Return to Biostatistics Ethics Case Studies
(PLEASE NOTE: On the bottom of this page, you will find the case study we are discussing and the name of the contributor.)
TITLE Case Study:Ethical obligation to publish results?
Please add comments and then click on the "Add comment" button.
This seems like a very difficult situation, but I think that the ethics are clear. The statement, “The investigators then decided not to proceed with submission of this manuscript since it did not bode well for future grant applications,” appears to indicate a deliberate suppression of evidence in order to favor personal financial and career considerations over scientific progress. The investigators apparently intend to pursue certain lines of research despite having evidence that they are unlikely to be fruitful, knowing that if reviewers were aware of this evidence they would be unlikely to fund such research. If this is really the case, then I would say that the investigators who made this decision are planning to defraud future funders of their research. They might not have fully thought this through and might change their minds with a little more discussion, particularly if limitations and uncertainty can be fairly emphasized in the paper.
If not, then the situation becomes practically very difficult. Working on projects that are unlikely to be fruitful is very undesirable, as is working for people who seem to have questionable priorities, but resentment from colleagues and the risk of unemployment are also very hard to face. I would recommend looking into whistleblower protections (local and federal), which I think could be investigated anonymously or confidentially. I would also look for another position. I believe that there are many investigators who would value this person’s demonstration of scientific integrity and would understand the inability to get a recommendation from the current employer.
| Title_Biostatistics_Ethics_Case_Study || Ethical obligation to publish results? |
| Name_Case_Contributor || Shelley Hurwitz |
| Deidentified_Material || Yes |
| No_Copyright_Restrictions || Yes |
| Case_Presentation || This ethical dilemma was contributed by a master's level statistician on a large national interdisciplinary project. Of interest was genomic prediction of outcome. The statistician proposed and completed a sub-study to estimate an upper bound on the potential predictive accuracy of gene expression in this indication. As it turned out, gene expression added essentially no additional predictive accuracy beyond that obtained with a simple clinical score. The investigators then decided not to proceed with submission of this manuscript since it did not bode well for future grant applications. Does the statistician have an ethical responsibility to proceed with submission despite the potential personal and professional conflicts? |
| See Also || |
| Disclaimer || The views expressed within CTSpedia are those of the author and must not be taken to represent policy or guidance on the behalf of any organization or institution with which the author is affiliated. |
This topic: CTSpedia > WebHome
> StatEthicsCaseStudies >
Topic revision: 20 Sep 2013, MaryBanach
Copyright © by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Ideas, requests, problems regarding Foswiki? Send feedback