Introduction of Research (Institute Module)

Ethics in Research: Topic: Summary of learning from the Interactive movie "The Lab"

Submitted by: HS20D020

The interactive module provides opportunity to role play for different characters placed in a
lab in four different distinct research roles. Initially there a tutorial that helps you to make the
choice of the role you want to take up. The four roles are
1. Beth Ridley the research integrity officer
2. Ken Park a graduate student
3. Dr Aaron Hutchins principal investigator
4. Hardik Rao postdoctoral

I chose the role of the PI as I myself play this role in my own research work at my place of
work in a development research organisation. My learnings are presented along the course
of the game and the choices and consequence flow.

The story begins when reporters are accosting the director of the university regarding certain
reports of research misconduct as alleged by other University or lab regarding a celebrated
research on the treatment of diabetes that was falsified or that had falsified records and does
not appear to be conducted within the search principles. All four characters are seen
listening to the news about this.

The consequences of unethical practice in research that could have occurred when the
young researcher admitting to falsified research after 9 months are the following
The general council asking for a review of all the research work that came out by the
research group
a withdrawal of the endowment to the lab
dismissal of the PI
an uncertain future for all of the researchers who were working in the lab.

The game asks one to play the role of either one of the characters so that there is an
opportunity to prevent the above set consequences for the lab and the group and for the
research work

Scenario: The PI is a full professor in the physiology lab and has got wife and kids. His work
responsibilities include the leading research projects, teaching students, attending
conferences and writing grant proposals. His research peers also often keep in touch with
them and keep inviting him for conferences and he is under constant pressure to attend
these conferences so as to not miss any opportunities for funding and also keep up his
visibility
He is in touch with his mentor and his previous PI Dr Hamid Ali who catches up with him for
monthly meetings or lunch meetings.

Situation: In one of the meetings one of the post doc walks in and appears to be really tired
the options given are whether to ask the post doc to go home or continue working
I chose asking him to go home
This is a good decision because he can take better care of himself and it also reinforces
good working habits which is important in research

Aaron is working on a research proposal he has resistance “begging for money” and
“curbing creativity of science”
Dr Ali advices spending more time in lab and cutting meetings the importance of active
engagement with the team is to build trust and identify potential problems

There are two suggestions: which are learnings here

1. Mentoring.
Effective mentoring can be a tool in in not only keeping people motivated but also in
preventing research misconduct
2. Monitoring; whereby there is a leading by example for code of conduct of behaviour
and cross checking your data with the data presented in various kinds of
documentation including data tables figures communication materials like blogs grant
proposals papers posters excetra.

Situation: The next day one of his junior year graduate researcher KIM asks for his attention
to a low priority research piece.
There are two choices presented: talk to her and or not.

I chose talking to her.

This is a good choice because working with graduate is crucial as a PI needs to engage
constantly with the researchers at all levels of the hierarchy to motivate and monitor

Situation: At home he is under pressure for because he is he doesn't have time to spend
with his family but he is reminded that his mentor Hamid Ali has established in self and
doesn't have to be chasing awards

Learning: PI is body of work is not just publications and awards but also the researches that
mentors

Situation: The next choice provided is at Steve a grad student interrupts the research and
looks troubled.
The options given are whether to meet or not to
The choice I made is to meet with the researcher
The researcher wants to leave and is under the pressure of research and Publication. The PI
motivates him by speaking to him about his experience and Steve decides to stay on.
The learning: The PI affects the life of juniors and needs to find time to motivate and engage

Situation: The next choice Kim Park wants to speak to him to bring to notice that Greg has in
a paper in which he is first author and she is the co-author made some falsification.

On inspection: the numbers don't seem to match. Aron supports Greg and ask her to be
grateful. Kim shows the data and it and the data does look problematic

There are two options check or not check

I chose check so it appears that there is a mismatch between the data and the publication

There are two options again to choose the to contact the university integrity officer or o
internally deal the issue
I chose to meet the RIO
Consequences: The RIO and team interviewed Greg and looked into the data and Greg
confesses to having misappropriated the data

It ends with an embarrassing situation but the article was retracted and there was least
damage to the lab
Aron is changed now he is spending more time with the researches and mentoring them and
he has managed to keep his own self-respect and the labs name.
The takeways listed by the game in the choice modules are the following:

“Ethics are standards of behavior-how we ought to act as our best selves.

Ethical leaders help the people they work with to be their best selves. They put the needs of
science ahead of their own needs.”

The model used here illustrates the three main steps in the process.
I feel, I ask, and I act.

I Feel (Moral Awareness) This is intuitive about right or wrong.

I Ask (Moral Judgment) When you ask you get confirmation. You can check and see if there
is a moral issue.

I Act (Moral Action) This is based on making choices based on weighing the consequences
and research ethics.

All the actions taken by the PI are my core takeaways from the game. These include building
a work environment where trust and healthy habits are encouraged. Following instincts and
keeping in touch with advisors. Two tips that work well are mentoring and monitoring your
team at the same time. Then when an issue of ethics comes up take the highest ethical
action.