Inferential Statistics and Hypothesis Testing
Discussion Topic - Case Study: Accuracy of information
Abi is a researcher at an institute and also a statistical programmer. Abi has received a project from a manufacturer to review the nutritional value of a new cereal, Whizzz. Having collected the necessary data, he now needs to perform the appropriate analyses and print the reports for him to send to the manufacturer. Unfortunately, the data Abi has collected seems to refute the claim that Whizzz is nutritious, and, in fact, they may indicate that Whizzz is harmful.
Abi also realises that some other correlations could be performed that would cast Whizzz in a more favourable light. “After all,” he thinks, “I can use statistics to support either side of any issue.”
Ethical Concerns
- Clearly, if Abi changed data values in this study he would be acting unethically. But is it any more ethical for him to suggest analysing correct data in a way that supports two or more different conclusions?
- Is Abi obligated to present both the positive and the negative analyses?
- Is Abi responsible for the use to which others put his program results?
- If Abi does put forward both sets of results to the manufacturer, he suspects that they will publicise only the positive ones. What other courses of action has he?
RESPONSE
An analysis data should never be tempered with to support a particular perspective. The report as well should not lean towards any side of the scale and should remain as neutral as possible, only stating the facts and possible conclusions. As research often focuses on the end results, it does not always account for the processes that produced them. This highlights the need for further investigation into how outcomes are reached, not just what they are.
I believe that Abi has the responsibility as a third-party analyser to provide all the data as neutral as possible, even if it presents more than one theory. While he may question how others could use his results to advance their own agendas, it is ultimately beyond his control how the data is interpreted. In this case, his responsibility lies in presenting all sides of the argument as objectively as possible.
If he is unsure about the manufacturer’s integrity regarding posting the data, he can always contact the local food authorities or even global organisations such as the World Health Organisation (WHO) if the situation comes to it. He could also go to the news to try to educate the public. I believe that it would be his responsibility to do so if this was the case.
Many of my course mates also agree that under no circumstances should Abi ever manipulate the data and even should be stating his biases in the research itself. Many raise how in the BCS Code of Conduct, that it states practitioners must act in the public interest and not just in the interest of themselves or their employers. This would require Abi to disclose all the information about the different perspectives even if they could harm the employer.
Many also discuss how while the above is the moral standard, that ultimately it is quite a grey area in real life ethics. This is due to the position that Ali will be placing himself where he may find it harder to find an employer in the future, or current business would go down and such. There might even be the case that nobody even consumes the product so nobody is really affected. Ultimately, the code of ethics should be followed as much as possible under consideration.