'R – 7 Scandal – Boston Post Magazine\r'

'The breakthrough of the century could gain been the Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) or more unremarkably termed as R †7. With deuce and a fractional course of instructions of research, Dr. Cliff Bannaker has worked on this virus from its genuinely conception up to its ‘coming out’ at Glass-Mendelssohn lab. This particular drug is banked on as the thinkable bring around to cancer. The Glass-Mendelssohn laboratory is at the heart of Harvard University’s Philpott Institute. The Director is Dr. Sandy Glass, whose given name is surface-to-air missile Glazeroff, who is a descendant of Eastern European Jews.\r\nOn the other hand, his co- director Marrion Mendelssohn, is a convergence of Franz Applebaum at Columbia. This is similarly where she met her husband Jacob, who in turn was a researcher †turned professor, now teaching microbiology at a local college. Dr. Cliff Bannaker is single of the some promising young defines from Stanford. He was u nder the mentoring of the departed Professor Oppenheimer. He is a son of Los Angeles broth owners, who be ii argon college degree holders. He has been in the laboratory for three years beingness hired under the recommendations of Professor Oppenheimer.\r\nThe laboratory is staffed with a few post †doctorate degree holders and two laboratory technicians. The doctor’s ar Dr. robin redbreast Drecker, Dr. Xiang Feng, Dr. Prithwish and the man who compeld the virus Dr. Cliff Bannaker. Their qualified laboratory technicians argon Aidan and Natalya. The RVS was first introduced by Bannaker during his entry in the laboratory. He was given the opportunity to do his research. such(prenominal)(prenominal) project signly showcased high potential for move cancer cells into normal ones only when it is worthy to flyer that this was non the altogether research done inwardly the laboratory.\r\nHowever, even if this one has the highest prospect, in that location was a ch astening on the initial experiment with live subjects. With such, the directors had discuss Bannaker to stop his experiment on RSV and work with peer doctor Drecker, who is also Bannaker’s girlfriend. However, with intractable nub (or frankly insubordination), Bannaker continued to inject live subjects, in this case- mice, with the virus. The RSV’s second attempt found some(prenominal) nude mice, which are those that do not baffle hair referable to some disorder, that did not take a leak the cancerous tumors after the injection of RSV.\r\nThis was found by Dr. Feng who is the laboratory’s record keeper and the co-director Mendelssohn. The initial reaction is to ‘hide’ this from the director Glass. Nevertheless(prenominal), this was also after revealed. The restless but close to unproductive laboratory, with genetic glee probably from their director, eagerly proceeded with an announcement. With whirlwind speed, the research findings were pub lished in a scientific journal, Nature. The laboratory gained furtherance and financial backing for the venture. Consequently, the laboratory started its own quandary.\r\nThe doctors who tried to restate the endpoints were unsuccessful. Thus, suspicion ignited in each in every(prenominal) doctor who tried unsuccessfully. The suspicions of the issue went into a full-blown investigation complete with Congressional hearing, wherein one of the doctors of the same laboratory became, so to speak, the whistle-blower of the hearty charade. Drecker was also accused of holding professional green-eyed monster against the battalion who strongly (though baselessly) believed in the work of Bannaker. At the same manner, such actions of the laboratory elicited explanation from the full medical field.\r\nNot to mention, those in politics, in business as well as each(prenominal) raft connected with what happened and the command ordinary. How the ‘R †7 Scandal’ violated Ethics in search The whole ‘R †7 filth’ is quiet of honest and moral violations that deserve to be scrutinized both(prenominal) from the researchers’ ethical standards and from the perspective of the global public. questioners defend ethical standards that are built as a two way shield, as a protection for the general public and as flight leverage for the researchers. When researchers digest certain studies, there are sets of ethical guide stresss that should be arriveed.\r\nAlthough different field of studies fetch different sets of guidelines, there are still parallelism in such that every research should follow. Bannaker is probably an honest researcher who did not convey the heart for a failed research. honestness is a major ethical issue with the ‘R †7 Scandal’ where the trueness about the whole issue may never be solely given light, or perhaps there bequeath still be doubts as to the real situation of the whole fiasco . Not further did Bannaker twisted candidly but it also has something to do with the directors, Mendelssohn and Glass.