Whose Lab Is It?
This case discussed the ethical and moral issues intertwined in the relationship between students and their mentors.
Syphilis, which is caused by the bacterium Treponema pallidum, occurs in 3.2 per 100,000 U.S. inhabitants. Biomedical research groups at a major health care center have determined that the cambin protein is essential for infectivity, the capacity of the bacterium to cause syphilis.
Scene 1 -- 9 a.m., Monday, Baker lab's weekly meeting
Professor Beverly Baker: Alex, how is the expression and purification of the cambin protein going? We have to hurry and produce active protein as soon as possible, because several big labs are hot on our trail. We don't want to get scooped on this, since it's a big part of the grant renewal I am preparing. This funding is necessary for your dissertation. Purified protein will strengthen our application and make it clear we can do the proposed work.
- Alex Archibald: Well, the initial steps worked fine, but the later ones are giving me trouble. Your protocol doesn't seem suited for cambin, and tends to inactivate it.
- Beverly: Let me take a look at what you have been trying. [Scans Alex's notebook.] It seems to me that we need to dialyze much more slowly due to the unique properties of cambin. The method you have been using most likely results in aggregates that precipitate out.
- Alex: I tried doing something similar to your suggestion and found no real improvement. I read several articles that suggested adding small amounts of CTAB detergent to minimize aggregation. I might try that. What do you think?
- Beverly: Don't try CTAB. I want you to focus your effort on my purification technique. This method is unique to our lab and is a cornerstone of our work and of the grant proposal. No other labs use a detergent-free method. I developed this method, and my lab has used it for many other proteins. The last summer student also wanted to change protocols for her project, but eventually worked out the purification conditions using my protocol as a guide.
- [Beverly jots several changes to the method.] Try this.
Throughout the week, Alex performs the requested experiments, which fail to produce the desired result. Frustrated, but eager to overcome this technical obstacle, he comes in on the weekend and ponders what to do. Should he contact his professor at home and discuss the results? Should he wait until the next lab meeting? Alex finally decides not to bother his adviser; he decides to test the effect of CTAB on the solubility of cambin.
Scene 2 -- Monday lab meeting, one week later
- Alex: Good News! I got a yield of nearly 90 percent active protein from the new purification protocol! I cannot believe it works so well. As far as I can tell, this is the highest percentage ever seen in this lab!
- Beverly: Wonderful! That will put you in a great position to move right along with the experiments you have planned and get out a manuscript before our competitors do. In addition, my grant renewal can hardly be turned down with these preliminary results. So what did it?
- Alex: I tried the purification with several modifications, as you suggested last week, with no luck. So over the weekend I came in and experimented with CTAB. After a few trials, it worked!
- Beverly: Alex, I told you explicitly not to do that! Why did you directly go against me? I am in charge of this lab, and the use of proteins purified without detergents is central to our unique position in the field! Without funding, we can all go home. I do not appreciate you doing things behind my back. From now on, never conduct experiments without my explicit approval! All you've done this weekend is waste your time, and the time and money of my laboratory!
- Did Alex make the right decision in testing the effect of CTAB? Why or why not? If not, are there any circumstances in which testing with CTAB would be justified?
- What criteria should be used to determine whether Alex's actions were appropriate? Does the fact that the protocol is the basis of Beverly's niche in the protein field play a role? Assume that Alex did not observe any improvement in the yield when he tried CTAB. Should he still report his result to Beverly?
- Does Beverly have the authority to control all research conducted in her lab? Does this right extend equally over graduate students, post-docs and technicians? Should Alex report the incident to his dissertation committee?
- Tenure-seeking professors are often under greater pressure than established faculty, particularly with respect to obtaining funding in a limited amount of time. Would this pressure justify Beverly's viewpoint that experiments must be done her way?
- A second relevant issue is budget restrictions that threaten to close existing labs. If Beverly's method significantly improves her chances of funding, does that justify her insistence on use of her method?
- As a future independent investigator, what are Alex's rights and responsibilities? What expectations should he have regarding his adviser's authority? What are Beverly's responsibilities toward those in her lab (grad students, post-docs and technicians)? How might these responsibilities vary?
- Could this situation have been avoided? Who should have taken responsibility for avoiding this unpleasant confrontation? In retrospect, what could either Alex or Beverly have done? In the future, what could both parties do with regard to this incident?
Used with permission of Association for Practical and Professional Ethics. Case drawn from Research Ethics: Cases and Commentaries, Volume Three, Brian Schrag, Ed., February 1999.
