1. The retraction did harm Chandok’s ability to pursue a career in science.

Do you think
Klessig should have retracted the article published in Cell without conclusive evidence that
Chandok had fabricated the results? Explain.

I think that the decision to retract the article published in Cell was the best choice in this
situation because since they could not conclude if the information was correct because of
Chandok’s resistance to return, they should not give out scientific data that could possibly be
incorrect.

2. Do you think Chandok had a moral obligation to return to the laboratory at Klessigs
request to replicate her results? Why or why not?

I think that Chandok had a moral obligation to return to the laboratory and replicate her
results because of her original commitment to the project. Being in the scientific community, she
knew how important the data could be to other scientists, so by not returning to confirm her
results she was being careless.

3. If the article had been published in a less prominent journal and the results were of
much less significance, do you think this would have altered the decision to retract the
publication? Explain.

I think that if the article had been published in a less prominent journal and contained less
significant results, the decision to retract the article would be different. Since the information
wasn’t as vital or important, the researchers might have published it since it wouldn’t be read by
many people, or be harmful to anyone or the environment if it had happened to be incorrect.
They may have thought that it would not affect anyone even if it wasn’t the correct data, so the
decision would be changed to publish the article regardless.

4. Klessigs decision to retract the article was based only on the inability of his laboratory
to replicate Chandok’s results, not specifically on the credibility of her character. Do you think
Chandok was ethically justified in suing for defamation? Why or why not?

I think that Chandok was not ethically justified to sue for defamation because even
though her reputation had been compromised, the article was retracted in the best interest of the
scientific community and her group of researchers. The decision to retract the information was
the best route in this situation because it could have been possibly harmful information if it was
incorrect without confirmation. This decision was not out of interest for damaging Chadoks
career, solely to protect others and their group from possible controversy.
 5. There were four authors on the Cell paper, including Klessig and Chandok. If another
of the authors besides Chandok also opposed the decision to retract the article, should this
have changed whether or not Klessig should have gone ahead with the retraction? Why or
why not?

I think that Klessig should have tried to compromise with the research team or thought of
other ideas instead of going with a decision that not everyone completely agreed on. Although it
was the right decision in my opinion, the researchers also had a say in what happened to the
article they contributed to. It was also their work, not just Klessig’s. In making this decision,
Klessig could have worked together in his team to figure out what to do regarding the opposing
opinions on what should happen to the article.

6. In collaborative research projects involving multiple authors or researchers, how

should responsibility ideally and ethically be shared? How would you approach collaboration in
this situation?

In this type of project, the responsibility should be shared equally and fairly among all
researchers. Each team member contributed to the article, therefore they should be able to have
the freedom to express their concerns, opinions, and ideas regarding it. I would approach
collaboration in this situation by making sure that everyone's responsibility was shared equally
across the research. The other researchers who were opposed to retracting the article were valid,
just as those who wanted to retract it were, too. A possible solution could have been a group
consensus, or outweighed votes between each other.

7. If Klessig had no reason to doubt Chandok’s abilities or honesty, would he have a

moral obligation to write letters of recommendation for her explaining that his retraction did not
in any way reflect on her potential to do quality research and be a significant asset to whatever
laboratory or institute she joined? Why or why not?

I think that if he had no reason to doubt Chandoks abilities or honesty, it would have been
morally correct to help her since her reputation was compromised in the scientific community. If
he had no reason to doubt her then the recommendations would have been genuine as she would
not be liable for the corrupted study.