GUIDE and CASE STUDIES
FOR THE DVD
“IN THE LAB:
MENTORS AND
STUDENTS
BEHIND THE SCENES”
Edited by
S. H. Vollmer
University of Alabama at Birmingham
and
N. S. Hall
University of Delaware
Funded By
Office of Research Integrity U. S. Department of Health and Human
Services and the
2005
GUIDE TO THE DVD "IN THE LAB"
GOALS AND IDEAS
The goal of this
small book and accompanying DVD is to help you to have a better experience in
your laboratory by getting you to step back and take a global look at what is
involved in making progress in the laboratory.
In this book and DVD, we look at
personal relationships in laboratories and at suggestions for how to steer
clear of scientific misconduct. We also look at the various ways labs decide
whose name should go on papers – your passport to a new job in a new
laboratory, or better funding for the one in which you are already working.
Paying close attention to this DVD and the case studies in this book will help
you to get the maximum returns from the investment you are making in laboratory
work.
This book
presents questions about situations that arise in laboratories. It asks you to
determine possible courses of action that are both legitimate and likely to
yield positive results.
Determining what you would do in these situations, we hope, will help you to evaluate what you think is the right course of action for yourself in the situations that arise in your own laboratory.
In watching the
DVD and doing the case studies, remember that none of us functions in
isolation. Each of us has an impact on those we work with and is, in turn,
impacted by others. Personal relations in the laboratory are, therefore, key.
The first part of the DVD and accompanying case studies focuses on
relationships and the second on how these relationships affect the process of
avoiding scientific misconduct. The third part focuses on how relationships
affect the process of deciding the proper attribution of
authorship, including authorship in interdisciplinary collaborations.
One thing the
editors of this book suggest you keep in mind when reading the case studies and
acting in the lab is that, if you are not now in a position of authority, it is
likely that someday you will be. At that time, you will be able to contribute
to the lives of your students in ways that, right now, you might like those who
are in a position of authority to contribute to your life. Some say leadership
is more a state of being than a skill. If you begin to think about what is
important to you in leadership now, you will have a greater chance of being a
good leader when that time comes.
We also suggest
that you keep in mind the idea that work should not be seen as drudgery. Seeing
your work in this way leads to resentment. You will either resent the fact that
the moment has arrived when you must finally perform the work, or that someone
else isn't there to do the work for you.
For best results, one must love
one's work and perform the work in a way that reflects this, whole-heartedly.
According to an Eastern saying, when working, one will become "a flute
through whose heart the whispering of the hours turns to music" (Kahlil
Gibran). Once we learn to do this, when we get up in the morning, we will
"look forward to the day with the same excitement that we feel on
vacations" (Michael Phillips).
For many of the
case studies, there will be no single right answer and there will be no single
way to determine a course of action. The right answer will be specific to the
person answering the question and will depend on the character and outlook of
that person.
Finally, whatever your level in the
laboratory, whether research technician, senior laboratory member, or principle
investigator (P.I.), you have an effect on those around you. In most cases your
effect on others is more pervasive than you think. Hence, improving your own
practices in your relationships with others in your laboratory will help to
raise the group experience to a new level.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR USE
This DVD contains
three videos: Mentoring, Scientific Misconduct, and Authorship. Each one is
intended to introduce a major topic in ethics in the laboratory. We suggest
that the three videos be viewed in separate sessions of at least one hour each,
to leave sufficient time for discussion. One way to engage students in
discussion is to have them analyze one or more related case studies in this
guidebook. Questions are provided with each case study. As mentioned above,
there is seldom a single right answer to a case study question. The purpose of the questions is to help
spark ideas and generate open discussion.
The topics covered in the case studies and DVD – mentoring, research misconduct, and authorship – are sometimes sensitive topics. They are topics everyone talks about, but not always openly. This DVD and book will help laboratory members to more openly engage in discussion on these and other topics relevant to laboratory work.
Note that for most DVD players
there is a menu you can use to access the second and third videos directly. If
you are using a TV-DVD player, pop in
the DVD and then press the button
labeled "menu" on your
remote. Select the video you wish to see and press "play." If you have a DVD player and software and
are playing the DVD on your computer, start the DVD, then bring up the menu and
select the video you wish to see.
