Answer all questions. (Total 100 marks)

Question 1
Victor Ninov is a former researcher in the nuclear chemistry group at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) who was alleged to have fabricated the evidence used to claim the creation of element 118 ununoctium and element 116 livermorium in the chemical elements periodic table.

Ninov was trained at the GSI, the largest research company in Germany. His hiring by the LBNL from GSI had been considered a coup: he had been involved in the discovery of elements 110, 111and 112, he was considered one of the leading experts at using the complex types of software needed to detect the radioactive decay of unstable elements. An internal committee at the lab later founded that Victor Ninov was the only person in the large project to translate the raw computer results into human-readable results and had used this opportunity to inject fabricated data. Re-analysis of the raw data did not indicate the events which Ninov’s analysis originally reported.

Re-examination of the data from the experiments conducted at GSI during which Ninov’s team had discovered elements 111 and 112 found that the original data had been altered, however repeats of the experiments confirmed the discoveries.

Reports on the Ninov affair were released around the same time that the final report on the Schön affair, another major incident of fraud in physics. As a result, the American Physical Society adopted more stringent ethical guidelines, especially those regulating the conduct of co-authors.

(a) Given the fact that the repeated experiment confirmed Victor Ninov’s discoveries, determine if the above scenario is a case of failing in research
integrity. (2 marks)

(b) Discuss the importance of research integrity. (4 marks)
(c) Give any FOUR (4) typical types of deception and fraud in research and if they are applicable in the above case study. (12 marks)
(d) Is there any aspect in your answer to Question 1(c) applicable to justify your
answer to Question 1(a)? (3 marks)

(e) Illustrate the importance on the role of co-author in a research work. (4 marks)

Question 2
Armstrong, a professional engineer, has a pending patent for his invention of a solar energy conversion to LED lighting system for multi storey carpark. He is also the project manager of a consulting firm. He submitted a project proposal to the HUDD (Housing and Urban Development Department). The proposal is based on the same idea of his patent application and it meets the technical requirement of the HUDD project. He won the project with the newly invented solution.

A staff member of HUDD discussed Armstrong’s proposal with another engineer Collins. Three months later, Collins resigned and joined another consulting company as chief technical officer in which his wife sits in the board of directors. After Collins’ joining, this company takes part in the bidding of a new HUDD public lightings project with proposals similar to Armstrong’s proposal.

The amount of Armstrong’s information that Collins’s company used is disputed between the parties.

(a) Discuss the differences between privileged and proprietary information. (4 marks)

(b) Give the type of information applicable to Armstrong’s invention. (2 marks)

(c) What is the HUDD’s responsibility in handling Armstrong’s proposal? (6 marks)

(d) Briefly define plagiarism. (3 marks)
(e) Examine the conditions associated with conflict of interest of professionals and how it affects professional judgement. (4 marks)
(f) Determine if the above scenario is a case of plagiarism, conflict of interest or failure of protecting confidential information. (6 marks)

Question 3
One of the important goals in the UN’s “Sustainable Development” documents is to “Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable, clean and renewable energy for the world” with a target date of 2030.

Over the past 20 months, oil prices have declined from over $100 a barrel to the level of $30 a barrel. The futures markets expect oil to remain well below $60 for 10 years. The new reality split the environmentalists into two groups of opinion, with one opinion is that more consumption is expected and that is bad for environment.

(a) Discuss the definition of sustainable development and its main criticism. (6 marks)
(b) Examine the impact of ‘internalising cost’ and lower oil price to the environment. (7 marks)
(c) Present the FOUR (4) important roles of engineers in environmental issues. (12 marks)

Question 4
David Franklin, a microbiologist in USA was offered a job in 1996 by Parke-Davis; a pharmaceutical company. His job was to be the intermediary expert on prescription drugs between doctors and the pharmaceutical company.

A few weeks into the job, Franklin began to doubt the marketing approach used by his employer Parke-Davis – using fraudulent scientific evidence supported by doctors who were paid by the company hefty speakers’ fees and flying them to lavish resorts as “educational” trips.

Prescribing a drug for such off-label use was not itself illegal, but promoting such use was prohibited by the USA federal law.

Franklin was told by company executives that if he talked publicly about the company’s marketing he would be made a scapegoat and be described as a rogue employee in a company that played by the rules. This is a clear intimidation tactic from the executives.

He recorded a voicemail left by his boss which instructed him to market the drug for the unapproved use.

He decided to file a ‘qui tam provisions’ lawsuit against Parke-Davis for illegal and fraudulent promotion scheme that corrupted the information process relied upon by doctors in their medical decision-making, thereby putting patients at risk.

In US federal law, a qui tam action entitled the plaintiff to a percentage of the recovery of the penalty, as a reward for exposing the wrongdoing to the authorities.

The Company finally pleaded guilty in May 2004 to criminal violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and paid a criminal fine of $243 million. Under the False Claims Act, Dr. Franklin received $24.6m as part of the settlement agreement.

(a) Examine if this legal suit is considered as a case of whistle blowing. (3 marks)
(b) Give FOUR (4) key characteristics of whistle-blowing to support your answer to Question 4(a). (8 marks)

(c) Dr. Franklin received some compensation from the final settlement from the penalty fine paid by his ex-employer. Does this it undermine his moral justification? Present FOUR (4) reasons to support your answer. (10 marks)

(d) Briefly explain the need for whistle-blowers protection law. (4 marks)