Remember to try as many alternatives as you can within each case study presented in this course.

Click this link
to close this window and return to the course once you have completed the case study.

 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 initiated an inquiry and compelled Dr. Phinney to come forward with her complaints.

This choice is ethically prohibited. Decisions about how to review allegations and when to launch a full inquiry should be determined by the Research Integrity Officer. Compelling Dr. Phinney to make the complaint publicly violates the Whistleblower's Protection Act.

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.