A commentary about each case study
is placed at the end of this book. We place them here, out of the way, because
we find that they can be an impediment to open discussion. We include them
because the instructor may wish to consult them beforehand to assist in leading
discussion.
These and many
other relevant case studies and commentaries are available in Research
Ethics: Cases and Commentaries, Brian Schrag (ed.) Bloomington, Indiana:
Association for Practical and Professional Ethics; Volumes 1-6, (1997-2002).
Volumes 1-3 were prepared under NSF Grant Number SBR-9241897 and Volumes 3-6
were prepared under NSF Grant Number SES-9817880.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to thank Harold Kincaid at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, Center for Ethics and Values in the Sciences, for help at every stage of the project, Minnie Randle for her unparalleled organizational skills and for distributing the DVD and Guide, June Mack and all those at UAB who worked on the DVD for the excellent job in making it, Brian Schrag and those at the Association for Practical and Professional Ethics for permission to reprint the case studies and commentaries, Srikumar Rao for the example he sets in teaching business ethics, and Regan Huff for her advice on what to say in the Guide and how to say it. We thank the Office of Research Integrity and the Center for Ethics and Values in the Sciences at UAB for making this all possible by providing the funding.
S.
H. Vollmer
N.
S. Hall
November,
2004
BRIEF TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART 1: MENTORING AND RELATIONSHIPS
IN THE LABORATORY
Page
Video: Part 1 (40 minutes)
Case Studies:
1.1 Today’s Specials 11
1.2
Whose Lab Is It? 13
1.4
How Much Help is Too Much? 17
1.5 The Graduate Student Laborer 19
PART 2: SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT
Video: Part 2 (20 minutes)
Case Studies:
2.1 Truth or Consequences 21
2.2 O, What a Tangled Web We Weave! 23
2.3 Preliminary Data 25
2.4 Student Publishes 26
2.5 Making the Grade 27
PART 3: AUTHORSHIP AND COLLABORATION
Video: Part 3 (20 minutes)
Case Studies:
3.1 Informal Discussions/Formal
Authority 29
3.2 When in Rome: Conventions in
Assignment of Authorship 31
3.3 Friendship vs. Authorship 32
3.4 The Temporary Post-Doc 33
3.5 Patent Authorship: Whose DNA Is
It Anyway? 35
COMMENTARIES
On “Today’s Specials,” by Karen
Muskavitch 37
On “Whose Lab Is It?” by Karen
Muskavitch 39
On “The Slave Driver vs the Lazy
Student,” by Michael S. Pritchard 45
On “How Much Help is Too Much?” by
P. Aarne Vesilind 47
On “The Graduate Student Laborer,”
by Vivian Weil 48
On “Truth or Consequences,” by Karen
Muskavitch 50
On “Oh, What a Tangled Web We
Weave,” by Karen Muskavitch 54
On “Preliminary Data,” by Vivian
Weil 59
On “Student Publishes,” by Vivian Weil 62
On “Making the Grade,” by P. Aarne
Vesilind 64
On “Informal Discussions/Formal
Authority,” by Deborah G. Johnson 65
On “When in Rome: Conventions in
Assignment of Authorship” by Vivian Weil 67
On
“Friendship vs. Authorship,” by Vivian Weil 68
On “The Temporary Post-Doc,” by
Karen Muskavitch 71
On “Patent Authorship: Whose DNA Is
It Anyway?” by Vivian Weil 74
DETAILED TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART 1: MENTORING AND RELATIONSHIPS IN THE LABORATORY
Video
(40 minutes)
The first few scenarios in part 1
of the DVD illustrate the process of choosing a lab in which to work. In the
first scenario, students Bob, Jay and Elliot discuss their views on how to
choose a lab. In the second one, the two P.I.s, Drs. Becksley and Morris,
explain some of the things that are important from the mentor’s perspective. An
emerging pattern is that the process is an individual one – different
laboratory environments work better for different people. Later scenarios in
part 1 show the frustration that a student, Jessica, feels when trying to
"think independently" in a new laboratory. It also shows difficulties
faced by Samantha, an international student, in dealing with the prejudices of
another lab member. A theme throughout is the importance of good communication
between students, and between students and their mentors – not to mention with
their families and friends, especially when the work hours are long.
