De La Salle Catholic University Manado Entrance Exam Set

The question probes the understanding of ethical considerations in research, particularly relevant to disciplines at De La Salle Catholic University Manado, such as social sciences and health sciences, which often involve human participants. The scenario describes a researcher, Dr. Aris, who has discovered a novel treatment for a prevalent local ailment. However, the treatment has a potential, albeit unconfirmed, severe side effect. Dr. Aris is seeking to publish his findings in a reputable journal. The core ethical principle at play here is the balance between the potential benefit of a new treatment and the duty to protect research participants from harm. Informed consent is paramount in any research involving human subjects. This means participants must be fully aware of the potential risks, benefits, and alternatives before agreeing to participate. In this case, the unconfirmed severe side effect represents a significant risk that must be disclosed. Option a) correctly identifies that the researcher must disclose the potential severe side effect to the journal and, more importantly, to any future participants in clinical trials. This aligns with the principles of transparency and beneficence, ensuring that individuals can make informed decisions and that the scientific community is aware of all known risks. The journal’s review process is designed to uphold scientific integrity and ethical standards, and withholding such critical information would be a breach of these standards. Furthermore, ethical research practice dictates that further investigation into the side effect is necessary before widespread application or even further human trials without explicit and thorough disclosure. Option b) is incorrect because while peer review is crucial, it does not absolve the researcher of the primary ethical obligation to disclose all relevant information, including potential harms, to both the journal and future participants. The journal’s role is to evaluate the scientific merit and ethical conduct, not to excuse non-disclosure. Option c) is incorrect. While preliminary findings can be exciting, the ethical imperative to disclose potential severe side effects outweighs the desire for rapid publication. The scientific community values rigorous and ethically sound research above all else. Premature or incomplete disclosure can lead to harm and erode public trust in research. Option d) is incorrect because the ethical obligation extends beyond merely acknowledging the possibility of side effects. The severity of the potential side effect necessitates a clear and prominent disclosure, not a vague mention. Furthermore, the ethical responsibility lies with the researcher to ensure participants are fully informed, not solely with the journal to “catch” omissions. Therefore, the most ethically sound and scientifically responsible action is to fully disclose the potential severe side effect, ensuring transparency and protecting future participants, which is a cornerstone of research ethics at institutions like De La Salle Catholic University Manado.

The question assesses understanding of ethical considerations in research, specifically within the context of De La Salle Catholic University Manado’s commitment to responsible scholarship and its Lasallian values. The scenario involves a student researcher, Anya, who discovers a potential conflict of interest in her data collection. The core ethical principle at play is transparency and the avoidance of bias. Anya’s obligation is to disclose any factors that might compromise the integrity of her research. Anya’s discovery that her research funding source, a local business with a vested interest in the study’s outcome, also provided her with access to a unique dataset, presents a clear conflict of interest. This situation directly impacts the perceived objectivity of her findings. According to established research ethics, particularly those emphasized in academic institutions like De La Salle Catholic University Manado, researchers must proactively manage and disclose such conflicts. The most ethically sound and academically rigorous approach for Anya is to immediately inform her supervising professor and the university’s ethics review board about the funding source and its connection to the data acquisition. This allows for an informed decision on how to proceed, which might include modifying the research design, seeking alternative data sources, or clearly stating the potential limitations in her final report. Option a) represents this proactive and transparent approach. It prioritizes academic integrity and adherence to ethical guidelines, aligning with the university’s mission to foster responsible knowledge creation. Option b) is problematic because withholding information from the supervising professor and ethics board undermines the principle of accountability and could lead to the publication of potentially biased research. Option c) is also ethically questionable. While seeking external advice is not inherently wrong, bypassing the university’s established channels for addressing ethical dilemmas and conflicts of interest is not the primary or most appropriate first step. The university’s internal structures are designed to handle such situations. Option d) is the least appropriate. Continuing the research without any disclosure or consultation, especially given the direct link between funding and data access, is a serious breach of research ethics and could severely damage Anya’s academic reputation and the credibility of De La Salle Catholic University Manado. Therefore, the most appropriate action for Anya, reflecting the ethical standards expected at De La Salle Catholic University Manado, is to disclose the conflict to her supervisor and the ethics review board.

The core of this question lies in understanding the ethical principles of academic integrity and responsible research conduct, which are foundational to the educational philosophy at De La Salle Catholic University Manado. The scenario presents a common dilemma faced by students and researchers: the temptation to misrepresent data to achieve a desired outcome. The principle of **data integrity** dictates that research findings must be presented accurately and honestly, without manipulation or fabrication. This aligns with the university’s commitment to truth and scholarly rigor. **Fabrication** involves inventing data, while **falsification** involves manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record. In this case, the student is not inventing data from scratch (fabrication) but is selectively presenting existing data and downplaying contradictory findings, which falls under **falsification** by omission or selective reporting. The ethical imperative at De La Salle Catholic University Manado emphasizes transparency and accountability in all academic endeavors. Misrepresenting findings, even subtly, undermines the scientific process, erodes trust within the academic community, and can lead to flawed conclusions and potentially harmful applications of research. Therefore, the most ethically sound approach is to present all findings, including those that do not support the initial hypothesis, and to discuss the implications of these results. This demonstrates intellectual honesty and a commitment to the pursuit of knowledge, reflecting the university’s Lasallian values of faith, service, and communion. The student’s action of omitting contradictory results to bolster their conclusion is a direct violation of these principles.

