Case Studies – Scientific Misconduct, Laboratory Safety ...



Case Studies – Scientific Misconduct, Laboratory Safety, Animals in Research

Scientific misconduct

Dr. Smith has been a postdoc in the lab of Dr. Jones for about a year studying the effects of superoxide dismutase expression levels on the appearance of neurological symptoms in an SOD-deficient mouse model. She recently presented her initial results in a lab meeting and Dr. Jones was excited about her preliminary data indicating that SOD overexpression might delay the onset of symptoms. He asked Dr. Smith to write up the results so that they could submit an abstract next week to a national meeting on ALS. Dr. Smith was reluctant, and reminded Dr. Jones, that while there were indications that increasing SOD expression had an effect, that the number of animals that she had examined so far were too small to make the results statistically significant. “Nonsense, Dr. Jones said. “You’re not being aggressive enough with your ideas. This could be a very significant finding and the results so far are consistent with what we thought all along. I’m sure you’ll be able to get enough experiments done before the meeting. Let’s submit the abstract and you’ll be first author.” Reluctantly, Dr. Smith agreed and they submitted the abstract. Despite a lot of hard work and increasing the number of animals in the study, the initial difference could not be shown to be statistically significant. In the meantime, the organizers of the meeting selected the abstract for a presentation at a session that was designed to include one presentation by a postdoc.

What should Dr. Smith do?

Could the pressure to publish lead to scientific misconduct, i.e. Dr. Smith falsifying the data to agree with the expected results?

What might the mentor, Dr. Jones, have done differently?

Laboratory Safety.

Dr. Smith is just beginning a postdoc in a new lab at a new institution. In preparing a new expression vector, she has to run ethidium stained agarose gels to initially verify her constructs and purify PCR products. In her previous lab she was instructed by her PI to use appropriate safety measures. Ethidium bromide is a carcinogen and the gels and buffers should be handled and disposed of properly to avoid contamination. UV from the lamps used to see the ethidium-stained bands requires appropriate protection of eyes and skin. She also noticed that other in the laboratory were simply throwing the gels in the trash, handling them with their hands and then touching the faucets and sinks.

(Adapted from a project by Gwen Crevensten "Safety in a Research Laboratory" Online Ethics Center for Engineering 9/10/2006 National Academy of Engineering

What should she do?

Whose responsibility is it to enforce safe laboratory practices.

Use of Animals in Research

Robert is a second year graduate student working on a set of experiments designed to test the effects of an antibacterial coating on infection rates associated with the use of surgical steel pins used to repair broken bones. The protocol, approved by the institutional IACUC, calls for inserting a two-inch pin into the right tibia of thirty anesthetized rabbits. Half of the pins have the anti-bacterial coating and half do not. A small segment of each pin protrudes above the skin and 1 x 108 staphylococcus aureus are inoculated at this site. The analgesic buprenorphine is also administered routinely to minimize discomfort. After a month, the rabbits appear to be comfortable, but none of them has developed an infection. Since the absence of infection, even in the controls, means that the study will yield no information, his PI tells Robert to inoculate all of the rabbits with 1 x 109 pseudomonas aeruginosa a more virulent organism. Robert knows that pseudomonas infections can be nasty and hard to treat. When Robert points out that the protocol calls for 1 x 108 staphylococcus aureus, the mentor explains that it’s only a small change in protocol and after all, the IACUC already approved infecting the animals. Furthermore, this may also allow "death as an endpoint" data to be collected.

(Adapted M.J. Beabeau and K.D. Pimple, Moral Reasoning in Scientific Research: Cases for Teaching and Assessment Indiana University, 1995. "The Jenny Ito Case: Getting Results" Online Ethics Center for Engineering 9/10/2006 National Academy of Engineering

Do you think thirty animals is appropriate for this experiment? What sorts of justifications must be provided to address the numbers of animals required?

Do minor changes in protocol need to be approved by IACUC? Is this a minor change?

What elements of the protocol are designed to minimize animal pain and suffering?

What are the guidelines for developing humane endpoints or death as an endpoint?

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download