1. The retraction did harm Chandok’s ability to pursue a career in science. Do you thinkKlessig should have retracted the article published in Cell without conclusive evidence thatChandok had fabricated the results? Explain. 2. Do you think Chandok had a moral obligation to return to the laboratory at Klessigsrequest to replicate her results? Why or why not? 3. If the article had been
...[Show More]
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 thatChandok had fabricated the results? Explain.
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?
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. Klessigs decision to retract the article was based only on the inability of his laboratoryto replicate Chandok’s results, not specifically on the credibility of her character. Do you thinkChandok 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 anotherof 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 orwhy not?
6. In collaborative research projects involving multiple authors or researchers, how
should responsibility ideally and ethically be shared? How would you approach collaboration inthis 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 notin any way reflect on her potential to do quality research and be a significant asset to whateverlaboratory or institute she joined? Why or why not?
[Show Less]