This case raises two very important questions with regard to research conducted in the collaborative setting of an academic laboratory: "Whose lab is it?" and the corollary "Whose research is it?" These questions are most pertinent when they concern research conducted by a post-doctoral fellow or a graduate student, as is the situation here. In the biology laboratories with which I am most familiar, the research of a graduate student like Archibald is typically the basis of his dissertation and in that sense is "his," but the work is part of a larger project on which the entire laboratory is working, and will continue working after he completes his degree and moves on. In this sense, the research is not his but rather belongs to the lab and the director of the lab. Most people are now aware that the research notebooks belong to the lab, and in many cases the convention is that the research questions stay in the original lab as well.
Many people are typically involved in a research project in an academic laboratory including the faculty member who is the principal investigator (PI) on most of the grants supporting the laboratory, a few post-docs trying to get their CVs in shape for the job market, some graduate students working toward their degrees, perhaps some undergraduates, and a few technicians. The technicians may range from those with advanced training in the field, even doctorates, to those who came to the lab with no special training and may only be able to carry out relatively routine tasks. Linking all these people is a complex web of relationships that can sometimes become strained or frayed.
This scenario focuses on one of these relationships, that between a graduate student and the faculty member who directs the laboratory. You will note that I have avoided using the term "mentor" to describe the faculty member. Contrary to what is usually assumed in the sciences, a graduate student's research adviser might not be the student's mentor. As noted in Adviser, Teacher, Role Model, Friend: On Being a Mentor to Students in Science and Engineering, a recent book from the National Academy Press,
Because we do not know what the quality of the relationship between Archibald and Baker has been, I will simply use the term "research adviser" to describe Baker's relationship to Archibald.
Serving as a research adviser to a graduate student includes a number of responsibilities. (I will discuss the student's responsibilities in the commentary on Discussion Question 6.) These include guiding the student's research project by communicating effectively with the student, reviewing and providing regular feedback on the student's progress, and helping the student to acquire and develop the skills needed by independent researchers in their scientific field. In this case, we see that Archibald is meeting with Baker on a regular basis and that she reviews his work over the past week, looks at the primary data (not just the summaries that Archibald presents to her), and gives him concrete ideas on what to try next. This pattern of behavior is very good, and it seems to fulfill the first of the responsibilities of advisers. However, the way in which the conflict between Archibald and Baker is presented in this case leads one to wonder how well Baker has communicated the overall goal of the laboratory's research to her lab, and to Archibald in particular. He seems to be focused on the short-term goal of purifying cambin as quickly as possible and by whatever means so that he can do his experiments, write his dissertation and finish his degree. Baker, on the other hand, seems to be focused on the long term, on working with proteins purified in a unique way without the use of detergents. It is not clear whether Archibald just doesn't care about the long-term goals of the lab, or whether Baker has failed to communicate them to her collaborators. If the latter, then she has also failed to help Archibald to develop one of the skills he will need in a future career in science: the ability to see the big picture as well as determine the details of the next protocol that should be tested. In fact, her practice of making detailed notes in Archibald's notebook for what he should try next makes one wonder if she is doing too much directing of his work. What might be appropriate direction for a technician would not be appropriate for a senior graduate student who should be practicing experimental design skills. (See Discussion Question 3.)
As noted, we do not know what kind of relationship Archibald and Baker have had up to the exchanges recorded in this case study. What is likely to happen as this case is used with a group is that each person will project his/her own experiences and biases onto these two characters. That is good for the discussion if it engages the participants and helps them to reflect on their own relationships and what could be improved. However, it could be a problem if the participants start making assumptions about the personalities or motives of these two characters and then base their ethical analyses on these assumptions. We don't know if Baker is a long-suffering junior faculty member working with a graduate student who can't seem to see beyond his own dissertation, or if Archibald is a bright, motivated graduate student struggling under an adviser who doesn't tell lab members what the overall plan is and who wants to control every aspect of every experiment run in her lab. In facilitating discussion of this case, I suggest taking a neutral view of both characters. Assume that they are acting in good faith, and beware of assumptions that discussion participants may be making. However, the discussion also should explore the possible differences if we assume that Baker is a micro-manager or Archibald a short-sighted student. The possible consequences of a proposed course of action might change, but usually the affected parties' rights and interests, and the ethical principles and obligations, do not.
