Passage Summary: A doctor argues that medical researchers shouldn't keep their work secret just because their bosses want them to. The logic is that secrecy slows down medical progress and hurts people who could have been cured sooner.

Conclusion: Medical researchers are morally obligated to share their findings, even if their employers prefer secrecy.

Reasoning: Withholding research results can delay the creation of effective treatments, leading to avoidable human suffering.

Analysis: The doctor is making a moral argument based on the consequences of an action—specifically, the prevention of suffering. To justify this conclusion, we need a principle that establishes a hierarchy of values where preventing human suffering outweighs corporate confidentiality or employment agreements. Look for an answer that explicitly states that if an action (like sharing research) prevents unnecessary suffering, it is the correct or required course of action regardless of conflicting interests. The ideal principle will link the 'avoidance of suffering' directly to the 'wrongness' of keeping secrets.