In my opinion, Klessig was right to retract the article published in Cell without conclusive evidence that Chandok had fabricated results. My opinion is informed by the need to observe the fundamental requirement that reputable scientific work must be reproducible (McCuen, 2018). More so, the scientist(s) bears the responsibility to provide timely proof beyond doubt should questions arise from his/her work. These golden rules were dishonoured by Chandok, who preferred to stay noncommittal. Thus, even before getting into the ethical and legal space, the retraction is valid on scientific grounds since science takes precedence over personal interests in the Chandok v. Klessig case. What follows the retraction, therefore, should be treated independently.
Klessig was right to retract the article since he was acting from a utilitarian perspective. As a key pillar of moral decision making, utilitarianism reasons that an action is good if it produces the greatest good for the greatest number of people (Loreggia et al., 2018). In this case, Klessig’s retraction was of benefit to many since it would caution the scientific community from trusting the findings, in the event they were false. Also, logical reasoning maintains it would have been easier to reinstate the validity of the findings (should Chandok eventually prove them) than to undo negative effects of researchers trusting Chandok’s findings- if the findings turn out to be fabricated.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Likewise, Klessig was right to retract the results since, as a co-author, he had a stake in the findings. Fair enough, the retraction demonstrated Klessig’s commitment to fighting the self-serving bias, a cognitive nuance that leads individuals to make choices that seem unjustifiable to third party observers (Bahnik et al., 2020). In keeping numb on the realization that Chandok’s findings were surreal, Klessig would have committed a self-serving bias. On the contrary, recalling the paper indicated he was ready to share the blame, just how he had shared the glory of the breakthrough paper.
References
Bahník, Š., Efendic, E., & Vranka, M. A. (2020). Sacrificing Oneself or Another: The Difference Between Prescriptive and Normative Judgments in Moral Evaluation. Psychological Reports , 0033294119896061.
Loreggia, A., Mattei, N., Rossi, F., & Venable, K. B. (2018, March). Preferences and Ethical Principles in Decision Making. In 2018 AAAI Spring Symposium Series .
McCuen, R. H. (2018). Advancing Scientific Knowledge: Ethical Issues in The Journal Publication Process. Publications , 6(1), 1.