Some people might question whether the conflicts presented in this case aren't more issues of etiquette than of ethics. Because they deal with how people ought to treat each other, they are ethical issues. Many scientific societies and writers in the field of research ethics have argued that the treatment of graduate students is an issue in research ethics. In their report Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process, an NAS committee includes "[i]nadequately supervising research subordinates or exploiting them" among questionable research practices, "actions which violate traditional values of the research enterprise and that may be detrimental to the research process." In describing best practices, they note that "[s]cientists in universities accept the obligation to pass along knowledge and skills to the next generation of scientists," and that "[t]he mentor has the responsibility to supervise the trainee's progress closely and to interact personally with the trainee on a regular basis in such as way as to make the training experience a meaningful one." (National Academy of Sciences, 1992, Vol. 1, pp. 28, 141-42) Weil and Arzbaecher assert that with regard to relationships within research groups going sour "[w]e can collect these ways of going astray under broader ethical questions about how to wield power responsibly and how to behave responsibly as one dependent on the power of others. As we proceed to point out the kinds of standards and practices that are needed, we thereby delineate role responsibilities in research groups. To fail to fulfill these role responsibilities would be to behave irresponsibly, that is, unethically." (Weil and Arzbaecher, 1997, p. 78)
Questions 1 and 2
Baker's reaction to Archibald's announcement that he had gone ahead and tried the CTAB indicates that there may have been a better way either to go about the experiment, or to tell Baker about it. That does not mean that doing the experiment was "wrong." Archibald was not squandering significant laboratory resources or endangering other members of the lab, and he did try Baker's suggestion first. He was trying something that others had used with success but which Baker had told him not to do. It is not clear why she told him not to try CTAB. Was it because she wanted to control every detail of work in the lab, or because protein purified in the presence of a detergent like CTAB was worthless for their research? It is unreasonable to expect that an adviser should okay the details of everything a graduate student does. However, Archibald could have done things a little differently and possibly avoided Baker's angry response. For instance, he could have asked Baker earlier for a clarification as to why she opposed his testing CTAB. The ensuing discussion might have led to some sort of understanding. Or he could have presented the results differently. Instead of announcing the wonderful purification as he did, he could have started by describing how he carefully tried all Baker's suggestions and then decided to try CTAB while he was at it. He could have told Baker, "I know that protein purified with detergent is not useful for our studies, but I was starting to wonder if active cambin could be purified at all. At least I now know that it is possible, and we just have to figure out how to keep it active in the absence of detergent." He needs to respect his adviser-student relationship with Baker, but he must also remember that he is part of a research team and not just a pair of hands.
Archibald's chosen course of action, although not "wrong," probably was not the best choice. The tone of Baker's response, however, was clearly inappropriate and arguably "wrong." She responded as if she were scolding a child, not talking with a junior colleague in the presence of other members of the lab. (Recall that the setting is a lab meeting; we can assume others are present even if we do not hear from them.) In addition, it would take a very special set of circumstances to justify the command to a graduate student that he "never conduct experiments without my explicit approval!" It might be justified if he were a first year student just starting in research, or if he had a history of endangering others or wasting time and materials on poorly designed, inconclusive experiments. However, the essence of science is exploration and discovery: To deny a student the opportunity to try some of his own ideas is to deny him the opportunity to develop into a mature scientific investigator.
This question asks whether Baker has the authority to control all experiments in her laboratory. For a number of reasons, the ultimate answer is "yes." I would add several qualifiers, however: that she should include others in her decision making, and that she should be sure to provide opportunities for graduate students and post-docs to participate in the decision-making process as a part of their training. However, she is the one held responsible for the funds granted to the lab, for the safety of all in the lab, for the validity of work published by the lab, and for the lab's progress in its research. Therefore, she does and must have final authority for what is done in her name in her laboratory.
Although she has the authority, that does not give her the right to act in a dictatorial or arbitrary manner. In addition, the different types of researchers in her laboratory need to have different amounts of freedom in their design of experimental approaches. A post-doc is like an apprentice scientist, just one step away from independent research and often the recipient of a stipendiary grant and funds for research materials. However, the post-doc usually has received the grant to do a certain project in a certain lab and is still considered a trainee. Thus, some guidance and supervision is appropriate. At the other end of the spectrum is the relatively unskilled technician who follows protocols prepared by others and may not even participate in the interpretation of the data collected. Between the post-doc apprentice and the hired hands of the technician is the graduate student. As part of their training, graduate students must be part of the experimental design process so that they can learn and develop their skills. The level of their participation should increase over time as they complete their graduate work. Thus, the level of faculty guidance given to a first-year student would not be appropriate for a fourth-year student. However, a completely hands-off style is never appropriate for reasons of student training and faculty responsibility.
