ESPAÑOL, MARK TRISTAN DC.

OCTOBER 17, 2019

201813478 – ChE 201 CHEMICAL ENGG ORIENTATION, 51089

CASE STUDY 1: INHIBITED REACTION

Dr. Naseer is a chemical engineering professor at the University of Eastlands. Traditionally,
various professors from diverse institutions would visit Eastlands to learn about research
conducted by the University’s scholars as well as explore potential collaboration. Last month,
Dr. Naseer discovered that his department would be hosting a famous chemical engineering
professor, Dr. Alston.
During his three-month visit, Dr. Alston observed various group meetings presented by Dr.
Naseer and his students. More importantly, he learned a great deal about the research that Dr.
Naseer was doing in the field of reactor design. At the conclusion of his stay, Dr. Alston returned
to his institution without mentioning any plans for collaboration.
A few months later, Dr. Naseer was ready to publish a paper he had written on his topic of
research. However, through an online resource, he discovered Dr. Alston had published a recent
paper that used identical theorems, background information, and results Dr. Naseer had written
in his work. The paper did not make any acknowledgments to Dr. Naseer.
The Eastlands’ professor was angry and felt betrayed. During his visit, Dr. Alston did not
mention that he was conducting research or about to publish on the same topic in reactor design.
Dr. Naseer’s colleagues expressed disappointment in Dr. Alston’s actions, and in the field of
higher academia in general. They urged Dr. Naseer to take action, but, since it was not common
practice, there had not been a non-disclosure agreement between the two parties in conflict.
What, if anything, should Dr. Naseer do?

CASE STUDY #2: TRIMMING DATA

Joaquin was hired as a senior researcher for a medical research facility. His department has been
developing a new medical device to detect HIV faster and cheaper, and the facility has promised
investors a prototype would be ready in a year. However, the preliminary results have been
somewhat disappointing as only 60% of the case samples have tested positive for HIV, whereas
the expected sensitivity was aimed at 80%. Product development had been extended for another
six months, but additional funding is needed to continue the project.
Concerned about the low true positives detected in HIV cases, senior managers decide to
convene with their scientific advisors (who are under non-disclosure agreement) to determine if
60% is sufficient, if the study is adequately powered, and if there is a better way to evaluate the
data. Before the meeting, Joaquin’s boss asks him to trim the data by reporting results only from
certain samples, and filter out samples with low yields through observations made during meta-
analysis of the clinical data.
Joaquin is uncomfortable with trimming, and argues with his boss that the scientific advisory
board (SAB) should see all of their analyses, unfiltered and filtered, because it’s valuable
information that could be telling them something about disease stage or test performance. His
boss states that as long as they don’t lie about the numbers, there’s no harm in filtering. Joaquin
counters they should show a flowchart of the numbers they started with, clinical metadata
groupings, analysis methods and filtering steps so that all the information is laid out openly. In
this way, the SAB has the opportunity to ask about the methods used to achieve their receiver
operating curves, and better understand the clinical cohort subclassification applied to the
analysis.
The more they argue over the discussion, the more his boss is unwilling to relent. Joaquin knows
that the scientific advisors will expect to see sensitivity and specificity data, ROC curves, false
positives and false negatives, and figures of all unfiltered data. While the device is on its way of
determining positive HIV results, it is not there yet, so he understands his boss’s reluctance to
share the information. How should Joaquin and his boss address this problem?

REFERENCES:
Tan, J. (2015) Inhibited reactions. Accessed on October 15, 2019 from:
https://www.scu.edu/ethics/focus-areas/more/engineering-ethics/engineering-ethics-
cases/inhibited-reaction/
Deen, N. (2015) Trimming data. Accessed on October 15, 2019 from:
https://www.scu.edu/ethics/focus-areas/more/engineering-ethics/engineering-ethics-
cases/trimming-data/