| 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 The Integrity Officer put together a committee of faculty who were neither experts in gerontology nor colleagues of Phinney or Perlmutter. The committee planned to interview principals and review documents. Members of that committee were familiar with NSF grant proposals and with academic publication. This is the ethically required choice. Disciplinary expertise is not required for this review. It is important that the committee members not have a conflict of interest or commitment.
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.
|