Summary: A Research Ethics Case: Mike is a Professional Engineer to earn his Master's degree after about ten years in the field. Along with his admission to graduate school, he is able to secure a position in a lab working for a researcher of geophysics engineering But he later learns that the Primary Investigator (Pl) he has come to work for is very demanding that all of her grad students work very long hours all week long. She also expects them in the lab all day on Saturday and half a day on Sunday. Mike has learned, but all for the same TA salary as the other grad students in engineering. Because Mike has a family at home, the time he is expected to spend in the lab seems unreasonable. Mike is angry and he feels the unfairness of the situation. One Saturday morning his labmate, a much younger student without a PE license, suggests that they fudge some data in that day's experiment (to make it look like they completed it) so that they can leave the lab early. "I've done it before and she never figured it out," his labmate says. It is data on the seismicity of an area that they have already studied and they would only copy and paste in some data that an earlier experiment produced, so in the end, their fudged (manipulated) data would support their P.I's main assertions about the area. They would not fudge all of the experiments: just a few, to save a little time today. After all, they deserve some time off. Regarding above case answer the following questions. Describe the most relevant codes of ethics (NSPE) that apply to this case. Then note the possible pressures, biases, and rationalizations that might motivate Mike to behave less than ethically in this case. What sorts of rationalizations would he need to be aware of, to guard himself against? Tell what you think Mike is ethically obligated to do. If he you think he must speak to someone or several people, to whom should he speak, and what should he say