Deciding whether Archibald's committee needs to be informed about this incident requires that we know if it was an isolated occurrence on a particularly bad Monday morning, or if it represents a pattern of micro-management and dictatorial behavior by Baker toward Archibald. Archibald could experience negative consequences if he takes this conflict outside the lab, even if it is to his dissertation committee. Thus, he must weigh his options carefully, and, if possible, unemotionally. If this incident does represent a pattern, then Archibald should go to the dissertation committee to seek redress of a situation in which he, and possibly other students in the lab, is not being trained as a predoctoral student should be.
Questions 4 and 5
No level of pressure of any type on Baker would justify a disrespectful and dictatorial response to a graduate student. However, because of the fact that she is responsible for the use of grant funds and for the reasons mentioned in the comments above, Baker does have the authority and responsibility to oversee the experiments carried out in her laboratory. She needs to change the way in which she exerts this authority.
We often hear people say that the pressures of contemporary science justify inappropriate actions, even fraud. "Pressure" is not a valid ethical factor. True, we do need to be cognizant of the pressures confronting us and try to reduce them if possible, but we can't use them to excuse inappropriate actions. The pressure on a junior faculty member to secure continued funding is not only related to getting tenure. It also involves concerns about having enough money to keep members of the lab employed, maintain student support, and be able to pay the bills for expensive reagents so that all can do their experiments. Baker may see the use of a unique, detergent-free purification for the proteins studied in the lab as the hook that will secure the continued funding, but she needs to explain her reasoning to others in her lab so that they will understand and learn from her.
In discussions of cases like this one, we frequently spend a lot of time talking about the rights of graduate students, probably because these rights are often disregarded. However, it is also important to explore the other side -- the responsibilities of students. After all, education is not a passive endeavor. In this case, we learn that Archibald has been reading papers describing purification protocols similar to his own, and that is exactly what he should be doing. But I am puzzled as to why he does not understand the significance of the detergent-free protocol used in the Baker lab. From the information given in the case, it is not clear if the fault for this lapse lies primarily with Archibald or Baker. Has Baker failed to be clear or forthcoming with her reasons? Has Archibald failed to ask, or has he failed to pay attention to Baker's answers? We don't know, but both must bear some of the blame for the situation.
It has been noted that "The term 'mentoring' refers to an interactive process; The role of the mentored person is not a passive one. That person has a responsibility to seek information and guidance and to be ready to make use of it." (Weil and Arzbaecher, 1997, p. 77) A student should be open to, and even seek out, additional information and the perspectives of others, particularly those who are more experienced. Then the student should develop a reasoned position of his/her own to contribute to the discussion. In the end, it is hoped that student and adviser will arrive at a consensus as to how to proceed; failing that, however, the authority of the adviser who is head of the lab must be respected. This situation differs from that in History, for instance, where students typically work independently of all others in libraries or archives, and the dissertation adviser may not be a coauthor on any work that is published. But all graduate students should acknowledge the greater experience of their adviser and the fact that they asked this faculty member to guide their work, and so act on their adviser's suggestions or at the very least give them serious consideration.
Consideration of the two principal questions raised here will probably be the most valuable part of the discussion of this case. How could this situation have been avoided? And what should Archibald and Baker do in the future? As noted above, it is not clear who bears the greatest share of blame for the current situation, nor do we know what Archibald and Baker's previous relationship has been like. Therefore, there are no definitive answers to these questions. Rather, they serve to help all of us to consider how to improve communication and thus relationships within our own research groups. Brainstorming and sharing ideas and experiences will be very helpful if coupled with an evaluation of what is likely to be most successful in a given situation.
I offer two suggestions. It would be helpful if there were an opportunity for members of a research group to discuss their expectations of each other before a crisis occurs. Perhaps this case or the vignette entitled "The Lab of Last Resorts" (Weil and Arzbaecher 1997, p. 79) could be used to trigger the discussion. Baker's lab and others also could benefit from more discussion of the "big picture" by the lab director so that all would know how their work fits together into a whole. This orientation could be provided through regular presentations by the director at lab meetings, or by cooperative preparation of grant applications.
Author: Karen Muskavitch, Indiana University.
Rights and Responsibilities
Misconduct vs. Questionable Research Practices
A cursory review of the case study "Whose Lab is This?" may lead the reader to notice and address the obvious dilemma confronting both student and professor, dwelling on the pressure that Professor Baker is under and the necessity for Alex to be free in developing his scientific analytical skills. Clearly, these issues are the overwhelming topics that must be addressed. However, several subtle issues emerge when the case is envisioned in a realistic setting.