The question probes the understanding of ethical considerations in research, specifically within the context of academic integrity and the principles upheld by institutions like De La Salle Catholic University Manado. The scenario involves a student, Anya, who has conducted research for her thesis. The core ethical dilemma lies in how she presents her findings, particularly when they deviate from her initial hypothesis. Anya’s research aimed to demonstrate a positive correlation between increased community engagement activities and improved student well-being at De La Salle Catholic University Manado. However, her data analysis revealed a negligible, almost zero, correlation. The ethical imperative in academic research is to report findings accurately and transparently, regardless of whether they support the initial hypothesis. This principle is foundational to the scientific method and is deeply ingrained in the educational philosophy of universities that value truth and integrity. Option a) represents the ethically sound approach. Anya should present the actual findings, acknowledging the lack of a significant correlation, and then discuss potential reasons for this outcome. This might include limitations in her methodology, the specific metrics used, or the complexity of the relationship between community engagement and well-being, which might not be captured by simple correlation. This approach upholds academic honesty, allows for constructive critique, and contributes to the body of knowledge by reporting what was observed, not what was desired. Option b) is ethically problematic because it involves fabricating or manipulating data to fit the hypothesis. This is a severe breach of academic integrity and scientific misconduct. Option c) is also ethically questionable. While not outright fabrication, selectively omitting data that contradicts the hypothesis or overemphasizing minor trends to support the initial idea is a form of misleading presentation. It distorts the truth and undermines the rigor of the research. Option d) suggests abandoning the research entirely due to unfavorable results. While a researcher might choose to discontinue a line of inquiry if it proves unfruitful, presenting the completed work with honest findings is generally the expectation for a thesis, especially when the research has been conducted. Discarding the work without reporting the outcomes is not the most ethical response to unexpected results; rather, understanding and reporting them is. Therefore, the most ethically sound and academically responsible action for Anya, aligning with the scholarly principles expected at De La Salle Catholic University Manado, is to report her findings truthfully, even if they do not support her initial hypothesis.

The question assesses understanding of ethical considerations in research, specifically within the context of De La Salle Catholic University Manado’s commitment to responsible scholarship and its Lasallian values. The scenario involves a student researcher, Anya, who discovers potentially groundbreaking but ethically questionable data collection methods. The core of the problem lies in balancing scientific advancement with adherence to established ethical principles, particularly informed consent and data privacy. Anya’s initial data collection involved observing participants in a public space without explicit consent for recording their interactions, which is a violation of standard ethical protocols. While the potential for significant findings exists, the method used compromises the autonomy and privacy of the individuals involved. De La Salle Catholic University Manado, as an institution that upholds principles of human dignity and integrity, would expect its students to prioritize ethical conduct over potentially illicit gains. The most appropriate course of action, aligning with the university’s ethos and research ethics guidelines, is to halt the current data analysis and seek immediate ethical review and guidance. This involves reporting the methodological breach to the Institutional Review Board (IRB) or equivalent ethics committee. The IRB would then assess the situation, determine the extent of the ethical violation, and provide directives on how to proceed, which might include re-collecting data ethically, anonymizing existing data if possible and permissible, or even discarding the data if the breach is too severe. Option a) represents this proactive and ethically sound approach. It acknowledges the problem, prioritizes ethical compliance, and seeks institutional support for resolution. Option b) is incorrect because continuing the analysis without addressing the ethical breach would compound the violation and demonstrate a disregard for research integrity, which is antithetical to the values of De La Salle Catholic University Manado. Option c) is also incorrect. While acknowledging the ethical lapse is a step, proceeding with data analysis while simultaneously attempting to retroactively obtain consent is problematic. Consent must be obtained *before* data collection, and attempting to “fix” it afterward without proper ethical oversight is not a robust solution and may still violate participant rights. Furthermore, the effectiveness of such retroactive consent for already collected and potentially analyzed data is highly questionable. Option d) is flawed because it prioritizes the potential scientific impact over fundamental ethical obligations. While the university encourages impactful research, it must be conducted ethically. Disregarding the ethical breach for the sake of potential discovery undermines the very foundation of responsible academic inquiry that De La Salle Catholic University Manado champions. Therefore, the most appropriate and ethically defensible action for Anya, in line with the principles of De La Salle Catholic University Manado, is to immediately cease analysis and report the issue for ethical review.

The question assesses understanding of the ethical considerations in research, specifically within the context of a Catholic university like De La Salle Catholic University Manado, which emphasizes Lasallian values of faith, service, and communion. The scenario involves a student researcher, Maria, who discovers potentially damaging information about a local community during her fieldwork for a project at De La Salle Catholic University Manado. The core ethical dilemma lies in balancing the pursuit of knowledge and the potential for societal benefit (through her research findings) against the principle of non-maleficence and the protection of vulnerable populations. Maria’s obligation as a researcher at De La Salle Catholic University Manado extends beyond mere data collection; it includes responsible dissemination and consideration of the impact on those studied. Option (a) correctly identifies the most ethically sound approach by prioritizing community consultation and seeking consent for the use of sensitive information. This aligns with principles of participatory research and respect for autonomy, crucial in a university that values community engagement. This approach ensures that the community has a voice in how their information is presented and can mitigate potential harm. Option (b) is incorrect because withholding information entirely, without any attempt at responsible disclosure or community engagement, could be seen as a failure to contribute potentially beneficial knowledge and might not fully address the ethical obligation to the research participants or the broader societal good that research aims to serve. Option (c) is ethically problematic as it prioritizes the researcher’s academic goals over the well-being of the community, potentially leading to exploitation and harm, which contradicts the core Lasallian values of service and justice. Option (d) is also ethically questionable; while seeking external validation is important, it bypasses the direct responsibility to the community whose data is being used and could lead to a misrepresentation of their concerns if not done in collaboration with them. Therefore, the most appropriate and ethically rigorous path, reflecting the ethos of De La Salle Catholic University Manado, is to engage the community directly.

The core of this question lies in understanding the ethical framework of Catholic higher education, specifically as it pertains to academic integrity and the pursuit of knowledge within a faith-informed context. De La Salle Catholic University Manado, like many institutions rooted in Catholic tradition, emphasizes not only intellectual rigor but also moral responsibility. The scenario presented involves a student, Anya, who discovers a significant flaw in her research methodology after submitting her thesis. The ethical dilemma is how to rectify this situation in a manner consistent with academic honesty and the values of the university. The principle of academic integrity demands that scholarly work be truthful and accurate. Discovering a flaw, especially one that could impact the validity of findings, necessitates disclosure. The Lasallian educational tradition, which underpins De La Salle Catholic University Manado, stresses the importance of truth, justice, and service. Therefore, Anya’s obligation is to address the flaw transparently. Option a) proposes Anya immediately informing her advisor and the relevant academic department about the methodological issue and proposing a plan for correction or re-evaluation. This aligns directly with the principles of academic honesty and the university’s commitment to truth. It demonstrates accountability and a proactive approach to maintaining the integrity of her research and the academic record. This action respects the scholarly process and the trust placed in her by the university and her peers. Option b) suggests Anya should ignore the flaw to avoid potential negative consequences. This directly contravenes academic integrity and the ethical expectations of any reputable university, particularly one with a strong moral foundation like De La Salle Catholic University Manado. It prioritizes self-preservation over truth and scholarly responsibility. Option c) proposes Anya subtly revise her findings without disclosure to mask the flaw. This is a form of academic dishonesty, akin to data manipulation or falsification, and is a severe breach of trust. It undermines the very purpose of research, which is to contribute to knowledge accurately. Option d) suggests Anya withdraw her thesis entirely without explanation. While this avoids direct confrontation with the flaw, it is an incomplete resolution. It does not address the underlying issue of the flawed research and may still leave questions about her academic performance and integrity. It is less proactive and less aligned with the spirit of open scholarly inquiry and correction than informing the advisor. Therefore, the most ethically sound and academically responsible course of action, consistent with the values of De La Salle Catholic University Manado, is to disclose the flaw and work towards a resolution.

