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

CASE STUDY: Expedience, Misrepresentation, or Falsification?

Apply for other funding to repeat the experiment. In the proposal, Dr. Leyos explains that the results are currently just shy of statistical significance, but does not give details about the earlier problems.

This choice is ethically permitted. Additional funds should be requested with explicit description of how those funds would be used. Withholding information about the laboratory's woes does not necessarily count as deception. Deceiving potential funders is ethically prohibited. However, it is a matter of convention as to how explicit Dr. Leyos would need to be about his previous problems. Choosing not to tell a potential funder about the freezer failure or the missing labels counts as deception only if Dr. Leyos has a duty to offer such information. Although Dr. Leyos would be ethically and legally required to report disconfirming data, these results he currently has are ambiguous, not disconfirming.

To try a different alternative, click this link.