The ethical and moral issues intertwined in the relationship between students and their mentors do not receive equal attention in comparison with more common ethical matters, such as data ownership, publication or authorship practices, plagiarism, peer review and human subjects research. Thus, it is difficult to develop a depiction of the way the relationship "ought" to be. There are many reasons why the student-mentor relationship is not clearly defined. An excellent report is available in the April 1993 issue of The Journal of Dental Education, which contains five papers that address topics ranging from a student's expectations of the research experience to the mentor's duties during the transition from graduate student to faculty member.
First, arguably more than any other aspect (ethical or not) in the research process, the relationship between a student and mentor is heavily driven by compatibility of personality traits. This compatibility is difficult to outline and define. As the case study suggests, Alex and Professor Baker appear to have a suitable match of personalities for a productive and enjoyable working relationship. The reader has no grounds for assuming any underlying tension that could escalate into a conflict.
Second, the relationship between a mentor and his or her students is dynamic. As suggested above, the subtle nuances of interpersonal relationships may play heavily on the success of the relationship. Joy and sorrow in all of our lives must be handled properly in the professional setting of a research training program. The case study highlights this aspect of the relationship quite clearly. The reader will notice the initial productive atmosphere in the lab where both professor and student are concerned primarily with the success of the project. Throughout the evolution of the case, this attitude is maintained. Depending on the inflections used to convey the dialogue, the reader may be correct to assume that Alex and Professor Baker are getting along quite well. This attitude immediately changes with the last passage by Professor Baker, however.
While the case does not indicate how this incident actually changes their relationship, tension and mistrust are evident at the end of the case. Alex feels that he should not always be told how to do his experiments. His graduate school education is not intended simply to carry out Professor Baker's research, but more importantly, to develop his own critical thinking and ability to design and carry out relevant experiments in the pursuit of scientific knowledge. How is Alex to think that Professor Baker is acting as a mentor when she forbids him to pursue his own experiments, restricting his actions to work she needs done? Many variations on this case study can alter the weight the reader imparts to the righteousness of either party's behavior.
Professor Baker states analogous feelings of mistrust of Alex. She has not only asked but told her student to perform a specific task. In addition, she also told him not to pursue a second line of experiments, which she felt diminished the impact of her laboratory on the scientific field. When Alex failed at the first request and violated the second, Professor Baker had every right to mistrust him.
An additional question that arises from this analysis is whether Professor Baker's requests were fair. Comments on her request and authority appear below.
As a result of a change in the research procedure, the relationship between Alex and his mentor has shifted from positive support and cooperation to anger and mistrust. Such fluctuations may be extreme, but are unfortunately realistic. Again we find it hard to clearly outline the fundamental role of personality traits in the student-relationships.
Often, labs are often composed of many students, technicians and post-doctoral fellows. The various roles that these members play in part regulate their rights and responsibilities. In the case study, it is entirely possible that Alex's position as a graduate student was the determining factor for the unfortunate outcome. If the reader decides that Alex was wrong in his choice of actions, would it change matters if Alex were a technician? A post-doctoral fellow? Even at the level of graduate student, could the mentor be justified in granting autonomy differentially to various students? The performance history, level of education, and cooperation of a given student most certainly affect this decision. Is the student-mentor relationship violated when one student receives an advantage over her peers in the same laboratory? The nuances of this relationship are extremely difficult to outline. Consequently, relatively little information on the ethics of the student-mentor relationship is available. G. T. Perkoff proposes the qualities that make a good mentor, including charisma, empathy and being a good personal and professional example. (Perkoff 1992).
Rights and Responsibilities
Professor Baker plays a dual role in the case study, that of mentor and that of laboratory supervisor. As a mentor, she has a duty to convey scientific expertise and research standards to Alex. The student will also infer from his mentor's words and actions implicit notions dealing with collegial interactions, funding pressures and laboratory supervision. This last item, laboratory supervision, extends into laboratory authority. It is central to the concept of mentoring and necessary to the correct direction of information transmittal from professional to apprentice. Professor Baker holds all of these responsibilities, which are necessary for the proper development of the trainee, Alex.