An important point to keep in mind when watching the DVD is that contacts are important, something every professional who is moving up in the corporate ladder knows. At each stage in their laboratory careers, students develop relationships. For someone who is in laboratory work for the long term, each relationship at an earlier stage can become a contact at a later one. Students are wise to trust their intuitions about which relationships will prove helpful and to foster the best of them, for example, according to the golden rule.
1.1
“Today’s Specials”
This case study raises questions
from a departmental perspective on some of the issues a department should
consider in accepting a student. In particular, it addresses the question of
whether a department should take into consideration the job
market, that is, whether its graduates will be employable upon graduation, in
deciding how many students to accept into the program.
1.2
“Whose Lab Is It?”
This case study is about a beginning laboratory student
facing the question of how much independent thinking he should exercise and how
much control his mentor should retain over the specifics and overall direction
of his project. An important part of answering these questions with respect to
one's own laboratory is developing a good strategy or strategies for making
sure that the right kind of communication takes place between oneself and one's
mentor.
1.3
“The Slave Driver vs. the Lazy Student”
In this case study, a graduate student performs valuable work on her mentor's projects. Surprisingly, although the student has had four years of success in the laboratory, she has published few papers and has not been the first author on any of them. As a consequence, her thesis committee refuses her permission to begin work on her dissertation. She believes her mentor is at fault, both for having too many extra-curricular activities that take her away from the laboratory, and for submitting too few manuscripts for publication. One of the themes that emerges from this case study is that having multiple mentoring relationships, especially with faculty in one's own department, can be key to a student's progress.
1.4
“How Much Help Is Too Much?”
This case study is about a student who learns, in the fifth year of his program, that he may be on the wrong path. The case study suggests that students should evaluate their goals and progress periodically. Laboratory work is not the right career for everyone and there is no shame in changing paths when it is the right thing to do – there is only harm done if a person remains a scientist in spite of the fact that the heart is elsewhere.
1.5
“The Graduate Student Laborer”
In this case study, a graduate student has been hired by a company and is working extremely hard to write up two papers before the start of his job. On top of this, his advisor asks him to work up some data that is not his own. He does not have time to do both and is conflicted about which of these obligations to fulfill – and about whether they are, indeed, both obligations. This addresses issues concerning the importance of good communication regarding work expectations. Also important is a flexible relationship between student and mentor, which changes as the student matures in years and experience.
PART 2: SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT
Video
(20 minutes)
One of the many
reasons good communication is important in the laboratory is that, in its
absence, the risks of mis-reporting data, whether intentionally or
unintentionally, are relatively high. Students, for example, sometimes do not
understand accepted practices in data handling and need close direction.
In the scenarios
in part 2, Elliot has overstepped the bounds of good laboratory practice. The
other students in the lab suspect his transgression and Dr. Morris, when
looking at the raw data, discovers it for himself. Jessica points out that, if the data are mis-reported, everyone
in the lab is likely to suffer, especially if the paper is a high profile one.
Note that in these scenarios the people who may be involved in research
misconduct are students – and so not in positions of power.
2.1
“Truth or Consequences”
In this case
study, as well, a student is targeted as possibly being involved in scientific
misconduct. The issues it raises include the delicacy with which such matters
must be handled, the importance of good relations in the laboratory, and the
importance of looking for a graceful way to bring the matter forward as soon as
a problem is suspected – and before the work reaches the publication stage. The
mentor nearly always has the lion's share of responsibility in handling such
matters, and everyone whose name is on a paper in which data is mis-reported
bears responsibility.
2.2
“O, What A Tangled Web We Weave!”
This is a case study in which a
student, early in her graduate career, discovers that her mentor plagiarized
another author. Issues raised here include, again, the importance of having
multiple mentoring relationships, and
how to decide if and when to change primary mentors.
Plagiarism, along with the fabrication or
falsification of data, is a kind of scientific or research misconduct, a term
that denotes illegal laboratory practices.
2.3
“Preliminary Data”
In this case study, a second year
graduate student believes her mentor has put an unwarranted spin on her data in
a grant application. The student's
perception of the situation differs from her mentor's and the difference
persists after they have discussed the matter at length. The issues raised here
include the importance of correct data reporting in grant applications, the
importance of multiple mentoring relationships, and that there can be multiple
interpretations of the same data, all of which are legitimate.
