Participant Commentary: Bad Chemistry
This case is intended to foster discussion of some important
ethical (and procedural) issues that affect the workings of a
graduate research group. As such, it is intended primarily for
use in discussions with graduate students or post-docs and
their supervisors/professors. The main issues it attempts to
present include disciplinary action within a research group,
criteria for authorship, favoritism and prejudices regarding
career goals, and finally, faculty members' responsibilities to
state clear expectations and to foster collegiality among the
members of their working groups.
Disciplinary Action
The first question is intended simply to begin a discussion
as much as to raise the issue of disciplinary action. Most (if
not all) students in research groups have encountered
situations in which an explicit or implied rule has been
violated or some other perceived "wrong" has been committed. In
these situations, the immediate authority is obviously the
professor in charge of the research group. What can a research
adviser do in a case like this one? The leader of a discussion
might ask the participants for two extremes in level of
response appropriate for Imhof. The most severe extreme will
probably involve something along the lines of kicking Jones
out of his research group, or even expulsion from the
university. While this action might be appropriate for some
infractions (fabrication of data, sabotage, etc.), it would
seem to be quite severe for this case. The other extreme would,
of course, have Imhof taking no action at all.
It is made clear in the story that Jones is the person
Michaels wants to see punished. An interesting question that
may come up in discussion concerns Perry's level of wrongdoing.
He may seem less guilty than Jones, if only because he is
the "new guy" and might not understand the norms of group
research. However, he has contributed in a very real way to the
situation that has angered Michaels.
Criteria for Authorship This topic is frequently discussed
in research ethics and is not intended to be the centerpiece of
discussion in this case. However, it is an issue that will face
almost every participant in scientific research at some time
and as such is an appropriate lead-in to other points in this
case study. Criteria for authorship, at least within the
scientific community, are not spelled out by any universal
governing body such as the American Chemical Society. Questions
that are often considered when determining authorship include,
but are not limited to, who actually writes the manuscript, who
performs the experiments and who conceives the idea or makes
significant intellectual contributions toward its fruition.
In the present case, Michaels originally conceived the idea
in question. Therein lies his claim to authorship and the basis
for his complaint against Jones. During discussion of the
case, Michaels' request for authorship will be addressed. Since
Michaels has not yet performed any actual experiments related
to his idea, it is unlikely that all participants in the
discussion will entirely agree with his position. However, most
will probably feel that he has some right to credit for his
idea. How much credit is really the question. Again here,
asking participants in the discussion to propose two extremes
in the amount of credit Michaels should receive might be
helpful to the discussion. The extremes would range from sole
authorship of the paper to no credit at all. Between these
extremes, a consensus might be found; such a consensus may
involve including Michaels as a co-author or mentioning him in
the acknowledgments section of the paper.
A slightly more subtle point that stems from this discussion
concerns the ways in which credit for intellectual
contributions to group projects might be rewarded, other than
by co-authorship on a paper. One possibility is the
all-important letter of recommendation a professor writes for a
student or post-doc at the completion of his or her time in the
group. In this case, Imhof clearly does not think a lot of
Michaels as a researcher. Thus, this avenue for receiving
credit is not likely to be available to him. The reasons this
situation has come about relate directly to the fundamental
issues this case study is intended to address.
Back to Top
Favoritism and Prejudice Regarding Career
Goals
The problem of favoritism by professors who head research
groups, either real or imagined, is common enough that most
graduate students will be exposed to it, either personally or
by hearing someone else complain about it. Favoritism can occur
for many reasons, and it is usually quite destructive to the
group atmosphere. This case spotlights one common source of
favoritism in the academic research setting.
Students choose to attend graduate school with various
career goals in mind. These goals can include industrial
employment, employment as a professor at an academic
institution emphasizing research, or professorship at a
(usually smaller) teaching-centered college or university. It
is unfortunately common for professors at graduate
institutions, who have achieved their stature in large part by
dogged pursuit of research results, to think less of graduate
students who wish to gain a Ph.D. under their direction but
ultimately seek careers that emphasize teaching rather than
research.
The third discussion question is intended to begin a
discussion on this topic. Clearly, Imhof regards teaching as
much less important than research, as seen in his response to
Michaels at the end of the narrative. Michaels will end up
angry, probably bitter, and without his name on a paper
describing his idea in large part because of Imhof's attitude
and, apparently, the fact that he allows his personal attitudes
to affect his treatment of his students.
This part of the discussion is intended to move toward a
professor's ethical responsibility to treat all the members of
his or her group without prejudice, and the basic right held by
members of a research group to be treated fairly and equally as
long as they follow group rules and behave in a collegial
fashion.
Back to Top
Faculty Members' Responsibilities
The final discussion question regarding what Professor Imhof
could have done differently is intended to bring the discussion
around to the main point of this case study; that is, the
responsibilities of professors who head research groups. One
likely response to the question will involve Imhof's failure to
foster cooperation and collegiality among members of the group.
The animosity between Jones and Michaels is clear in the
story. This level of animosity poisons the work environment.
Suggestions as to ways Imhof could have avoided this situation
might include holding closed-door meetings with the "warring
factions," conflict mediation and the like. Collegiality is
expected within the scientific community. Major professors in
science are ethically responsible for educating student under
their direction in such basic principles. It is a vital part of
the training to which graduate students are entitled.
The question might arise of whether Professor Imhof was even
aware of the animosity. That is a good question, and in fact
points to another common problem in research groups: ignorance
on the part of a major professor regarding relations and
personal difficulties between members of his or her research
group. When the new student, Perry, is effectively assigned to
a project not by Imhof but rather by another student, Jones,
that suggests that Imhof is not adequately involved in the
day-to-day functioning of his group.
It is hoped that the discussion will also consider the topic
of rules and standards within a research group. One way to lead
the discussion in this direction might be to ask the questions,
"How will the students in the group know which names should go
on the paper?" and "Why is there a conflict here?"
Back to Top