Match each ethical principle of scientific data sharing to the factual scenario it most strictly governs based on its conditional logic.
- A researcher is ethically obligated to share raw data with a competitor if the competitor's findings directly contradict the researcher's published work, unless the raw data contains personally identifiable information that cannot be safely redacted.Dr. Aris's published study is challenged by a rival team whose findings contradict his. His data was not collected under a non-disclosure agreement, but contains participant names. Since he can securely anonymize them, he is required to provide his data to the rival team.
- A researcher is ethically prohibited from sharing raw data with a competitor if the data was collected under a strict non-disclosure agreement, even if the competitor's findings contradict the researcher's published work, provided the agreement was signed before the competitor's research began.Dr. Bell collected samples under a confidentiality contract signed in January. In March, a competing lab began a replication study and published findings contradicting Bell's. Although Bell can anonymize the data, he is forbidden from sharing it with the competing lab.
- A researcher is permitted, but not obligated, to share raw data with a competitor if the competitor is attempting to verify the researcher's published results through exact replication, provided the researcher has already secured a formal patent for the methodology.Dr. Chen holds a patent on a novel cell-staining technique. A rival lab, lacking any ethics board authorization, wants to run the exact same experiment to confirm her results. Dr. Chen may provide her raw data to the rival lab, but she is not compelled to do so.
- A researcher is obligated to withhold raw data from a competitor if sharing it would jeopardize an ongoing, uncompleted secondary study by the researcher, regardless of whether the competitor's findings contradict the researcher's own, unless the competitor has obtained explicit overriding authorization from an independent ethics review board.Dr. Diaz holds a patent for isotope extraction and is conducting two concurrent studies. A competitor, lacking ethics board approval, asks for data from the first study. Because sharing it would ruin the active second study, Diaz must withhold the data, despite the competitor's findings contradicting his own.
Answer
Principle 1 matches Dr. Aris's scenario. Principle 2 matches Dr. Bell's scenario. Principle 3 matches Dr. Chen's scenario. Principle 4 matches Dr. Diaz's scenario.
Each factual scenario correctly matches only one principle by strictly satisfying its conditional logic, including sufficient triggers (e.g., contradicting findings, jeopardizing a secondary study) and avoiding necessary exceptions (e.g., unredactable PII, ethics board approval). Overriding clauses ('regardless of', 'even if') resolve overlapping conditions.
Step-by-Step Solution
Key Concept
Applying complex conditional normative principles to specific factual scenarios by carefully tracking sufficient and necessary conditions, exceptions ('unless'), and overriding clauses.