2.4
“Student Publishes”
This is a case study about a
graduate student who discovers that his mentor published the same material
twice, in two different publications, i.e., plagiarized himself. Issues dealt with here include the
importance of the issue of self-plagiarism and what counts as self-plagiarism.
2.5
“Making the Grade”
This is a case study on plagiarism
in class work. Issues here include the seriousness of student plagiarism.
Because practices in other countries
differ from those in this country, the notion of plagiarism and the
seriousness of the act must be explained in detail to international students.
PART THREE: AUTHORSHIP AND COLLABORATION
Video
(20 minutes)
Good
communication is important in authorship decisions. This is especially true of
interdisciplinary collaborations, where authorship should be discussed from the
word "go." In a scenario in Part 3, we see the students embarking on
an interdisciplinary project with a crystallography laboratory. This sets this
stage for discussions about authorship and collaboration, both
interdisciplinary and within the laboratory.
A theme that emerges in this section is that authorship practices differ from lab to lab. Where some labs have short author lists and the criteria for getting one's name on a paper are hard to meet, others are more inclusive and the criteria more relaxed. To some extent, the difference is due to the fact that authorship practices differ from discipline to discipline. But practices can differ greatly between laboratories in the same discipline, as well. To assist in giving credit where credit is due, and only where it is due, many journals are beginning to require that an explanation be given, in each paper, of each author’s contribution to the project. However authorship is decided, students should at least be kept abreast of the expected authors of the papers on which they are working.
3.1
“Informal Discussion/Formal Authority”
In this scenario, a student has contributed essential ideas to a
postdoc's paper without the postdoc's knowledge. The P.I. requests that the
student, himself, decide whether his name should go on the paper. This raises
issues of how authorship should be decided and who should be consulted in the
decision.
3.2 "When in
Rome: Conventions in Assignment of Authorship"
This case study is about a laboratory in which every paper submitted
for publication is discussed by the entire laboratory, and every laboratory
member's name goes on every paper. This
raises questions about what might be appropriate minimal criteria for
authorship and whether criteria can be too permissive.
3.3
"Friendship vs. Authorship"
In this case
study, a student works on a collaborative project that involves laboratories at
different Universities. Although the responsibility of each individual and the
expected list of authors is spelled out at the beginning of the project,
responsibilities change midway through when the student's mentor plans to
present the data at an upcoming conference. The student is assigned much
additional work – without a
compensating change in his place in the list of authors. This brings out the
fact that, when collaboration involves more than one laboratory, good
communication about authorship is especially important – and can be hard work.
An emerging theme is that, in such cases, expectations about authorship should
be made explicit before the work is begun. Furthermore, the expected list of
authors should be periodically updated to reflect to changes in responsibility
as the work develops.
3.4 "The
Temporary Post-Doc"
This case study is about a post-doc who claims to have succeeded in carrying out a difficult organic synthesis, but leaves the laboratory without publishing it. Unfortunately, his experimental procedures are poorly written and the product cannot be synthesized by his successors. When new conditions are worked out to accomplish the same synthesis, no credit is given to the post-doc in the resulting publication. The post-doc learns about the publication later and believes he has been treated unfairly. This raises the question of how to credit incomplete work. It also underlines the importance, to every student, of keeping a complete, clearly written, record of the work done.
3.5
“Patent Authorship: Whose DNA Is It Anyway?”
In this case study, a P.I. discovers a cDNA
with a sequence that suggests the DNA is responsible for an aspect of cell proliferation.
He asks one of his graduate students to perform additional experiments. The
student spends the next three years characterizing the gene and the work
culminates in the submission of a manuscript for publication in Nature. The
student and mentor discuss the potential commercial applications of the gene,
referring to the patent submission as "our patent." After the mentor
submits the application, the student discovers that she is not included as an
author. This case study extends the discussion of authorship to patent
authorship, raising the question of whether criteria for authorship ought to be
the same for patents as it is for papers. It also raises the issue of what
responsibility the P.I. has, if any, to
inform lab members about patent policies.
Note: These cases can be accessed at
http//onlineethics.org/reseth/appe/index.html.
