| Remember to try as many alternatives as you can within each case study presented in this course.
Click this link |
O N L I N E R E S E A R C H E T H I C S C O U R S E Section Three: Institutional Responsibility CASE STUDY: Expensive Lesson Dr. Adelman said that there was no basis for concern and reminded you to keep quiet about your suspicions. This response is ethically prohibited. While faculty are, at least, strongly encouraged to report instances of possible misconduct, administrators have an ethical responsibility to have allegations reviewed. If Dr. Adelman has a potential conflict of interest or commitment, he should refer the matter to the Research Integrity Officer.
The outcome of the real case is that Dr. Phinney was compelled to go public with her accusation and was not protected against retaliation. In 1993, the Washtenaw County Circuit Court found that Dr. Adelman violated the Whistleblower's Protection Act and Dr. Perlmutter committed fraud. The court ordered the University of Michigan to pay Dr. Phinney $1.1 million in damages. That verdict was upheld by the Michigan Court of Appeals, which added an additional $250,000 interest due.
END OF THIS CASE. To try a different alternative, click this link.
|