Fabrication in a Grant Proposal
Fabrication in a Grant Proposal
Case Study 04: Fabrication in a Grant Proposal , CFP, Contingency Funding Plan
Natsuki, who has just finished his first year of graduate school, is applying to the National Science Foundation for a predoctoral fellowship. His work in a lab where he did a rotation project was later carried on successfully by others, and it appears that a manuscript will be prepared for publication by the end of the summer. However, the fellowship application deadline is June 1, and Natsuki decides it would be advantageous to list a publication as “submitted” rather than “in progress.” Without consulting the faculty member or other colleagues involved, Natsuki makes up a title and author list for a “submitted” paper and cites it in his application.
After the application has been mailed, a lab member sees it and goes to the faculty member to ask about the “submitted” manuscript. Natsuki admits to fabricating the submission of the paper but explains his actions by saying that he thought the practice was not uncommon in science. The faculty members in Natsuki’s department demand that he withdraw his grant proposal and dismiss him from the graduate program.
1.Do you think that researchers often exaggerate the publication status of their work in written materials?
2.Do you think the department acted too harshly in dismissing Natsuki from the graduate program?
3.If Natsuki later applied to a graduate program at another institution, does that institution have the right to know what happened?
4.What were Natsuki’s adviser’s responsibilities in reviewing the application before it was submitted?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Japanese edition: Research_Ethics04.html
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Grant Writing Process !!!
Source: https://fundopp.uci.edu/grant-writing/
& Grant
Proposals (or Give me the money!) from https://writingcenter.unc.edu/
Notes: This case example is cited and codified from "US National
Academy of Sciences, On Being a
Scientist: A Guide to Responsible Conduct in Research: Third
Edition, 2009."
|
Hints for thinking (by Ikeda), Draft. If you feel the severity of Natsuki's punishment and think that the graduate school's approach is too harsh, it is possible that Natsuki does not fully understand the "principle of integrity" in the field of scientific research. Please read "The Three Axioms of Research Ethics" carefully once again. Natsuki has too little understanding of the fundamental difference between the two actions of preparing for and during submission. Why is that? When you are submitting a manuscript, you send it to the editorial office of a journal or other publication, and there is "proof" of receipt of the manuscript in the form of e-mail, registered mail, or courier service. On the other hand, you can call yourself "preparing for submission" even if you haven't written a single word of your manuscript yet, and even if you have very little experimental data. This means that "preparing for submission" has no social meaning beyond that you are thinking about it most of the time. Even if we cannot distinguish between these two categories, Natsuki is simply telling a lie. An organization that tolerates lying is admitting to lying, and it is severe to be punished for it. The same is true for plagiarism. Plagiarism is the act of stealing the ideas and arguments of others without warning. The same is true for plagiarism. The reason for not responding to the inquiry is from the perspective of "protection of privacy," but the former graduate school does not have to provide the other graduate school with information to explain why he was expelled. However, considering that Natsuki once committed a breach of trust against a group of researchers, responding to the inquiry may be more important than protecting Natsuki's privacy. More than that, Natsuki should not be allowed to lie to the new graduate school he applied to when they become suspicious about what happened at the previous university and ask him to explain. In light of the above, please realize that the cost of lying in research is much greater than expected, even if you think it is okay because it is minor and no one knows about it.Actually any kind of institution tends to hold self-defending attitude (ethos) , you REMIND this aspect. This story (anecdote) may be the teaching lesson for all FUTURE scientist. |
Links
Bibliography
other informatons
Copyleft, CC, Mitzub'ixi Quq Chi'j, 1997-2099