The question probes the understanding of ethical considerations in research, particularly within the context of a Catholic university like De La Salle Catholic University Manado, which emphasizes Lasallian values of faith, service, and communion. The scenario involves a student researcher, Anya, who discovers potentially harmful side effects of a new educational software being piloted at De La Salle Catholic University Manado. The core ethical dilemma lies in balancing the pursuit of knowledge and the potential benefits of the software against the immediate well-being of the student participants. Anya’s primary obligation, rooted in principles of beneficence and non-maleficence, is to protect the participants from harm. This supersedes the desire to complete her research quickly or to present a positive outcome. Therefore, the most ethically sound immediate action is to halt the pilot study and report her findings to the appropriate institutional review board (IRB) or ethics committee. This ensures that an independent body can assess the risks and make informed decisions about the continuation of the study, thereby safeguarding the students. Option (b) is incorrect because continuing the study while subtly warning participants does not adequately address the potential harm and still exposes students to risk without full disclosure and consent regarding the observed side effects. Option (c) is flawed as it prioritizes the software developer’s reputation and the university’s potential benefits over the immediate safety of the student participants, a clear violation of ethical research conduct. Option (d) is also problematic because delaying the report to gather more data, while seemingly scientific, could prolong the exposure of students to potential harm, and the initial findings already warrant immediate attention and reporting. The Lasallian emphasis on the dignity of each person and the responsibility to care for one another strongly supports prioritizing participant safety through immediate reporting and cessation of the potentially harmful intervention.

The question probes the understanding of ethical considerations in research, specifically concerning the principle of beneficence and non-maleficence within the context of a university’s commitment to responsible scholarship, as exemplified by De La Salle Catholic University Manado’s academic ethos. The scenario involves a research project on a novel pedagogical approach that shows initial promise but carries potential, albeit unquantified, risks to student well-being. The core of the ethical dilemma lies in balancing the potential benefits of the new teaching method against the potential harm to participants. Beneficence mandates maximizing potential benefits, while non-maleficence requires minimizing potential harm. In this situation, the research team has identified a potential benefit (improved learning outcomes) but has not yet fully quantified or mitigated the potential risks (e.g., psychological stress, academic disadvantage for a subset of students). The most ethically sound approach, aligning with the principles of responsible research and the values often emphasized at institutions like De La Salle Catholic University Manado, is to prioritize participant safety and informed consent. This involves a thorough risk assessment, clear communication of these risks to potential participants, and the establishment of robust monitoring mechanisms to detect and address any adverse effects promptly. Without this due diligence, proceeding with the full-scale implementation, even with promising preliminary data, would violate the fundamental ethical obligation to “do no harm” and to ensure that participants are fully aware of what they are agreeing to. Therefore, the critical step is to conduct a comprehensive pilot study to rigorously assess and manage these risks before wider adoption.

The question probes the understanding of ethical considerations in academic research, specifically within the context of a university like De La Salle Catholic University Manado, which emphasizes Lasallian values of faith, service, and communion. The scenario involves a student, Anya, who has discovered a potential plagiarism issue in a colleague’s work submitted for a joint project. The core ethical principle at play is academic integrity, which requires addressing such issues responsibly and transparently. Anya’s options are: 1. **Directly confront the colleague:** This might lead to defensiveness or denial, and without proof, could escalate conflict without resolution. 2. **Report to the professor without speaking to the colleague:** This bypasses an opportunity for direct communication and could be perceived as overly punitive, especially if the colleague made an honest mistake. 3. **Gather more evidence and then approach the professor:** This is a measured approach that respects the process and ensures that any report is well-founded. It aligns with the university’s commitment to justice and truth. 4. **Ignore the issue:** This is a clear violation of academic integrity and shirks responsibility, undermining the learning environment. The most ethically sound and procedurally correct approach, aligning with De La Salle Catholic University Manado’s commitment to fostering a community of scholars who uphold truth and integrity, is to first gather sufficient evidence and then report the findings to the appropriate academic authority (the professor). This ensures that the accusation is substantiated and that the university’s established procedures for academic misconduct are followed, protecting both the integrity of the research and the rights of all involved. The explanation of why this is correct involves understanding the principles of due process, the importance of evidence-based reporting in academic settings, and the Lasallian value of seeking truth and acting with integrity in all endeavors. It’s about balancing the need to address academic dishonesty with fairness and a commitment to a supportive learning environment.

