Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2015 Sep 22.
Published in final edited form as: Acad Med. 2010 Mar;85(3):519–526. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181cd1cc5

Chart 1.

Example Item from Ethical Decision-Making Measure (Biological Science)*

Scenario†
Bowers’s laboratory investigates mechanisms of synaptic plasticity using long-term potentiation (LTP) in hippocampal slices. The mechanisms under study include pre- and postsynaptic processes and a newer possibility, modulation by glial cells. He maintains a highly competitive atmosphere, rewarding the most productive members of the team with authorships and fellowship bonuses. All three postdoctoral students in the lab are productive, but Stanek has scored the greatest number of successes, including the linking of astrocyte membrane depolarizations to the establishment and persistence of LTP.
Ethical Problem
Stanek has experienced a few disasters recently—an inability to maintain viable slices, breakdowns in recording equipment—that he is unable to explain. He has no proof, but suspects that another post doc, Clements, has tampered with the preparations when he was out of the lab. Clements seems envious of Stanek’s success and he has heard rumors that Clements sabotaged his colleagues as a graduate student. One of the other postdocs, Minnis, who herself has had a run of low productivity, has urged Stanek to take some sort of action. What should he do?
Response Options
Choose two from the following:

  1. Confront Clements about the situation face-to-face

  2. Confront Clements in the weekly lab meeting

  3. Relate his suspicions to Bowers and agree on how to proceed

  4. Together with the other postdocs, lay a trap to catch Clements in the act

  5. Try to push Clements out of the lab through innuendo and rumor

  6. Retaliate in kind by contaminating the glutamate analogues Clements uses in his research

  7. Try to obtain further documentation of Clements’s tactics by writing to his Ph.D. advisor, inquiring if there could be any truth to past rumors and current suspicions

  8. Be cautious and wait for more convincing evidence to appear before acting

*

This example is one of 36 research scenarios used as part of the ethical decision-making measure developed and validated by Mumford and colleagues.11, 15,17 The measure assessed ethical decision making in relation to four major dimensions of ethical behavior, specifically data management, study conduct, professional practices, and business practices.12 All case events and characters are fictitious.

†

Headings added for clarification.