Phan Minh Duy
Senior Member
Những vấn đề đạo lý và bản quyền trong khoa
The Diane Archer Case
Professor Diane Archer is a tenured member of a biology department at a major Midwestern
university. She has been in the department for 15 years, and during that time she has supervised
the work of 20 Ph.D. students. As part of the mentoring process, she has worked closely with her
students, teaching them the ropes of writing grant proposals and on occasion inviting students to
assist her in reviewing NIH grant applications.
Professor Archer is currently in her last year on an NIH study section. As she is reviewing a
group of proposals, she comes upon one written by Charlie West, a former graduate student of
one of her close departmental colleagues. Archer knows and remembers Charlie West because she
had solicited his help two years earlier in reviewing a proposal closely related to West’s own area
of research. As she now reads West’s proposal, Archer is impressed with the scientific soundness
and fine writing style in the Background section. She notes, however, the extremely terse and
awkward phrasing in the Research Design and Methods.
Perplexed by this shift in style, Archer retrieves from her files the grant proposal West had
reviewed with her two years earlier. She is dismayed to see that West has used verbatim virtually
the entire Background section of the earlier proposal for his own current proposal.
Archer is torn. If she reports her discovery of West’s plagiarism to the NIH, she knows she
will have thrown this young scientist’s otherwise promising scientific career into jeopardy. If,
however, she says nothing, she will be shirking her responsibility to the NIH, as well as risking her
own professional reputation, should the plagiarism be detected later.
She decides to contact West directly, and confront him with her finding. She plans to advise
West that what he has done constitutes plagiarism and suggest to him that he withdraw the proposal.
If West agrees, and withdraws the grant application, Archer feels she need take this incident
no further.
Should Archer proceed with her plan to contact West? Why or why not?
Reprinted from Muriel J. Bebeau, et al., Moral Reasoning in Scientific Research: Cases for Teaching and Assessment. Bloomington, Indiana: Poynter Center (1995). This case maybe reproduced, unaltered, and used without permission for non-profit educational use. Copyright (C) 1995 by Indiana University; all rights reserved.
[hr:b1ffea3184]
Mời mọi người tham gia thảo luận tiếp case thứ hai này. Hi vọng sẽ có nhiều ý kiến tranh luận hấp dẫn.
The Diane Archer Case
Professor Diane Archer is a tenured member of a biology department at a major Midwestern
university. She has been in the department for 15 years, and during that time she has supervised
the work of 20 Ph.D. students. As part of the mentoring process, she has worked closely with her
students, teaching them the ropes of writing grant proposals and on occasion inviting students to
assist her in reviewing NIH grant applications.
Professor Archer is currently in her last year on an NIH study section. As she is reviewing a
group of proposals, she comes upon one written by Charlie West, a former graduate student of
one of her close departmental colleagues. Archer knows and remembers Charlie West because she
had solicited his help two years earlier in reviewing a proposal closely related to West’s own area
of research. As she now reads West’s proposal, Archer is impressed with the scientific soundness
and fine writing style in the Background section. She notes, however, the extremely terse and
awkward phrasing in the Research Design and Methods.
Perplexed by this shift in style, Archer retrieves from her files the grant proposal West had
reviewed with her two years earlier. She is dismayed to see that West has used verbatim virtually
the entire Background section of the earlier proposal for his own current proposal.
Archer is torn. If she reports her discovery of West’s plagiarism to the NIH, she knows she
will have thrown this young scientist’s otherwise promising scientific career into jeopardy. If,
however, she says nothing, she will be shirking her responsibility to the NIH, as well as risking her
own professional reputation, should the plagiarism be detected later.
She decides to contact West directly, and confront him with her finding. She plans to advise
West that what he has done constitutes plagiarism and suggest to him that he withdraw the proposal.
If West agrees, and withdraws the grant application, Archer feels she need take this incident
no further.
Should Archer proceed with her plan to contact West? Why or why not?
Reprinted from Muriel J. Bebeau, et al., Moral Reasoning in Scientific Research: Cases for Teaching and Assessment. Bloomington, Indiana: Poynter Center (1995). This case maybe reproduced, unaltered, and used without permission for non-profit educational use. Copyright (C) 1995 by Indiana University; all rights reserved.
[hr:b1ffea3184]
Mời mọi người tham gia thảo luận tiếp case thứ hai này. Hi vọng sẽ có nhiều ý kiến tranh luận hấp dẫn.