The question assesses understanding of ethical considerations in research, particularly concerning the integration of faith and reason, a core tenet of De La Salle Catholic University Manado’s educational philosophy. The scenario involves a student researcher, Anya, who is developing a project on the impact of community service on student well-being. Anya has gathered qualitative data through interviews and is considering using a statistical method to analyze the sentiment expressed in these interviews. However, she is aware that certain statistical techniques, while efficient, might oversimplify or misrepresent the nuanced human experiences and spiritual dimensions often present in discussions about service and well-being, which are central to a Lasallian education. The core ethical dilemma lies in balancing methodological rigor with the preservation of the qualitative richness and potential spiritual insights within the data. A purely quantitative approach, such as assigning numerical values to subjective statements without careful contextualization, could inadvertently reduce complex human experiences to mere data points, potentially undermining the deeper meaning Anya seeks to uncover. This aligns with the Lasallian emphasis on the holistic development of the person, which includes intellectual, social, emotional, and spiritual aspects. The most ethically sound approach, therefore, would be one that acknowledges the limitations of purely quantitative analysis when dealing with qualitative data that carries significant personal and potentially spiritual weight. It requires a method that can capture the depth of meaning while still offering some form of structured analysis. Let’s consider the options: * **Option a) Employ a mixed-methods approach, prioritizing thematic analysis of the qualitative data and using sentiment analysis as a supplementary tool to identify recurring emotional tones, ensuring the qualitative interpretations remain primary.** This option directly addresses the ethical concern by valuing the qualitative data’s richness. Thematic analysis is a robust qualitative method that can uncover underlying patterns and meanings. Sentiment analysis, used supplementarily, can provide an additional layer of insight without dominating the interpretation. This approach respects the complexity of human experience and the potential for spiritual reflection, aligning with the university’s values. * **Option b) Immediately apply a sophisticated natural language processing algorithm to categorize all interview responses into predefined emotional states, disregarding any potential for spiritual interpretation to maintain objectivity.** This option is problematic because it prioritizes a potentially reductive quantitative method over the qualitative depth and spiritual dimension, which is contrary to a holistic educational approach. Disregarding spiritual interpretation is a significant ethical oversight in a Lasallian context. * **Option c) Focus solely on the demographic data of the interviewees, assuming that socioeconomic factors are the primary determinants of well-being and thus the most relevant aspect to analyze.** This option ignores the core qualitative data and the student’s research question about the impact of community service on well-being, as expressed in their own words. It also fails to engage with the potential for spiritual insights. * **Option d) Conduct a simple frequency count of keywords related to “service” and “well-being” to quantify the prevalence of these terms, without further interpretation.** This is a superficial quantitative method that would likely miss the nuanced meanings and emotional content of the interviews, failing to capture the essence of the research. It also neglects the qualitative and spiritual dimensions. Therefore, the most ethically sound and academically appropriate approach for Anya, within the context of De La Salle Catholic University Manado’s values, is the mixed-methods approach that prioritizes qualitative interpretation.

The question probes the understanding of ethical considerations in research, specifically within the context of a university like De La Salle Catholic University Manado, which emphasizes Lasallian values of faith, service, and communion. The scenario involves a student researcher, Anya, who discovers potentially groundbreaking but ethically ambiguous data. The core of the problem lies in balancing the pursuit of knowledge with the responsibility to participants and the integrity of the research process. Anya’s situation requires adherence to principles of informed consent, confidentiality, and the avoidance of harm. The data, while promising, was collected under conditions that might not fully meet current ethical standards, or its interpretation could lead to unintended negative consequences for the individuals involved. Therefore, Anya must consider the potential for re-identification, the impact of her findings on the community from which the data was drawn, and the university’s own ethical guidelines for research. Option (a) correctly identifies the most prudent and ethically sound course of action. Consulting with the university’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) or ethics committee is paramount. This body is specifically tasked with reviewing research proposals and ongoing studies to ensure they meet ethical standards and protect participant welfare. Their guidance is crucial in navigating complex situations where data integrity and participant rights might be in tension. The IRB can advise on methods for anonymizing data further, re-obtaining consent if feasible and appropriate, or even determining if the data can be ethically used at all. This aligns with De La Salle Catholic University Manado’s commitment to responsible scholarship and the dignity of every individual. Option (b) is incorrect because proceeding without consultation, even with the intention of anonymizing, bypasses essential ethical oversight and could lead to unforeseen breaches of trust or harm. The responsibility for ethical conduct rests not solely on the researcher but also on the institution. Option (c) is also incorrect. While transparency is important, unilaterally publishing findings that might be ethically compromised before seeking guidance could cause significant harm to participants and damage the reputation of both the researcher and the university. The potential benefits of immediate publication do not outweigh the ethical risks. Option (d) is flawed because it suggests a compromise that might still violate ethical principles. Attempting to “mitigate harm” without expert ethical guidance is speculative and could inadvertently exacerbate the problem. The focus should be on preventing harm through established ethical protocols, not on attempting to fix potential ethical breaches after the fact without proper consultation.

The question probes the understanding of ethical considerations in research, specifically within the context of a university like De La Salle Catholic University Manado, which emphasizes Lasallian values of faith, service, and communion. The scenario involves a student researcher, Anya, who discovers potentially harmful side effects of a new agricultural compound developed by a faculty member. The core ethical dilemma revolves around balancing the pursuit of scientific advancement and potential benefits of the compound against the immediate risk to human and environmental well-being, and the researcher’s duty to report. Anya’s primary ethical obligation, rooted in principles of beneficence and non-maleficence, is to prevent harm. Discovering adverse effects, even if preliminary, necessitates immediate action to mitigate potential damage. The university’s commitment to responsible research and its academic integrity framework would mandate transparency and a thorough investigation of such findings. Option A, advocating for immediate reporting to the ethics committee and the faculty supervisor, aligns with these principles. This approach ensures that the discovery is reviewed by a body equipped to assess the risks and implement appropriate safeguards, such as halting further trials or issuing warnings. This action directly addresses the potential harm and upholds the researcher’s duty of care. Option B, suggesting continued data collection to confirm the severity, delays crucial intervention and could exacerbate harm if the side effects are indeed significant. While rigorous confirmation is important, it should not preclude immediate notification of potential danger. Option C, proposing to publish the findings without prior consultation, bypasses established university protocols and could lead to premature or sensationalized reporting, potentially causing undue alarm or undermining the research process. It also neglects the responsibility to inform relevant authorities first. Option D, recommending a private discussion with the faculty member alone, might be a preliminary step, but it does not adequately address the institutional responsibility for oversight and the potential conflict of interest if the faculty member is invested in the compound’s success. The ethics committee provides an impartial forum for such critical disclosures. Therefore, immediate reporting to the ethics committee and supervisor is the most ethically sound and procedurally correct course of action, reflecting De La Salle Catholic University Manado’s commitment to responsible scholarship and community welfare.

The scenario describes a student, Anya, at De La Salle Catholic University Manado, grappling with the ethical implications of using AI-generated content for her thesis. The core of the question lies in understanding the university’s commitment to academic integrity and the principles of scholarly work. De La Salle Catholic University Manado, like most reputable institutions, emphasizes original thought, critical analysis, and the ethical attribution of sources. Submitting AI-generated work as one’s own directly violates these principles, constituting plagiarism and undermining the learning process. The university’s academic policies would likely view this as a serious breach of conduct, impacting Anya’s academic standing and potentially leading to disciplinary action. Therefore, the most appropriate course of action, aligning with the university’s values of honesty and intellectual rigor, is to acknowledge the use of AI as a tool for research assistance and to ensure all submitted work reflects Anya’s own critical engagement and synthesis of information. This upholds the spirit of scholarly inquiry and personal intellectual development that De La Salle Catholic University Manado fosters.