\r\nMendelssohn and Glass are the directors of the laboratory and their honesty is a very of the essence(p) for the integrity of the researches done under their leadership. They gravel the bestowed office to make authentic that the results are not manipulated in a dishonest way. Such actions have compromised not only themselves, but all the past and new researches done by the staff under their command. This leads to just another issue of carefulness. Whether the scandal is a product of carelessness or dishonesty, all that are amenable have still forgotten to take into good will this ethical virtue.\r\nAs a result, idle publishing is observed. Responsible publication should be in line with the researchers’ openness to the results of their studies, as well as, to gear towards publicity of the field. Bannaker have apparently underestimated Drecker whe re some reports have tell that prior to the deemed termination of Bannaker’s RSV, he was already asked to help Drecker in her research. However, Bannaker refused for unconfirmed reason where he thinks of her research as not ambitious enough. That whole is a breach of research ethics in ground of respecting one’s colleague in terms of their work.\r\nResponsible mentoring, that should also been practiced by Mendelssohn and Glass, have also failed miserably. They have forgotten to follow procedures like replicating the study just to make sure that the results are both conclusive and reliable. Apparently, key players of the scandal have all been seduced by the fame, honor and the apparently ‘infinite’ grants for the laboratory. At the same time, Drecker, whether her intentions are due to integrity or to professional jealousy, her respect for the truth is ambiguous. In addition to this, researches now also have got legal values. Remember that anything anyo ne does is under laws and regulations.\r\nConsequently, such actions should be appended with legality. The same is true for those who are soliciting for grants or funding from various institutions. How the general public is mislead The public who had high hopes of finding the cure for cancer has been disappointed. In UK alone, there are approximately 289,000 state who are diagnosed with cancer every year, according to Cancer Research UK. Furthermore, there are 150,000 cancer closings each year which actually boil down to an estimated one death every four minutes. Imagine how many pot became disheartened by the revelation that the RSV is a hoax.\r\n mixer province is a research ethic that should have been treated with respect. Lives are being played at as well as emotions, not only of the plenty with cancer but the families and friends as well. Thus, zero have the right to have been as ir responsible as what have happened in the research failure. Clearly, people have expected m ore ethics from doctors. Generally, people do not condemn any doctor who are ‘not producing’ any results for their studies. Most are even understanding of such, and in turn are more conscious, respectful and appreciative of those trying to seeded player up with advances especially in the medical field.\r\nThe general public has such high respect of people who have dedicated their lives for the advancement of our lives. Without such people, the conveniences that are enjoyed today may never have come into being. Nevertheless, with such trust, the doctors †researchers should al shipway take into esteem the people, patients and families alike, they serve and not their personal gains. The actions of the individuals from the Glass-Mendelssohn laboratory have affected the lives of many around the world.\r\nThe gain only belonged to those who have received the fame, grants and all other benefits associated with it, but the suffering is left to those who had tried to hol d on for the sake of the ray of hope shed by the results of the failed study. Indeed, such actions have left more scars of frustrations for the people suffering from cancer as well as their families. Lesson Learned Doctors are also human beings that have rooms for mistakes. The ‘R- 7 Scandal’ is a result of carelessness, hasty decisions and hidden agendas. The whole mess serves as a wake up call both for researchers, politicians, grant agencies and the general public.\r\nThe world of research should be focused on ethical and moral bases. render agencies, on the other hand, should be able to create a reliable system of negotiating with research brass on how these organizations can achieve support from them. Politicians should also be able to find more ways for some research laboratories to have funding so that such laboratories would not depend on grants. Thus, less pressure on ‘producing’ results just to acquire capital for continuing research. The gener al public should also widen at least an ounce of skepticism to reverse the disappointment brought about by failed researches.\r\nLooking into the sharp side, the study only reached global fame in terms of the research scandals. However, it has not sickened the otherwise, already sick patients, or worse killed them. Far more damage and responsibility could have been the result of such. Therefore, the whole ‘R †7 Scandal’ should be a reminder of how every single agency and group of individuals should, at least, acquire common honesty, careful planning, untainted agenda and undecomposed social responsibility in making conclusions. Probably, the close time researchers have discovered a cure for cancer or anything resembling such, they would be more responsible and critical.\r\n'