I am a PhD student working on … [details removed to protect anonymity]. I want to share my confusion and experience with you.
In short, my PhD supervisor has engaged in academic misconduct, and I raised the issue with university officials. For example, he … [details removed for anonymity].
I was very respectful to him before this, although there have been some personal conflicts. For example, he … [material removed]. Despite these conflicts, I thought he was just a strict teacher until I happened to learn about the dishonest behaviors. He is also to some extent a good supervisor. For example, he would very carefully polish my manuscript and even reorganize and rewrite the paper. He also gave insightful suggestions.
I became confused after I raised the issue. On the one hand, I think these behaviors are unfair to researchers who are honest and hard-working（including myself). Moreover, I needed a justifiable reason to apply for a change of supervisor. On the other hand, he was my supervisor and really taught me something, at least in paper writing.
I am also confused about how to how to take corrective actions to dishonest behavior? I finally decided to speak up because I think it directly harms the interests of others. But there are also some cheating behaviors that do not harm others, or do so indirectly, and I can ignore it. For an extreme case, what if I enjoy the benefits of the dishonest behavior? For example, if my parents did such a thing I would not raise the issue.
The personal information is added to better explain my situation. Feel free to delete it if you want to post this dilemma.
[The above is lightly edited for clarity.]
To comment on this dilemma, leave a response. For anonymity, omit your email address and website, and use a screen name.
Ethical Decisions 
You are not the only one confused about how to respond to the unethical behavior of others. It is a whistle-blowing dilemma, perhaps the most difficult kind to deal with.
The first thing to remember is that another’s unethical behavior is not your unethical behavior. You are not obligated to report it simply because it is unethical. There must be a further reason.
One possible reason, which you mention, is that doing so may prevent harm to others (a utilitarian argument). Another is that you may have an obligation to speak up based on a generalizability argument, such as your commitment to an agreement or contract.
Let’s take the latter first. By becoming a student, you agree to abide by the regulations of the university. Universities normally have academic integrity codes for students, but I am not aware of one that requires students to report faculty misconduct of the kind you describe. You can confirm this by checking your university’s academic integrity policy (usually posted on the university website). Pending this, I see no obligation for you to report misconduct on the basis of a generalizability argument.
The utilitarian argument is the tough one to evaluate, because it often very hard to predict the net effect (good or bad) of blowing the whistle. It may not stop the unethical behavior. To make things worse, retaliation against the whistle blower can be severe. I gather from your note that you have not yet received your degree. Retaliation could virtually destroy your career and outweigh the benefit (if any) of lodging a complaint. An exception would arise if you absolutely must switch advisors, but this doesn’t seem to be the case for you.
You raise the question of what happens if you were to benefit from the dishonesty. It doesn’t matter who benefits. The utilitarian question is whether the net benefit to all concerned would be greater if you were to complain. Of course, if *your behavior* causes someone to believe something that you know is false, then you are guilty of deception no less than the person you complain about, which is ungeneralizable and unethical. But based on your account, this doesn’t apply to you.
There are cases where blowing the whistle is the only ethical option. Even if it is for you, on utilitarian grounds, you probably should have waited until after you graduate, to minimize the potential damage to yourself. At that point, you can again ask yourself if further reporting of misconduct would do more good than harm. If there is no *clear reason* to believe it would, you have no obligation to speak up.
LikeLike
…Regarding generalizability, if everybody acts likes my supervisor, the dishonest behavior will increase to an arms race. And it would finally generate vicious research fraud…
…if I make a whistle-blowing decision on the basis of my personal benefit, it seems that I become no different than my supervisor…
…I don’t understand the sentence, “if your behavior causes someone to believe something that you know is false, then you are guilty of deception no less than the person you complain about”….
[redacted to protect anonymity]
LikeLike
You are quite right to point out that your supervisor’s behavior is not generalizable. But this only shows that he is acting unethically, not that you should report his conduct.
The generalization principle applies to your dilemma like this: a failure to report misconduct is ethical only if you would achieve your purpose if everyone with the same purpose kept silent. Let’s suppose that your purpose in keeping silent is to finish your PhD while avoiding retaliation. Sure, all PhD students want to finish their degree without retaliation. However, even if they all kept silent, you would still be able to get your degree. Some supervisors would engage in misconduct without being caught, but it’s hard to believe that the misconduct would become so widespread as to undermine PhD degree programs and prevent students from getting their degree.
For one thing, there are other ways that bad conduct can come to light without being called out by students in a vulnerable position like yours. For example, people could start talking about it informally, forcing the administration to crack down. Also I would like to think that few supervisors are inclined to dishonesty even when they can get away with it. In any case, silence is unethical only if it is *irrational* to deny that its widespread adoption would undermine doctoral training. This does not seem irrational.
Regarding your second comment, I didn’t mean to imply that personal benefit can be the only factor in a utilitarian assessment. One must consider everyone affected. Yet one’s own welfare factors into the calculation with the same weight as anyone else’s. When the personal risk of blowing the whistle outweighs the benefit to others, it can tip the utilitarian balance against taking the risk.
Your supervisor is probably giving too much weight to personal benefit, but even if not, his conduct is unethical on other grounds. Dishonesty violates the generalization principle, apart from whether it is utilitarian.
Finally, I should have better explained the sentence that you found puzzling. As an example, suppose that your supervisor asks you to falsify data. If you comply, then you are as guilty of deception as your supervisor. But you are not doing anything like this.
LikeLike
Thank you for your timely response. My key takeaway from your answer is that under some conditions, it is also ethical to keep silent, especially when we are in a vulnerable position.
I want to have a further discussion on the second comment. It appears I faced minimal risk while achieving significant personal benefits from this whistle blowing experience. For example, our university tends to protect me, and I can achieve my personal goal of making a change in my supervisor. But my supervisor and his family might be influenced, as well as my original teammates (PhD students).
Under this condition, is whistle blowing still ethical? It seems that I sacrificed the interests of others when I want to protect personal rights and interests.
LikeLike