The core of this question lies in understanding the ethical framework of research, particularly as it pertains to the Lasallian educational philosophy which emphasizes service, community, and the dignity of the human person. When a research project, such as the one proposed by a student at De La Salle Catholic University Manado, involves human participants and potentially sensitive data, the principle of informed consent is paramount. Informed consent ensures that participants are fully aware of the research’s purpose, procedures, risks, and benefits, and that their participation is voluntary and can be withdrawn at any time without penalty. This aligns with the university’s commitment to ethical scholarship and the protection of individual autonomy. The scenario describes a student wanting to study the impact of social media on student well-being. This topic inherently involves collecting data from individuals, which necessitates ethical considerations. The student’s initial approach of observing public online discussions without explicit consent raises significant ethical flags. While public data might seem accessible, the expectation of privacy, even in online spaces, can be complex, and directly analyzing and attributing findings without consent can be problematic, especially when dealing with potentially sensitive personal reflections on well-being. Therefore, the most ethically sound and academically rigorous approach, in line with De La Salle Catholic University Manado’s values, is to obtain informed consent from all participants. This involves clearly explaining the study’s objectives, how their data will be used, ensuring anonymity or confidentiality, and providing them with the opportunity to ask questions and agree to participate. This process respects the dignity of each individual and upholds the integrity of the research conducted under the university’s auspices. Other options, such as anonymizing data after collection without initial consent, or relying solely on public domain data without considering the context of personal disclosure, do not fully address the ethical nuances of research involving human subjects and their well-being. The emphasis on community and service at De La Salle Catholic University Manado further underscores the importance of treating all individuals with respect and ensuring their voluntary participation in any research endeavor.

The core of this question lies in understanding the ethical implications of technological advancement within a Catholic educational framework, specifically as it pertains to academic integrity and student well-being at De La Salle Catholic University Manado. The scenario presents a common challenge: the integration of AI-powered tools for academic tasks. The ethical dilemma arises from the potential for these tools to facilitate plagiarism or undermine genuine learning, which directly conflicts with the university’s Lasallian values of faith, service, and communion. The question probes the candidate’s ability to apply these values to a contemporary issue. A responsible approach, aligned with the university’s mission, would involve proactive measures to educate students about the ethical use of AI, establish clear guidelines, and foster a culture of academic honesty. This includes emphasizing the importance of original thought, critical engagement with information, and the development of personal intellectual skills, rather than relying on AI to bypass the learning process. Option A, focusing on comprehensive education about AI’s ethical use and establishing clear institutional policies, directly addresses these concerns by promoting responsible integration and upholding academic standards. This approach aligns with the university’s commitment to forming well-rounded individuals who are both technologically adept and ethically grounded. Option B, while acknowledging the existence of AI, is too passive and reactive. It suggests monitoring without actively guiding or educating, which could allow the problems to proliferate. Option C, which advocates for outright prohibition, is often impractical in the modern academic landscape and may hinder students from developing necessary digital literacy skills. It also fails to address the underlying need for ethical guidance. Option D, by focusing solely on punitive measures, neglects the formative aspect of education and the importance of fostering a positive academic culture. It addresses the symptom (misuse) rather than the root cause (lack of understanding and guidance). Therefore, a proactive, educational, and policy-driven approach is the most aligned with the principles of a Catholic university like De La Salle Catholic University Manado.

The core of this question lies in understanding the ethical implications of technological advancement within a Catholic educational framework, specifically as it pertains to De La Salle Catholic University Manado’s commitment to holistic development and social justice. The scenario presents a conflict between efficiency gains through AI-driven personalized learning and the potential for algorithmic bias to exacerbate existing inequalities or diminish the human element of education. A Catholic university, guided by principles of human dignity, solidarity, and the common good, must critically evaluate technologies. The Lasallian tradition emphasizes the importance of personal relationships, mentorship, and fostering a supportive community. While AI can offer valuable tools for individualized instruction, its implementation must be scrutinized to ensure it does not inadvertently create new forms of exclusion or reduce students to data points. The potential for AI algorithms to reflect and amplify societal biases (e.g., in data used for training) is a significant concern. If an AI system, for instance, inadvertently favors learning styles or background knowledge more prevalent in certain demographics, it could disadvantage students from underrepresented groups, contradicting the university’s commitment to inclusivity and equity. Furthermore, an over-reliance on AI might depersonalize the learning experience, reducing the crucial role of faculty in fostering critical thinking, ethical reasoning, and spiritual growth, which are central to a Lasallian education. Therefore, the most ethically sound approach, aligning with De La Salle Catholic University Manado’s values, is to prioritize transparency, human oversight, and a commitment to mitigating bias. This involves not just adopting AI but actively ensuring its development and deployment are guided by ethical principles that uphold the dignity of every student and promote a just and equitable learning environment. This requires a proactive stance in understanding the technology’s limitations and potential harms, rather than simply embracing its perceived benefits.

The question probes the understanding of ethical considerations in research, specifically concerning informed consent and the potential for coercion, which are foundational principles in academic integrity at institutions like De La Salle Catholic University Manado. The scenario involves a research project at De La Salle Catholic University Manado aiming to study the impact of a new pedagogical approach on student engagement. The researcher, Dr. Aris, is collecting data from undergraduate students in the Faculty of Education. To ensure a robust sample size, Dr. Aris offers a small, tangible incentive – a voucher for the university bookstore – to participants. However, the university’s internal review board (IRB) raises concerns about this practice. The core ethical issue here is whether the incentive constitutes undue influence or coercion, particularly given the power dynamic between a faculty member and students. Undue influence occurs when a person is persuaded to act in a way that is contrary to their best interests or free will due to an excessive or improper reward or threat. In this context, while the voucher is modest, its provision by a professor to their students could be perceived as a subtle pressure to participate, especially if students believe their academic standing might be affected by their decision to participate or not. The principle of voluntary participation is paramount in ethical research. This means participants must be free to decline participation without penalty and to withdraw at any time without consequence. Offering an incentive, while common, must be carefully calibrated to avoid compromising this voluntariness. The IRB’s concern is valid because the incentive, though seemingly minor, could disproportionately influence students who may have limited financial resources, potentially overriding their genuine willingness to participate or their right to refuse. The goal is to ensure that participation is driven by genuine interest in the research and understanding of its purpose, not by the allure of a reward that might subtly pressure them. Therefore, the most ethically sound approach, as per established research ethics guidelines often emphasized in academic programs at De La Salle Catholic University Manado, is to ensure that any incentive is not so large as to impair judgment or create a sense of obligation. The IRB’s role is to safeguard participants, and their scrutiny of the voucher highlights the university’s commitment to rigorous ethical standards in all scholarly endeavors. The question tests the candidate’s ability to identify the ethical dilemma and propose a solution that upholds the principles of voluntary participation and avoids coercion, reflecting the university’s dedication to responsible research practices.

