First post: What did you discover about making good choices in The Lab? Was it easier or harder than you imagined? Argue from one of the following positions: What would someone like Pellegrino do in the The Lab? What would Kant or a Utilitarian do? What does ethics of care ask of you?
Second post: engage your peers in a compassionate but challenging dialogue and/or try to argue from a point of view you don't actually believe.
I was Kim the grad student who was working on her doctorate. I guess it was harder than I thought even though I only got one question "wrong". I chose to confront Greg. It said that that would tip him off and give him ample opportunity to cover his tracks. I then chose to do some research on who I should contact and then reported him after testing the waters with a hypothetical situation.
ReplyDeleteI think Pellegrino would have done what I initially did and confront Greg because the focus would be on his well being and we don't want him to get into anymore trouble than necessary. I believe that Pellegrino views most people as intrinsically good which is why given the result that I was given I don't think acting as Pellegrino in this situation would be helpful.
I also played as Kim and I think she might have been the hardest of them all. She was faced with one of the most difficult decisions of proving one of her colleagues had cheated the system. I think Kant would have taken the steps that I did in telling the official. Kant believed that we always have to make the decision that is right and most ethical. Even if it may not make everyone happy.
DeleteIn response to Katrina I feel like confronting Greg is a great Idea but not the right decision. The fact that Kim had proof of his false information makes her decision key. She could talk to Greg and he may convince her that he did it for her or something else he made up. Going to the official is most ethical because they are unbiased. They have no relation to the postdocs or students, so they can make the best decision for the most people.
I played as Kim as well and I will agree with Josh, I think out of all the characters she was in the toughest position. She is the lowest status worker in the lab, has the least experience yet it was her research that was falsified. Unlike all of the other characters, Kim had not yet completed her PhD and if this situation were to go wrong her entire career plan could be thrown off.
DeleteJust like Katrina I at first decided to confront Greg about the research, without even thinking he would go to the lengths to cover his tracks. In the end although Kim ended up setting her research back and losing friends she was able to confidently enter her career and had an experience with ethics that will likely only help her in the long run.
I was Dr. Aaron Hutchins, Principal Investigator. I discovered that making good choices in The Lab was harder than I originally thought. It was very stressful being in charge of the lab, while trying balancing my time between work and my family. I was able to make all the right choices and become a revered PI in the game.
ReplyDeleteI think an Utilitarian would report Kim’s suspicion to a research administrator, because it would minimize pain for the most amount of people. By reporting the suspicion, the lab doesn’t get as much bad publicity and doesn’t get shutdown. Therefore, turning over the suspicion, even though difficult, hurt the least amount of people.
For my second run through, I played Aaron as well. I personally think that his decisions were a little easier to make after playing Kim. The decisions that Aaron had to make in order to be revered successfully had a utilitarian focus which I agree with you (causing the least amount of damage possible). I felt like Kim's decisions may have had more weight behind them because she actually had to bring it forward and risk a bit more.
DeleteI can see Kim's decisions being harder, especially going against a colleague/friend. If I have time, I will try and play again, being her character.
DeleteI was Hardik Rao, a Post Doc. In some ways, making good decisions was both harder and easier than I had first expected. I found that I had more difficulty balancing the work versus life decisions than with the more ethical questions. I found that trying to balance how my actions affected my fictional marriage versus how it affected my fictional lab work was more troubling that just having clear cut right and wrong questions to answer.
ReplyDeleteFrom a Kantian persepctive, I was absolutely required to go with the Undergrad, Kim, to report Greg's falsified information. Since Greg was lying, and I knew someone had concrete knowledge of it, I needed to make sure that the ethical concern of the lying was addressed. Not to mention that, due to the Categorical Imperative, I would want everyone to not only be honest with their lab work, but also report it when someone is falsifying data, regardless of the the risk to their careers.
