Abstract
We teach and practice ethical behavior with all clinical and research activities. Notably, we are well educated to treat the subjects participating in research studies with high ethical standards. However, the ethics of interacting with colleagues, or with junior faculty members, are neither well defined nor taught. Dealing with junior faculty has parallels to dealing with vulnerable research subjects such as children, mentally or physically challenged groups, prison inmates or army recruits. Like any other vulnerable population, lower-ranking faculty members are often at the mercy of department chairs or other higher-ranked faculty members. Herein we present some potentially unethical or unfair examples related to academic research. Our goal is to educate the academic community of conceptual paths and to prevent similar untoward occurrences from happening in the future. Unethical behaviors related to sexual misconduct have already been described elsewhere and are not included in this manuscript.
Highlights
In 2014, the World Medical Association celebrated the 50th anniversary of the Declaration of Helsinki[1,2]
Researcher A did not know why his numerous job applications were rejected until one prospective employer called the FA1 in the presence of Researcher A. We find this covert evaluation beyond the written letter of recommendation is despicable and should be abolished
Take note that until the publication of the said meta-analysis, no one understood the cause for the conflicting results in the periodontitis-CVD association all the researchers involved were top-notch scientists. This becomes another topic of unethical behavior by another researcher in Episode 2
Summary
In 2014, the World Medical Association celebrated the 50th anniversary of the Declaration of Helsinki[1,2]. Since the publication of this meta-analysis, which became a sentinel study cited over 560 times, Researcher A’s manuscripts and grant proposals have been harshly criticized and rejected numerous times presumably by these faculty advisors. Take note that until the publication of the said meta-analysis, no one understood the cause for the conflicting results in the periodontitis-CVD association all the researchers involved were top-notch scientists This becomes another topic of unethical behavior by another researcher in Episode 2. Using the position of authority, they delegate important tasks that clearly belong to the role of PI to junior faculty members who do not have enough experience or knowledge The consequence of this dereliction of duty is an ill-prepared grant that might waste resources.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