The question probes the understanding of ethical considerations in research, specifically within the context of a university like De La Salle Catholic University Manado, which emphasizes Lasallian values of faith, service, and communion. The scenario involves a student researcher, Anya, who discovers potentially groundbreaking but ethically questionable data collection methods. The core of the problem lies in balancing scientific advancement with moral responsibility. Anya’s initial data collection involved observing participants without explicit consent, a violation of the principle of informed consent, a cornerstone of ethical research. This action directly contravenes established research ethics guidelines, which prioritize participant autonomy and well-being. The potential for significant findings does not negate the ethical imperative to obtain consent. The most ethically sound and academically responsible course of action for Anya, aligned with the principles upheld at De La Salle Catholic University Manado, would be to immediately cease the current data collection, inform her supervisor about the ethical breach, and seek guidance on how to rectify the situation, which would likely involve re-obtaining consent or discarding the improperly collected data. This approach demonstrates integrity, respect for participants, and adherence to scholarly standards. Option (a) reflects this by prioritizing immediate cessation, disclosure to the supervisor, and seeking corrective action. Option (b) is problematic because it suggests continuing data collection while only *planning* to address consent later, which still involves ongoing ethical violations. Option (c) is also flawed as it prioritizes the potential impact of the research over the immediate ethical breach, suggesting a justification for continuing unethical practices. Option (d) is the least appropriate as it advocates for concealing the breach, which is a severe ethical violation and undermines the trust essential in academic research and the university community. Therefore, the most appropriate response is to halt the process and engage in transparent, ethical remediation.

The question probes the understanding of ethical considerations in research, specifically within the context of a Catholic university’s academic environment like De La Salle Catholic University Manado. The core principle being tested is the balance between advancing knowledge and upholding human dignity and integrity. The scenario involves Dr. Aris, a researcher at De La Salle Catholic University Manado, who has discovered a potential breakthrough in agricultural technology. However, the most efficient method for testing this technology involves a process that could inadvertently cause minor, temporary discomfort to a small group of participants. The ethical dilemma lies in whether the potential societal benefit (improved crop yields, food security) justifies even minimal participant discomfort, especially within an institution that emphasizes Lasallian values of faith, service, and community. The explanation of the correct answer focuses on the paramount importance of informed consent and the principle of non-maleficence. In any research, particularly at an institution like De La Salle Catholic University Manado, which is rooted in ethical teachings, the well-being and autonomy of participants are non-negotiable. Even if the discomfort is minor and temporary, if participants are not fully informed of this possibility and do not explicitly consent to it, the research design would be ethically flawed. The potential benefits, however significant, cannot override the fundamental rights of individuals. Therefore, Dr. Aris must redesign the testing protocol to eliminate or significantly mitigate any potential discomfort, or ensure that participants are fully aware of and consent to the risk, even if it means a slower or less efficient research process. This aligns with the university’s commitment to responsible scholarship and the dignity of every person.

The core of this question lies in understanding the ethical considerations of academic integrity within a university setting, specifically De La Salle Catholic University Manado’s commitment to scholarly excellence and its Lasallian values. The scenario presents a student, Anya, who has discovered a significant error in a published research paper that is foundational to her own thesis. The ethical dilemma is how to address this error responsibly. Option (a) is correct because Anya’s primary obligation is to the pursuit of truth and the integrity of knowledge, which aligns with De La Salle Catholic University Manado’s emphasis on scholarly rigor and ethical conduct. Reporting the error to her advisor and the journal’s editorial board is the most direct and appropriate method to rectify the misinformation and uphold academic standards. This process ensures that the scientific community is informed and that the foundational research is corrected, preventing the propagation of flawed data. This action reflects a deep understanding of the collaborative and self-correcting nature of academic research, a principle highly valued in higher education institutions like De La Salle Catholic University Manado. Option (b) is incorrect because while Anya might feel pressure to protect her own thesis, deliberately ignoring a known error, even if it doesn’t directly invalidate her current findings, undermines the very principles of academic honesty. This passive approach fails to contribute to the correction of knowledge and could be seen as complicity in perpetuating misinformation. Option (c) is incorrect because directly contacting the original authors without involving her advisor first bypasses the established academic protocols for addressing research errors. While direct communication might eventually be part of the process, it’s crucial to follow the proper channels within the university and the academic publishing system. This approach could also be perceived as confrontational or unprofessional if not handled through established academic mentorship. Option (d) is incorrect because altering her own thesis to subtly work around the error, without acknowledging or addressing the original flaw, is a form of academic dishonesty. It misrepresents the state of the research field and Anya’s own engagement with it. The goal is to build upon accurate knowledge, not to obscure inaccuracies.