As Hardik, I also found that it was challenging to make the "right" decision as opposed to what decision seemed to work out better for me or what decision was more comfortable. It would have been easier to ignore the problems with Greg's research or cut corners to spend time with my wife but that wouldn't have worked out in the end and was not the ethical answer.
DeleteI believe that a virtue ethicist like Pellegrino would have also reported the falsified information given that they would want to uphold the virtues of integrity and honesty. I also think they would have avoided cutting corners given that hard work is also a virtue but they would need to be careful not to work so much that it would affect the wife because that could be considered vice excess.
I agree with you except you don't know why he is working so much. He could be spending all of his time at the lab to make money for his new son on the way. There could be other circumstances too, on why he isn't spending much time with his wife. He is going to be a father soon and will need to provide for his family. Maybe he sees it like this but his wife doesn't thats why there is conflict between the two of them so Hardik should explain this too his wife.
DeleteI also played as Hardik, and my first time through i ended up getting fired. I found the hardest part to be struggling to balance my personal and professional life. I struggling with convincing myself to restart the experiment multiple times, but on my second time through i found out that that was the best way to go. It was still difficult to say i had to restart the experiment 4 times, but the end result was worth it.
DeleteFrom a Kantian point of view, i think that I wouldve reported the falsified data right away. The categorical imperative would require it. I would not want to fall prey to incorrect data that was published. I would want to have any falsified data reported. In addition, I would keep restarting my experiment so that the data that i collected would not be false in any way. I think that by following the categorical imperative, you would reach the correct ending.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI was the postdoc, Hardik Rao, in the Lab game. The decisions most of the time were challenging because some were ethical then another one would be tempting. The hardest time to make the decisions is when if you made one choice it was risky and could ruin the experiment as a whole. He battled the whole time with getting his experiments done or having time to spend with his wife. The more he worked the less he saw his wife. It was hard sometimes to put your personal life over your work.
ReplyDeleteIn his situations a Utilitarian is going to make the best decision that will inflict the least harm on the most people. For instance, there was a situation where it asked if Hadiack would leave the lab early to to comfort his wife. In this situation the most ethical thing to do from the Utilitarian perspective is to scratch the experiment and go with his wife. The decision lessens the chance for faulty results on his experiment and also gives his wife the attention she needs.
I agree with you that the Utilitarian would leave because if he stayed at the lab he would have been either really distracted or even feel rushed that there could be a mistake in his data. There are some thing that need to be prioritized and the Utilitarianism point of view would see that a distraction could cause more harm than good if he stayed and tried to finish his research.
DeleteI played Kim the grad student and at first i thought i knew the right thing to do, until a got a question wrong. I chose to confront the situation with Greg because sometimes it is easier to handle things alone so they don't get out of hand. Little did i know it did, enough to cover up his wrong doings and get away with what he did. But then i chose to do more research and ask for advice which allowed me to learn more about the situation and have strong evidence and back up if a serious situation would of occurred.
ReplyDeleteI believe if this were Kant he would of done what i did and go to the head authorities. Kant believes we need to make the right decision that is also the most ethical. Regardless of the outcome of others around us, the right thing but be done.
I also played as Kim and got the same question wrong. I thought it would be best to talk to Greg because maybe it was a misunderstanding and he would fix the problem himself and no one else would have to get involved. However, it only helped him cover up his tracks and get away with what he did. I do see why I should have gone to the authorities instead of talking to Greg now.
DeleteI agree the Kant would have made a decision based on ethics but which is the more ethical situation with the knowledge you have. Get the authorities involved in a situation that is suspicious or approach the person who is suspicious of misconduct in hopes that it is a mistake. In the end the integrity is what would have made the decision since failing to do so would have caused problems for the lab and for your future as well.
DeleteI played Beth Ridgley who was a Research Integrity Officer. The decision I made in the beginning to let people know who I was helped to set the stones for those who needed someone to talk to if they have an allegation of someone. I also chose to meet the accuser right away and let her chose to talk and then answer any questions she had, doing it this way allowed her to tell her story and ask any additional questions she may need to know. When I was forced to choose between letting Greg take a day to gather his research or ask for it immediately, I chose immediately because I did not want to give him time to cover his tracks. When Hutchins found out what had happened, he kicked Kim out so I chose to go talk to him and explain what retaliation is and why you cannot do that.