In the scientific graduate system today, students are frequently in a position to select their own mentors based largely on the research interests of the faculty most congruent with those of the student. In addition, the reputation, productivity and atmosphere of the laboratory undoubtedly influence the selection of mentor. A few glimpses into these aspects are presented in the case study. For example, Professor Baker's status as assistant professor and a faculty member quite concerned with obtaining funding suggests her lab is not a well-established leader in the large scientific field. However, the productivity of the lab, as evidenced by already receiving a research grant and developing a successful detergent-free protein folding method, is commendable. Professor Baker therefore does have reasons for her desire that this procedure be carried out in the manner she has pioneered. In different circumstances, such as Alex making a smaller modification to the protocol, the reader's opinion as to whether Alex was correct in his decision may change.
Alex's responsibilities and Professor Baker's legitimate expectations of her student must also be addressed. This discussion can be quite broad, ranging from Alex's responsibility to carry out agreed-upon, documented experiments to his duty to prepare himself for independent scientific investigation in the next few years, considering he is in his fourth year of graduate school and nearing completion of his Ph.D. degree. Alex also has an obligation to his mentor to perform specific experiments, especially when she has presented a compelling argument justifying the manner in which they are to be executed. The question focuses therefore on whether Professor Baker's reason for insisting that Alex omit detergents from the protocol is justified. The reader is intentionally not provided with more details regarding the importance of CTAB to initiate discussion regarding importance of methods versus results, in this case, the folding of the cambin protein.
Creativity and authority seem be antagonistic forces, both present in the case study. Meshed within the rights and responsibilities of both Alex and Professor Baker, this antagonism is clear. Alex's desire to pursue his idea may be justified, especially in the circumstances where Professor Baker's method repeatedly failed. As a graduate student nearing completion of his doctorate, his scientific opinion begins to carry more weight than earlier in his training. Should he have the privilege of following his own line of reasoning? Equally, Professor Baker's argument for the omission of the CTAB detergent from the protein folding method may carry substantial weight. Her position as faculty member, mentor and principal investigator impart authority. She has shown creativity in her research by pioneering a detergent-free method while all of the competing labs resort to an implied inferior process. This interplay between creativity and authority on both parties emerges as an undertone to the case, yet it is stated in the title.
Misconduct vs. Questionable Research Practices
In 1993, the National Academy of Sciences defined misconduct in science as "fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism, in proposing, performing, or reporting research." Errors in recording, analyzing, and interpreting data are not classified as misconduct. The NAS has also described "questionable research practices" as those which "violate traditional values of the research enterprise and may be detrimental to the research process." (National Academy of Sciences, 1992, p. 5)
The case study "Whose Lab is This?" outlines a scenario in which neither Alex nor Professor Baker appears guilty of scientific misconduct, yet both may be guilty of carrying out questionable research practices, depending on the decisions made in light of Alex's discovery. Many ethical discussions have focused on conducting research and handling the resultant data. As both Alex and Professor Baker are currently funded by tax-derived scientific research grants, they have a strong obligation to conduct their work in an efficient and justified manner. Science has an underlying assumption that research data will always be accurately and truthfully presented. Without this assumption, false statements will completely devalue those which are true. Money, time and ultimately lives will be lost when the field is biomedical research.
Alex has found a novel, efficient manner of folding a biologically important protein, or at least one whose study merits funding. That raises the issue of whether the Baker lab is justified in proceeding with the old, comparatively inefficient procedure in the face of Alex's new results. Frequently, scientists use an established procedure since it "does the job." Furthermore, the originator of the method may feel most allied with it, unwilling to change.
These issues are embedded in the case study and may justify Professor Baker's actions. However strong this argument may seem, Alex appears to have found a better way to approach the task of folding the cambin protein. Should his method be published or used? Even if detergents are undesirable, many proteins must be folded by detergents before any studies can be done on them. The inclusion of CTAB may not be ideal, yet Alex's work appears to be a substantial contribution. The current importance of the cambin protein may dictate Professor Baker's and Alex's obligation to report the new procedure.
Many argue that research is to increase our knowledge in a particular field. Many of the landmark findings in science have resulted from findings which were unknown as to their importance at the time of publication. If other laboratories could potentially further their scientific contributions using Alex's method, one could argue that they are required to publish it.
"Whose Lab is This?" was written to focus very tightly on the student-mentor relationship. Just as with most ethical issues, not all the facts of the case are known when the critical decisions must be made. Alex and Professor Baker both have to balance their rights against their duties to each other and to the scientific research process. Hopefully this seemingly simplistic case has encouraged the reader to fully address the core issues, but also issues that can result from actions made by Professor Baker and her student. The student-mentor relationship is central to the case, yet topics including whistle blowing, conducting and reporting research, laboratory supervision, and conflicts of interest may all emerge, providing for a diversified discussion.