CONCLUSION
Through the case studies and the
videos, the creators of this Guide and DVD expect to convey the importance of
routinely communicating thoughts and decisions that affect others, listening to
others, and considering all aspects of lab work from multiple viewpoints.
The case studies are intended to
help you to anticipate and remedy difficulties in these areas that might
otherwise take you by surprise. They are also intended to help you to consider
the seriousness and breadth of the responsibilities you have towards others in
the laboratory setting. They will help you to generate creative and realistic
thinking about the situations that arise in your own laboratory.
The creators of
the Guide and DVD hope you have fun with these videos and case studies. They
hope you implement what you have learned in the laboratory setting. They hope
that others, also, will learn from this video, if not directly, then by learning
from the good example you set before them.
S. H. Vollmer
Birmingham, Alabama
Winter 2004
CASE STUDIES
1. 1 Today's Specials
Part 1
Professor
Steve Hill and his wife, Karen, had just sat down at their table and begun to study
the menu.
"Hi, there. My name is Jake, and I'll be your waiter. Allow me to tell you about today's specials"
Looking up from his menu Dr. Hill looked as if he had seen a ghost.
"Jake, what are you doing working in this place?"
"Hey, Dr. Hill. Hello, Karen. Well the funding for my post-doc over at the research center was not renewed, and other employment options in academia have not come up. The mortgage company isn't very sympathetic, so here I am. I am trying to remain optimistic that something will surface, but I needed to pay the bills in the meantime."
"I must say that I'm rather surprised to see you here. You should have let me know you were going to be out of a job. Perhaps I could have been of some assistance," Hill replied.
"Well, I felt as if I had exhausted those connections after grad school, and I didn't want to seem as though I couldn't take care of myself," Jake explained.
After a fine meal and an exceptionally large tip, the Hills discussed the encounter as they headed home.
"I
thought that once you got your Ph.D., a job was supposed to be waiting for
you," Karen commented.
"Perhaps that's how it used to be, but not anymore. I had heard from some of my other students that the job market had become a bit saturated, but this really hits close to home. Jake was an excellent student!" Hill said.
Hill
enjoyed an illustrious career as a marine ecologist. He had been a mentor to
many students, the majority of whom went on to successful careers. He wondered,
though, whether his research program had become a bit dated. Although other
specialties had become more prosperous, he was reluctant to subscribe to them.
He was always able to obtain funding and lure quality graduate students, making
him a valuable and esteemed member of the faculty.
At a faculty meeting the following day, Hill spoke openly about the situation. "Perhaps there might be a problem with an over-abundance of professionals in biology. Good students are having trouble finding jobs and I wonder whether we bear some of the responsibility. Perhaps the department should consider limiting the number of graduate students that are accepted."
"Now, Steve, you know the grad students are the bread and butter of the university. We should continue to recruit and take on the best and brightest, as long as we can bring in the funding with them. I don't want to hear another word about this," replied Dr. Butz, chair of the biology department.
Discussion Questions
1. Does the department have a responsibility to devote resources to collecting data on the job placement of its graduates?
2. Should Hill raise this issue at the faculty meeting?
3. Should the department have a responsibility to make information on job placement available to prospective students?
Part 2
Upon
returning to his office, Hill learns that his latest pre-proposal has been
accepted. Hill had promised a prospective student, Mike Bowman, that he would
call him as soon as he got any information about the proposal. Having the
proposal funded would allow Mike to be accepted into the graduate program at
the university and work in Hill's lab. However, Hill is concerned about the
future job prospects for Mike and is wary about taking on more students. He
picks up the phone and makes the call.
"Hi, Mike. This is Steve Hill. I'm calling to let you know that I received some feedback about the proposal I had told you about. I'm really not sure whether I will receive the funding, and I think it is in your best interest to reassess your other options."
"That's too bad, but thanks for the consideration. Let me know if anything changes."
Discussion Questions
1. Was Hill's phone call appropriate, given that he intended to act with Mike's interests in mind?
2. How else might he have conveyed his message to Mike?
Part 3
Later that week, Hill is stopped in the hall by Dr. Alice Devorak, a junior faculty member.
"I just received a phone call from a bright young man, Mike Bowman. He was inquiring about whether I had any interest in taking him on as a new student. He mentioned that he had been in contact with you as well, but that it did not look very promising. Can you tell me why?"