The question probes the understanding of ethical considerations in research, specifically within the context of a Catholic university like De La Salle Catholic University Manado, which emphasizes Lasallian values of faith, service, and communion. The scenario involves a student researcher, Anya, who discovers potentially damaging information about a local community organization that has partnered with the university. The core ethical dilemma lies in balancing the pursuit of academic truth and the potential harm to the community partner. Anya’s research aims to document the socio-economic impact of the organization’s initiatives. During her fieldwork, she uncovers evidence suggesting that while the organization provides valuable services, its financial management practices are less than transparent, potentially leading to resource misallocation. This discovery presents a conflict between her duty to accurately report her findings and her responsibility to the community partner and the university’s relationship with it. The principle of “do no harm” is paramount in research ethics. While Anya has an obligation to present her findings, the manner of presentation is crucial. Simply publishing the raw, unverified data without context or an opportunity for the organization to respond could cause undue reputational damage and jeopardize future collaborations, which aligns with the Lasallian value of communion and service. Option a) suggests Anya should first discuss her findings with the organization’s leadership, offering them a chance to clarify or rectify the situation before disseminating the information. This approach respects the dignity of the individuals involved, allows for a more nuanced understanding of the situation, and upholds the principle of responsible disclosure. It also aligns with the university’s commitment to fostering positive community relationships. This is the most ethically sound approach as it prioritizes dialogue and potential resolution over immediate, potentially damaging, public disclosure. Option b) proposes Anya publish her findings immediately to ensure academic integrity. While academic integrity is important, it should not come at the expense of ethical conduct and potential harm. This option overlooks the need for due process and the potential for misinterpretation or incomplete understanding of the financial data. Option c) suggests Anya omit the sensitive financial information from her report to avoid conflict. This would compromise the integrity and completeness of her research, failing to fulfill her academic obligations and potentially leaving a critical aspect of the organization’s impact undocumented. Option d) recommends Anya seek legal counsel before proceeding. While legal consultation might be necessary in some extreme cases, it is not the immediate or primary ethical step when dealing with potential financial irregularities in a community partnership. The initial step should be one of communication and seeking clarification. Therefore, the most appropriate and ethically grounded course of action, reflecting the values of De La Salle Catholic University Manado, is to engage in open communication with the organization first.

The core of this question lies in understanding the ethical implications of academic integrity within a Catholic university context, specifically De La Salle Catholic University Manado. The scenario presents a student, Anya, who has discovered a significant error in a widely cited research paper that forms the basis of many current theories in her field. The ethical imperative for a student at De La Salle Catholic University Manado, which emphasizes Lasallian values of faith, service, and communion, is to uphold truth and contribute to the advancement of knowledge responsibly. Anya’s discovery, if true, has the potential to destabilize established academic paradigms. The most ethically sound and academically rigorous approach, aligned with the university’s commitment to truth and intellectual honesty, is to verify her findings meticulously and then present them through appropriate academic channels. This involves a thorough review of her methodology, cross-referencing with other data, and potentially seeking guidance from a trusted faculty mentor. Once confident, the next step is to communicate her findings to the academic community, typically through a formal submission to a peer-reviewed journal or a presentation at a scholarly conference. This process ensures that the scientific community can evaluate the evidence and, if validated, integrate the corrected understanding into the body of knowledge. Option a) represents this rigorous and ethical path. It prioritizes verification, responsible dissemination, and adherence to scholarly norms, all of which are paramount in an academic environment that values intellectual honesty and the pursuit of truth, as is characteristic of De La Salle Catholic University Manado. Option b) is problematic because it suggests suppressing the findings. This directly contradicts the Lasallian commitment to truth and the advancement of knowledge. While the potential disruption is acknowledged, hiding a significant error would be a disservice to the academic community and a violation of ethical principles. Option c) is also ethically questionable. While seeking mentorship is good, directly confronting the original author without prior verification and a structured approach might be premature and could lead to an unproductive or adversarial situation. The primary responsibility is to the integrity of the research itself. Option d) proposes a public, informal dissemination without the rigor of peer review. This bypasses established academic processes designed to ensure the validity and reliability of information, potentially leading to the spread of misinformation or premature conclusions, which is contrary to the scholarly standards expected at De La Salle Catholic University Manado.

The core of this question lies in understanding the ethical implications of academic integrity within a Catholic university context, specifically De La Salle Catholic University Manado. The scenario presents a student, Anya, who has discovered a significant error in a widely cited research paper that forms the basis of many current studies, including those at De La Salle. The ethical imperative for a scholar, particularly one educated in a tradition emphasizing truth and intellectual honesty, is to address such findings responsibly. The calculation here is not numerical but rather a logical deduction based on ethical principles. 1. **Identify the core issue:** A factual error in foundational research. 2. **Identify the ethical obligation:** To uphold truth and contribute to the academic community’s knowledge base. 3. **Evaluate potential actions:** * Ignoring the error: Violates academic integrity and intellectual honesty. * Disclosing the error privately to the author: A step, but insufficient if the error is widely disseminated and impacts ongoing research. * Publishing a critique or correction: Directly addresses the error, informs the academic community, and upholds scholarly standards. This aligns with the pursuit of truth, a cornerstone of Catholic intellectual tradition and university education. * Using the error to one’s advantage without disclosure: Unethical and academically dishonest. The most ethically sound and academically responsible action, aligning with the values of De La Salle Catholic University Manado, is to formally communicate the findings to the academic community through a peer-reviewed channel, such as a scholarly journal or conference presentation. This ensures transparency and allows for the correction of the scientific record. The explanation of why this is the correct answer involves referencing principles of academic integrity, the pursuit of truth, and the responsibility of scholars to contribute to a reliable body of knowledge, all of which are central to the mission of a Catholic university like De La Salle.

The core of this question lies in understanding the ethical framework of Catholic higher education, specifically as it pertains to academic integrity and the pursuit of knowledge within a faith-informed context, which is central to De La Salle Catholic University Manado’s mission. The scenario presents a conflict between a student’s desire for academic success and the principles of honest scholarship. The student, Anya, has encountered a significant obstacle in her research for a sociology paper on community development initiatives in North Sulawesi. She has found a compelling but unpublished manuscript by a senior researcher that directly addresses her thesis. The ethical dilemma arises from her consideration of using this material without proper attribution or explicit permission, potentially violating academic honesty policies. The Lasallian educational tradition emphasizes the dignity of the human person, the pursuit of truth, and the importance of community. Within this framework, academic integrity is not merely a set of rules but a moral imperative rooted in respect for intellectual property and the collaborative nature of knowledge creation. Using unpublished work without acknowledgment or permission is a form of plagiarism, which undermines the trust essential for scholarly discourse and disrespects the intellectual labor of the original author. Furthermore, it misrepresents Anya’s own research efforts and understanding. The most ethically sound approach, aligned with De La Salle Catholic University Manado’s values, is to seek permission from the author and, if granted, to cite the manuscript appropriately, acknowledging its unpublished status. This upholds the principles of intellectual honesty, respects the author’s rights, and demonstrates Anya’s commitment to rigorous and ethical research practices. Other options, such as paraphrasing without citation, claiming the ideas as her own, or abandoning the research altogether due to the difficulty, would all fall short of the expected academic and ethical standards. The university expects its students to navigate such challenges with integrity, demonstrating a commitment to truth and responsible scholarship, even when it requires extra effort or difficult conversations. This reflects the broader Lasallian commitment to forming individuals who are not only academically competent but also morally upright and socially responsible.

