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 Four: Professional Responsibility

CASE STUDY: Competition and Collaboration

The difference in the size of the labs justify Hinkly's substitution.

Intentionally sending Dr. Li the wrong ceramic alloy is ethically prohibited. The substitution may be classified, by the funding source, as "falsification," an example of research misconduct. The substitution is, at least, an example of a questionable research practice. Nothing justifies this kind of intentional deception.

END OF THIS CASE.

To repeat the case, click this link.