Ethics can be a tricky business. On the one hand, we have constructed society such that there are certain expectations that everyone understands, for the most part. On the other hand, there is a lot of ambiguity in certain areas. For example, the article on fabrication . . . I can understand the need to protect sensitive information and the identities of those who provided that information, but the “by-the-book” rigid ethicist (yes, I made that word up) in me says that it’s not okay because it’s a type of falsification of results. It’s a real conundrum. If you follow the linguistic style and maintain the same general content, it follows that fabrication might be okay. But what if you don’t do such a good job? I’m not sure of the answer here, but it is definitely food for thought.
The example given in class was also interesting. I haven’t had a lot of experience with grant writing, but I wonder if constructing the grant with some wiggle room for such occasions is possible. Of course, in this case, promises were made to the researchers that were not kept, but I’m thinking more generally. How can we word our funding requests with just enough vagueness to allow for instances such as this one? Again, food for thought, and something to keep in mind going forward academically.