| 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 One: Ethical Issues in Research CASE STUDY: Crashing into Law The lawyer thanks Dr. Oleson for his hard work, reminds him of the confidentiality pledge, and offers to negotiate with Dr. Oleson what he might be willing to put in writing. What Dr. Oleson puts into writing will be discoverable by opposing counsel and the lawyer wants to make sure that he and Dr. Oleson agree ahead of time what will be written. Dr. Oleson agreed that he could write an opinion that some of the damage was not caused by the crash and that the damage was consistent with an explosion. Although he wasn't absolutely certain, Dr. Oleson felt comfortable stating that it was his opinion that some damage was consistent with an explosion rather than the crash. Sven was uncomfortable with Dr. Oleson's conclusion. He did not think that the model could accurately establish that the damage was caused by factors other than the crash. He argued that the model was not validated with the new input conditions and the model was not created to rule out damage, but rather to describe possible damage. Oleson replied, "I know the model isn't perfect. However, that is the problem for the defense. I told the lawyer that I could show evidence that is consistent with an explosion. Just print out the damage that the model didn't predict and let the lawyers worry about it." Click this link to continue with this alternative.
|