Cases and Commentaries

Abstract

Just as in chemistry, the best way to learn ethical problem solving is to confront context-rich, real-life problems (Jonsen and Toulmin 1988; Davis 1999, 143–175). The broad variety of ethical problems, or cases, presented here are hypothetical situations, but represent the kinds of problems working chemists and students face. Cases raising similar ethical questions are grouped together. To reach a diverse audience, I sometimes write several variations of the same situation. For example, a question might be posed from the perspective of the graduate student in one version and from the perspective of the research di­rector in another. For important issues I provide cases that are accessible to undergraduates who have very little research experience, usually in the context of laboratory courses. For advanced undergraduates, some cases involve undergraduate research projects. Most of the cases involve situations encountered in graduate research in universities, but some also concern industrial chemistry. Finally, a few cases present ethical problems that arise in cooperative learning, a pedagogical technique that is becoming increasingly important in undergraduate education. Each case, or related set of cases, is followed by a commentary that outlines the important issues and discusses possible solutions. Some of the commentaries are quite extensive and actually present and defend my preferred course of action; others are brief and merely raise questions that should be considered in designing a solution. The commentaries model the ethical problem-solving method presented in Chapter 6. As I have emphasized repeatedly, most ethical problems do not have clean solutions. While some courses of action are clearly wrong, there may be several morally acceptable and defensible ways to proceed. Consequently, readers might disagree with my proposed solutions for good reasons. For example, if I use a consequentialist approach, my assessment of the relative positive and negative weights of the consequences might be challenged, or I simply might have forgotten to consider some factor. Where I have made a definite recommendation, I give the reasons for my choice and contrast it with other alternatives.