997)

Scientists Say There's No Easy Way to Handle Lab Conflicts

Preventive Ethics

[Reprinted from Research Integrity (a semi-annual newsletter from Michigan State University), Spring 1997, 1(3):2-3.]

The 1997 Michigan State University-Wide Symposium on Research Ethics, held April 23, focused on "Preventive Ethics." In a 1993 article in The Journal of Clinical Ethics, Lachlan Forrow, Robert M. Arnold, and Lisa S. Parker draw a rough analogy between preventive medicine and what they called preventive ethics. The fundamental idea is simple: Minor problems left unattended are likely to grow into major problems. This holds true in health care, in clinical ethics, and in the responsible conduct of scientific research.

People who have to deal with allegations of misconduct in science, including MSU's University Intellectual Integrity Officer David E. Wright, have observed that in most cases of unethical research, warning signs are visible early to the discerning observer. Cases involving intellectual property, for example, often become heated only after a long period of collaborators' simmering over real or imagined disagreements or power struggles.

Imagine two collaborators with different work styles who want to take their research in different directions. Collaborator A tends to be more circumspect in drawing conclusions, is willing to publish results only after extremely careful consideration, and is really interested only in basic research. B, on the other hand, wants to pursue an aggressive and fast-paced research agenda with a clear applied component and wants immediately to develop ties to industry. Furthermore, A sees B as pushy and imperious, while B sees A as parochial and timid.

If these differences are allowed to fester, a problem is likely to develop. B will accuse A of dragging things out; A will accuse B of sloppy science motivated by greed. One can easily imagine any number of actions that either of the collaborators could take that would give rise to an accusation of research misconduct from the other.

If, however, the conflict is noticed early, it would probably be possible to forestall an ugly fight. It might be wise for these two not to work with each other at all. Or it might be possible for them to agree on an explicit research strategy for a specified period of time -- say five years -- with definite plans for how decisions will be made, credit shared, and the like, as well as specifications for how the collaboration will be dissolved or renewed.

Different styles can be an asset or a liability. If A and B try to keep quiet about their very real differences, perhaps grumbling to themselves that they wish the other would be "reasonable," they are headed for trouble. But people with different work styles often complement and strengthen each other, making for a stronger team, if they acknowledge their differences and think carefully about how to manage disagreements.

Whenever people work together, as in science, competing interests are at stake. But within a given lab or department, science does not have to be a zero-sum game, where every win for one person involves a loss for another. "Preventive ethics" does not call for an assumption that your colleagues are likely to act unethically if given a chance; rather it calls for an awareness that minor conflicts are inevitable, but major conflicts can often be av° the minor ones are not allowed to fester.

An Electronic Conference of Interest

This list is designed to discuss the ethical, legal and policy implications of the Genome Project and its clinical applications. Appropriate topics will include, among others:

• Evolving legislative solutions to genetic discrimination.
• Expected changes in health care delivery as a result of the growing body of knowledge on the genetic basis of medical disorders, including the possible influence on minorities and the refusal to cover expensive genetic therapies.
• Influence of the genetic discoveries on the deterministic view of medicine and the possible responses to this trend.

While case studies related to clinical applications could be mentioned, any particulars or personal data should not be discussed on this public forum. Participants should have an active interest in basic scientific research, clinical applications of genetic discoveries or in genetic counseling. This list is part of a group of lists sponsored by ACOR, the Association of Cancer Online Resources (http://www.acor.org).

To subscribe to GEN-ETHICS, send the command

SUB GEN-ETHICS your name

to listserv@acor.org via a mail message (as the first line in the body of the message, not the subject line). For example:

SUB GEN-ETHICS John Doe

Last updated: 08 August 1997
URL: http://www.indiana.edu/~poynter/tre4-3.html
Comments: pimple@indiana.edu
Copyright 1997, The Trustees of Indiana University