The Temporary Post-Doc
Phase 1
Dr. Smith, a post-doc, temporarily joined a research group
while seeking employment. The group's mentor, Dr. Johnson,
assigned him to investigate a very difficult organic chemical
reaction. After two months, Smith claimed to have solved the
problem by employing a certain reagent that he had
independently discovered. Unfortunately, Smith did not have
enough evidence to back up his claim. By that point, Smith had
found employment and left the group. Jill Green, an experienced
graduate student, continued the investigation of the reaction.
Green had access to Smith's notebook and data. She found that
Smith's experimental procedures were poorly written, and it was
not possible to duplicate his work. Furthermore, his data were
inconsistent and no valid conclusions could be drawn from the
work. Unfortunately, Smith's procedures were never evaluated
since he had been with the group such a short time. Green
experimented with the reagent used by Smith and found that the
reaction did indeed work, but under different conditions than
described by his results. Six months after this discovery,
Johnson and Green submitted their results to a journal for
publication without consulting Smith.
Back to Top
Discussion Questions:
- Should Johnson and Green have informed Smith of their
results? Why? Explain.
- Should Johnson and Green have acknowledged Smith's
contribution to the work? If yes, how much credit should he
have been given?
- Should Smith have claimed to solve the problem?
Phase 2
A fourth party familiar with Smith's original work and the
work submitted by the group happened to see him and described
how the group had solved the problem. Upon learning that he was
not acknowledged for his contribution, Smith became angry and
returned to confront Johnson and Green. They pointed out to
Smith that their procedure differed from that of his original
work and that his work contained no data that could confirm a
successful result. Smith could not deny their claim, but he
argued that his idea led to a solution and that he should be
acknowledged. Johnson and Green later privately discussed the
best way to handle the situation. Green felt that acknowledging
Smith's contribution in the publication would resolve the
conflict and require only a minor adjustment. However, Johnson
was concerned that listing Smith as a co-author was not
justified based on his work. Johnson stated, "Even if Smith
made some contribution, he deceived us into thinking that he
was doing careful work, then took our salary, and we could not
even use his results." In addition, Johnson thought an
acknowledgment would complicate matters if a patent were to be
filed on the experimental procedure.
Back to Top
Discussion Questions:
- Even though Smith's idea led to a solution to the
problem, does that justify his claim to acknowledgment?
- Suppose a patent were filed on the experimental procedure
published by the group and the procedure were used
industrially and generated significant royalties. What
ethical arguments could a patent lawyer use to include Smith
on the patent?
- Would requesting that Smith return to the lab and
duplicate his own work be a fair way to resolve the question
of his contribution?
Back to Top
-
Commentary: The Temporary Post-Doc
Karen Muskavitch's commentary on data sharing and recognition of the contributions of others, along with issues of collaboration, intellectual contribution and authorship.
-
Participant Commentary: The Temporary Post-Doc
Participant's commentary on data sharing and recognition of the contributions of others, along with issues of collaboration, intellectual contribution and authorship.