The question assesses understanding of the Lasallian educational philosophy, specifically its emphasis on holistic development and service-learning, as reflected in the De La Salle Catholic University Manado’s curriculum and mission. The core of this philosophy, rooted in the teachings of St. John Baptist de La Salle, is the belief in the dignity of every person and the transformative power of education. This translates into an educational approach that nurtures not only intellectual growth but also moral, social, and spiritual development. Service-learning, a pedagogical strategy that integrates community service with academic instruction, is a direct manifestation of this philosophy. It provides students with opportunities to apply their knowledge in real-world contexts, fostering empathy, social responsibility, and a commitment to justice. Therefore, a curriculum designed to align with De La Salle Catholic University Manado’s values would prioritize experiential learning opportunities that connect classroom theory with practical application in service to others, thereby cultivating well-rounded individuals prepared to contribute positively to society. This approach moves beyond mere knowledge acquisition to the development of character and the capacity for meaningful engagement with the world.

The question assesses understanding of the Lasallian educational philosophy, particularly its emphasis on faith, service, and community within an academic context. De La Salle Catholic University Manado, rooted in this tradition, prioritizes holistic development. A student engaging in community outreach, such as organizing a local environmental cleanup, directly embodies the Lasallian charism of service and social responsibility. This action fosters a sense of solidarity and commitment to the common good, aligning with the university’s mission to form individuals who are not only academically proficient but also ethically grounded and socially conscious. Such engagement cultivates empathy, practical problem-solving skills, and a deeper understanding of societal needs, all of which are integral to a Lasallian education. While academic excellence and spiritual growth are also core tenets, the direct application of learning to serve others through tangible action is a hallmark of this educational approach. Therefore, participation in a community service project that addresses a local issue best exemplifies the practical manifestation of Lasallian values in action, preparing students for meaningful contributions beyond the classroom.

The question probes the understanding of ethical considerations in research, specifically within the context of a university like De La Salle Catholic University Manado, which emphasizes Lasallian values of faith, service, and communion. The scenario involves a student researcher, Anya, who discovers potentially harmful side effects of a new agricultural pesticide being developed by a local cooperative. Anya’s ethical obligation, rooted in principles of beneficence and non-maleficence, compels her to report these findings. The core conflict lies between her duty to scientific integrity and the potential economic impact on the cooperative and the community. However, the foundational ethical principle in research is the protection of human subjects and the dissemination of accurate, unbiased information. Anya’s role as a researcher at De La Salle Catholic University Manado requires her to uphold these standards. The most appropriate action, aligning with academic integrity and ethical research practices, is to present her findings to her faculty advisor and the relevant ethics review board. This ensures that the data is properly evaluated, and a responsible course of action can be determined, which might include further investigation, modification of the pesticide’s application, or informing regulatory bodies. Option a) is correct because it directly addresses the established protocols for handling research findings that have potential negative implications, prioritizing transparency and expert review. Option b) is incorrect because withholding the information, even with good intentions, violates the principle of scientific honesty and could lead to greater harm if the pesticide is released without full disclosure of its risks. Option c) is incorrect because directly contacting the cooperative without involving her advisor or the ethics board bypasses the established oversight mechanisms designed to ensure responsible research conduct and could lead to premature or misinformed decisions. Option d) is incorrect because while advocating for the community is important, it should be done through the proper channels after the findings have been thoroughly vetted and understood, not by preemptively making public pronouncements that could cause undue alarm or misrepresent the data. The university’s commitment to truth and justice necessitates a structured approach to such sensitive issues.

The core of this question lies in understanding the epistemological foundations of knowledge acquisition within a Catholic, Lasallian educational framework, particularly as it pertains to the development of critical thinking and ethical reasoning. De La Salle Catholic University Manado emphasizes a holistic approach that integrates faith, reason, and service. When considering how a student best develops a nuanced understanding of complex societal issues, such as the ethical implications of emerging technologies, the most effective approach would involve a synthesis of diverse perspectives. This synthesis is achieved through rigorous academic inquiry, which includes engaging with scholarly literature from various disciplines, participating in structured debates and discussions that challenge preconceived notions, and critically evaluating information from multiple sources. This process fosters intellectual humility and the ability to discern truth, aligning with the Lasallian charism of forming “faith-filled, responsible, and responsive citizens.” Simply memorizing facts or relying on a single authoritative source would not cultivate the deep analytical skills and ethical discernment required. Similarly, focusing solely on practical application without theoretical grounding or philosophical reflection would lead to a superficial understanding. Therefore, the most robust method involves a multifaceted engagement that encourages questioning, critical analysis, and the integration of diverse viewpoints, leading to a well-reasoned and ethically informed perspective.

The core of this question lies in understanding the ethical framework of academic integrity, particularly as it applies to research and scholarship within a Catholic university like De La Salle Catholic University Manado. The scenario presents a student, Anya, who has discovered a significant error in her published research. The ethical imperative for a scholar is to acknowledge and correct such errors, thereby upholding the truth and maintaining the integrity of the academic record. This aligns with the principles of intellectual honesty and responsibility that are foundational to scholarly pursuits. Anya’s dilemma involves balancing the potential negative impact on her reputation with the overriding duty to scientific and academic truth. The most ethically sound course of action, consistent with the values of De La Salle Catholic University Manado, is to proactively disclose the error and seek its correction. This demonstrates a commitment to the pursuit of truth, a hallmark of higher education. Ignoring the error or attempting to conceal it would be a violation of academic integrity, potentially leading to more severe consequences and undermining the trust placed in researchers. Furthermore, the process of correction, while challenging, can itself be a learning experience, reinforcing the importance of meticulousness and transparency in academic work. This proactive approach also allows for a controlled dissemination of the correction, potentially mitigating the damage more effectively than if the error were discovered and publicized by others. The university’s commitment to fostering critical thinking and ethical decision-making means that students are expected to navigate such complex situations with integrity.