ReplyDeleteThe Principles of Biomedical Ethics is what I used to get through this situation. I had to respect the autonomy of the people who needed help, the accused and myself. There had to be respect for others and a self determination for myself. I had to show beneficence, or the want to do good. I had to make decisions that may have been difficult, but were necessary in this case. Trying to be non-maleficent was difficult because a person can't always do good and no harm at the same time. In cases like these someone will be harmed in some way and it is my job as a RIO to reduce the amount of harm that happens. Finally I had to show justice or fairness to all parties involved.
I played Kim the grad student and found that it was harder than I expected. Like a lot of people, I also confronted Greg about the situation, thinking at the time that was the best thing to do. It could have been a misunderstanding and he could fix the problem without having to get others involved. I didn't think that could make the situation worse, but it did because he was able to cover his tracks and get away with it. I then had to start over and talk to the Research Integrity Officer about the problem. I said it was a hypothetical situation at first and then realized reporting Greg was the right thing to do. She did lose friends and ended up having to extend the time she would be doing research, but she did the right thing by reporting him. I think a utilitarian would have went straight to the authorities because it would result in the least amount of pain for the most people. The lab wouldn't get shut down so many people wouldn't lose their jobs and students could continue doing their research to further their education. Reporting Greg, although it wasn't as easy as you would think, was the right thing to do.
ReplyDeleteI played Hardik the Post Doc, I found it very hard to make the right choice it seemed like every choice I made was not the right one. Most of the decisions that i found troubling were the ones that were what to do with your family. Whether that be to go out with your family for dinner or to go back to the lab. I usually chose to spend time with family and it seemed like it wanted you to go back to the lab and finish what you started. I feel like it would be different if it was someone else who was getting results and Hardik wasn't getting the results like his peers were.
ReplyDeleteFrom the Kantian perspective the falsified information would have to be reported to administration and too the PI. This is what would be seen by Kim and she would have to be the one reporting this. Kant sees that when there a wrong doing something has to be done about it.
I played as Kim and I think she was in the hardest position since the allegations were made by her and that would cause the most backlash since she had a direct connection to the problem. I think Pellegrino would have confronted Greg about the mismatched data in order to preserve his reputation and prevent as little harm to him or yourself as possible. Pellegrino initially views people as inherently good but in the given situation it would cause more harm than good since it could cause leads to go cold and give the person time to cover their tracks
ReplyDeleteI also played as Kim and looking back at it she really was in the hardest position. Especially since she was really trying to do the right thing and that still failed her.
DeleteI played as Hardik Rao and I thought the decisions were fairly easy. I felt he did not have many major decisions except when it came down to deciding whether or not to expose his coworker. He was rather a boring character to play as, and it was difficult to really get into his mindset. From a utilitarian perspective, I believe the correct thing to do was to expose his coworker and the false results he published. The coworker was causing harm by publishing his fake result. Exposing the coworker causes harm as well, but the least amount of harm comes from mitigating the damage that would have been caused if the results were published since the lab would have been shut down.
ReplyDeleteI played as Kim, this lab was harder than I originally thought it would especially with the different decisions that had to be made. I decided to make a decision I would make in life and that was to confront Greg with honesty. This ended up making things a lot worse. Now I had to think of ways that wuld fix the problem. Kim ended up having to use more time to do research to find out a way to fix the problem. Like Kant would say do the right thing or ethical thing and that is what what was done, even though it took time to get it back right.
ReplyDeleteI played as Aaron and I felt as if the decisions were difficult as times but as long as you took a utilitarianism point of view you could typically make the right decisions. Causing the least amount of pain and the greatest good was the main focus while playing as Aaron.
ReplyDelete