Ethical decision-making and role conflict in managing a scientific laboratory

ABSTRACT

Scientists who manage research laboratories often face ethical dilemmas related to conflicts between their different roles, such as researcher, mentor, entrepreneur, and manager. It is not known how often uncertainty about conflicting role obligations leads scientists to engage in unethical conduct, but this probably occurs more often than many people would like to think. In this paper, we reflect on ethical decision-making in scientific laboratory management with special attention to how different roles create conflicting obligations and expectations that may produce moral uncertainty and lead to violations of research norms, especially when combined with self-interest and other factors that increase the risk of misbehavior. We also offer some suggestions and guidance for investigators and research institutions.

KEYWORDS:

• laboratory management
• ethics
• role obligations
• decision-making

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1. We will use the term “laboratory” to refer to groups of scientists working together on various projects. Although most people associate the word “laboratory” with a room or building, laboratories are not limited to any specific location. We define laboratories socially, not physically.

2. It is also important to note that about half of the postdoctoral trainees in the US are foreign nationals who are at risk of not having their visas renewed if their funding expires (Lepkowski 2000).

3. ORI oversees research funded by the Public Health Service, including research conducted or supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

4. Following Schneider, Ehrhart, and Macey (2013), we define the organizational climate of a research environment as “the shared perceptions of and the meaning attached to the policies, practices, and procedures employees experience and the behaviors they observe getting rewarded and that are supported and expected,” and the culture as “shared basic assumptions, values, and beliefs that characterize a setting and are taught to newcomers as the proper way to think and feel, communicated by the myths and stories people tell about how the organization came to be the way it is as it solved problems associated with external adaptation and internal integration (Schneider, Ehrhart, and Macey 2013, 361).”

5. Scientific integrity refers to integrity throughout the process of funding, conducting, managing, and communicating the results of science. Research integrity is a subset of scientific integrity that pertains specifically to integrity in research (National Science and Technology Council 2023).

6. The National High School Journal of Science (2023) is journal for high school students.

7. Some of the authors of this paper feel that the word “entrepreneur” is not entirely apt because it may overstate the analogy between science and business. “Chief executive officer of a small business” is an alternative term that also captures what we have in mind, but it is more of a mouthful.

8. We use the term “principal investigator” to refer to a scientist who oversees their own laboratory. Although this term is usually associated within someone who is awarded and oversees a specific government grant or contract (National Institutes of Health 2023c), we use the term more broadly.

9. “Soft money” means salary support that is covered by external funding rather than an institution’s budget (Barinaga 2000).

10. Although people often use “ethical” and “moral” to mean the same thing, in this paper we shall use “moral” to refer to general, obligations that all members of society have, such as the obligation to not harm others or to tell the truth (Timmons 2002).

11. NIH conflict of interest policies prohibit scientists from reviewing grant proposals submitted by students they have mentored within the last three years (National Institutes of Health 2018). A scientist who is asked to review a grant proposal from a student they mentored five years ago would not be prohibited from reviewing the proposal under NIH rules, but the scientist might still decide that they could not give an impartial review under the circumstances.

12. The actual percentage of scientists who engage in this behavior may be much higher than 2.4% because people may be unwilling to admit to unethical conduct on even a confidential survey.

13. It is also worth noting that two prominent books on laboratory management do cover ethical issues (Barker 2010; Harmening 2012).

Additional information

Funding

This research was supported by the Intramural Program of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). It does not represent the views of the NIH or US government.