In recent times, the issue of academic dishonesty and fraud have become among one of the most fundamental ethical issues facing the educational community. While it is not a new issue, in many respects, it has taken on increasing importance with the enormous pressures placed upon academic researchers and the impact that such work has on an institution’s funding sources, academic reputation, and student and faculty recruitment.

In BER Case No. 83-3, Engineer B submitted a proposal to a county council following an interview concerning a project. The proposal included technical information and data that the council requested as a basis for the selection. Professor Smith, a staff member of the council, made Engineer B’s proposal available to Engineer A. Engineer A used Engineer B’s proposal without Engineer B’s consent in developing another proposal, which was subsequently submitted to the council. The extent to which Engineer A used Engineer B’s information and data was in dispute between the parties. In finding that it was unethical for Engineer A to use Engineer B’s proposal without Engineer B’s consent, the Board indicated that Engineer A had an obligation to refuse to accept the proposal from Professor Smith and also noted that Engineer A’s actions constituted unfair competition by improper and questionable methods in violation of NSPE Code Section III.7.

More recently, BER Case No. 92-7 involved the XYZ Company headed by Engineer A, who offered to provide funding to professors in the chemistry department of a major university for research on removing poisonous heavy metals (copper, lead, nickel, zinc, and chromium) from waste streams. The university contracted with XYZ Company to give the company exclusive use of the technology developed in the field of water treatment and wastewater stream treatment. Under the contract, XYZ Company was to provide a royalty to the university from profits derived from the use of the technology. Also, a group of the university’s professors organized QRS, a separate company, to exploit applications of the technology other than the treatment of water and wastewater. At the same time that the university research was being conducted, XYZ Company continued to conduct research in the same area. Performance figures and conclusions were developed. XYZ Company freely shared the figures and conclusions with QRS. At the university, Engineer B, a professor of civil engineering, wanted to conduct research and develop a paper relating to the use of the technology to treat sewage. Engineer B contacted the professors in the university’s chemistry department. The chemistry professors provided XYZ Company’s data to Engineer B for use in the research and paper. The professors did not reveal to Engineer B that the data was generated by Engineer A and XYZ Company. Engineer B’s paper was published in a major journal. Engineer A’s data was displayed prominently in the paper, and the work of XYZ Company constituted a major portion of the journal. The paper credited two of the chemistry professors as major authors, along with Engineer B. No credit was given to Engineer A or XYZ Company as the source of the data—the funds that supported the research. After publication, Engineer B learns about the actual source of the data and its finding. The Board decided that Engineer B had an obligation to request that the journal publish a clarification of the matter explaining how the matter occurred along with an apology for any misunderstanding that may have arisen as a result of the publication of the paper. In its analysis, the Board noted that Engineer B did not knowingly fail to credit Engineer A or XYZ Company for its contributions to the research, which formed the basis of his paper. Instead, Engineer B assumed that the material he received from the other professors was developed solely by those professors. However, the Board noted that had Engineer B made more of an effort to substantiate the sources contained in his paper, he may have been able to identify those sources. The Board also emphasized its concern over the conduct of the chemistry professors who, for whatever reason(s), mislead Engineer B by failing to reveal the sources of the data. The Board concluded by suggesting that Engineer B prepare and request that the journal publish a clarification of the matter explaining how the matter occurred along with an apology for any misunderstanding which may have arisen as a result of the publication of the paper.