Case study 1

Refer to video: https://youtu.be/WZ2l89wEIwM

Retracting Research: The Case of Chandok v. Klessig

In 2003, a research team from prominent laboratory the Boyce Thompson Institute (BTI) for
Plant Research in Ithaca, New York published an article in the prestigious academic journal Cell.
It was considered a breakthrough paper in that it answered a major question in the field of plant
cell biology. The first author of this paper was postdoctoral researcher Meena Chandok, working
under her supervisor Daniel Klessig, president of BTI at the time.
After Chandok left BTI for another job, other researchers in the laboratory were unable to repeat
the results published in Cell, following exactly the same methods described in the article.
Klessig, suspecting possible scientific misconduct, requested Chandok to return to the laboratory
to redo her experiments and confirm the authenticity of her results, but she declined. An
institutional investigation into the experiment concluded there “was no conclusive evidence that
Dr. Chandok achieved the results reported,” but also that there was “no conclusive evidence” of
misconduct or that Chandok had fabricated the results. Klessig and the other co-authors retracted
the article without Chandok’s agreement. Chandok subsequently sued Klessig for defamation,
claiming the retraction had caused significant damage to her career and reputation within the
scientific community.
Over several years in court, the case drew attention to a number of issues in scientific research
and publishing. John Travis, an editor at Science magazine, wrote of the case’s consistency with
“the National Institutes of Health’s grant policy that researchers should come forward with
concerns about possible misconduct.” John Dahlberg, director of the Office of Research
Integrity’s Division of Investigative Oversight, believed the case could encourage anyone with
fear of being sued for defamation to come forward. Science writer Eugenie Reich described
Klessig as a “whistle-blower,” while philosopher Janet Stemwedel raised questions surrounding
the collaborative responsibility of the coauthors and Klessig with regard to quality control for the
research. She asked, “If credit is shared, why isn’t blame?”
In 2011, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York dismissed the case. It ruled
that Klessig’s statements were legally protected because they were “matters as to which the
speaker [had] a legal or moral obligation” to notify the journal that his laboratory could not
replicate the results they had published and were made between “communicants who [shared] a
common interest.” The court found there was no proof of malice toward Chandok and that the
investigation and attempts requesting Chandok to replicate her work left the question of
scientific misconduct open.
Discussion Questions

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

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.

4. Klessig’s 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?

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?
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?

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?
Case study 2

A research team from a prominent laboratory published an article in a prestigious academic

journal. It was considered a breakthrough paper that answered a major question in a scientific
field. Papers produced in a laboratory normally list many people in the laboratory as authors, but
the first named author is the primary person responsible for the paper. The first author of this
paper was a postdoctoral researcher, working under her supervisor at the time. After the
researcher left for another job, other researchers in the laboratory were unable to repeat the
results following exactly the same methods. The supervisor, suspecting possible scientific
misconduct, requested that the researcher return to the laboratory to redo her experiments and
confirm the authenticity of her results, but she declined. An institutional investigation into the
experiment concluded that there was no conclusive evidence that the results were actually
achieved, but also that there was no conclusive evidence of misconduct or fabrication. The article
was retracted without the researcher's agreement. The retraction damaged the researcher's career
and reputation in the scientific community.
Lecturer Guidelines

Did the researcher have an obligation to return to the laboratory to repeat the results? Why or
why not?
The decision to retract the article was based on two factors: the absence of records corroborating
the researcher's results and the laboratory's inability to repeat the results. Are those the right
standards to use?
Assume there were four authors on the paper, including the researcher and the supervisor. Should
the supervisor and the other authors also share responsibility for the retraction, and if yes on
what basis?
Case 2:

Refer the video: https://youtu.be/S_Hq509Vbzg

Cyber Harassment
In many ways, social media platforms have created great benefits for our societies by expanding
and diversifying the ways people communicate with each other, and yet these platforms also
have the power to cause harm. Posting hurtful messages about other people is a form of
harassment known as cyberbullying. Some acts of cyberbullying may not only be considered
slanderous, but also lead to serious consequences. In 2010, Rutgers University student Tyler
Clementi jumped to his death a few days after his roommate used a webcam to observe and tweet
about Tyler’s sexual encounter with another man. Jane Clementi, Tyler’s mother, stated, “In this
digital world, we need to teach our youngsters that their actions have consequences, that their
words have real power to hurt or to help. They must be encouraged to choose to build people up
and not tear them down.”

In 2013, Idalia Hernández Ramos, a middle school teacher in Mexico, was a victim of cyber
harassment. After discovering that one of her students tweeted that the teacher was a “bitch”
and a “whore,” Hernández confronted the girl during a lesson on social media etiquette.
Inquiring why the girl would post such hurtful messages that could harm the teacher’s
reputation, the student meekly replied that she was upset at the time. The teacher responded that
she was very upset by the student’s actions. Demanding a public apology in front of the class,
Hernández stated that she would not allow “young brats” to call her those names. Hernández
uploaded a video of this confrontation online, attracting much attention.

While Hernández was subject to cyber harassment, some felt she went too far by confronting the
student in the classroom and posting the video for the public to see, raising concerns over the
privacy and rights of the student. Sameer Hinduja, who writes for the Cyberbullying Research
Center, notes, “We do need to remain gracious and understanding towards teens when they
demonstrate immaturity.” Confronting instances of a teenager venting her anger may infringe
upon her basic rights to freedom of speech and expression. Yet, as Hinduja explains, teacher and
student were both perpetrators and victims of cyber harassment. All the concerns of both parties
must be considered and, as Hinduja wrote, “The worth of one’s dignity should not be on a
sliding scale depending on how old you are.”
Discussion Questions

1. In trying to teach the student a lesson about taking responsibility for her actions, did the
teacher go too far and become a bully? Why or why not? Does she deserve to be fired for her
actions?

2. What punishment does the student deserve? Why?

3. Who is the victim in this case? The teacher or the student? Was one victimized more than the
other? Explain.

4. Do victims have the right to defend themselves against bullies? What if they go through the
proper channels to report bullying and it doesn’t stop?

5. How should compassion play a role in judging other’s actions?

6. How are factors like age and gender used to “excuse” unethical behavior? (ie. “Boys will be
boys” or “She’s too young/old to understand that what she did is wrong”) Can you think of any
other factors that are sometimes used to excuse unethical behavior?

7. How is cyberbullying similar or different from face-to-face bullying? Is one more harmful
than the other? Explain.

8. Do you know anyone who has been the victim of cyber-bullying? What types of harm did this
person experience?
Why or why not? Does she deserve to be fired for her actions?

Case:
After discovering that one of her students tweeted foul language about her, a school teacher
confronted the teenager during a lesson on social media etiquette. Inquiring why the student
would post such hurtful messages that could harm the teacher's reputation, the student replied
that she was upset at the time. The teacher responded that she was very upset by the student's
actions. The teacher demanded a public apology in front of the class, and the student apologized.
The teacher later stated that she would not allow young brats to call her those names.

Answer the following:

  Was the student behavior wrong, and if yes, why?
 Next, what are the teacher's goals in this situation?
 How should the teacher have addressed the misbehavior?
 Should the teacher have excused the student's action, or taken a different approach?
 If the teacher's actions are wrong, why is that? Is cyberbullying different from face to
face bullying, and if yes, how?
 How should teachers as a profession treat student misbehaviour like this?
 Should teachers have a standard that they should follow, or should they be allowed to
exercise their discretion?

Reference: https://www.unodc.org/e4j/en/integrity-ethics/module-14/exercises/a-case-
studies.html