"He seemed bright, but his ideas and talents did not seem to be well aligned with my research program."
With a puzzled look, Devorak continued, "The interesting aspect of the conversation I had with him is that he somehow got the feeling that reason was related to the status of your latest NSF proposal. It was my understanding that you had received favorable feedback about the pre-proposal you submitted."
Hill decided to tell Devorak the actual circumstances surrounding his reluctance to take Mike as a student. Alice listened intently. At some level , she agreed with Hill's concerns. However, she also thought that Mike deserved to hear the real reason the Hill had turned him away. She planned to call Mike later and explain the situation. At that time, she would also explain that she was not in a position to take on any more students.
On her way back to her office, she ran into Butz, who requested a brief meeting with her regarding her upcoming progress report. Devorak met him in his office.
"Hello,
Alice. Please sit down," Butz said. "I have been pleased with much of
the work you have done in the years that you have been here. Recently, however,
your production has dropped off a bit. I need to be up front with you that a
great deal of your success in this department will hinge on your level of
productivity. You have adequate funding, but you do not seem to be putting out
enough manuscripts or bringing students into your lab."
Alice replied, "I appreciate the feedback. Part of my hesitation in taking on more students is that I enjoy being involved in the research, and not just writing proposals and manuscripts."
"Well,
of course, I encourage you to stay involved in the research, but I really must
emphasize the importance of raising your productivity. Your funding situation
certainly has room for another student, and I would encourage you to follow up
in that regard," Butz said.
Upon returning to her office, Devorak noticed the note paper with Mike Bowman's number. She had promised to return his call this afternoon. She picked up the receiver and dialed Mike's number.
"Hi, Mike. This is Dr. Devorak."
"Oh, hello. Have you made any decisions about taking on any new students?"
"Well. . . ."
Discussion Questions
1. What should Devorak say to Mike? What responsibilities does she have to the university? to Butz? to Mike? to Hill? to herself?
2. Would it be appropriate for Devorak to discuss Hill's reasons for not taking on Mike as a student?
3. Are individual faculty members in a position to affect the number of new Ph.D.'s entering their field? If so, is Hill's action an appropriate way to go about instituting a change?
4. Who decides whether such a change is needed?
1.2 Whose Lab Is
It?
Cast of Characters:
Alex Archibald, Graduate Student Assistant Professor Beverly Baker
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!
Discussion Questions
1. 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?
2. 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?
3. 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?
4. 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?
5. 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?
6. 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?
7. 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?
1.3 The Slave Driver vs. the Lazy Student
Eileen Patton, a fourth-year engineering student, has just been denied permission by her thesis committee to begin writing her dissertation. In general, the committee considered her a strong Ph.D. candidate with good classroom and laboratory performance, but found a surprising absence of abstracts and papers. Citing this lack of publication, the committee advised her to focus on her project for at least another year before meeting again.
Patton is frustrated. She feels that she is ready to begin the dissertation, and she thinks her adviser, Dr. Laura Santiago, is a slave driver who can never be satisfied. Patton's presentations at various biotech firms have been well received and have resulted in both research money and equipment, but none of her work has been published. Abstracts of her work presented at national conferences list her adviser's name as first and presenting author. Santiago has asked her write up her results on many occasions, but she has told Patton she will not submit the work without the approval of the industrial collaborators who are sponsoring the work.
Patton
knows her department usually requires Ph.D. candidates to have at least one
first-author paper before a degree is granted. She feels her chances to
graduate in a timely fashion and get a competitive position are severely
diminished by her lack of publication. Patton and Santiago have experienced
conflicts over Patton's numerous vacations and extracurricular activities,
which Santiago regards as distractions and evidence of Patton's lack of
dedication. In addition, Santiago has been unsuccessful in attracting new
students the past two years, and Patton suspects she would like to delay her
departure for as long as possible.
Santiago had an extremely successful post-doc and is the youngest person ever to receive a tenure-track position in her department. During her four years as associate professor, she has won numerous awards, and the head of her department has often publicly complimented her on her work ethic and commitment to research. Santiago's affiliation with various companies has attracted significant research funding and equipment that benefits her lab and the department as a whole.
Patton,
her first graduate student, has been pushing her to submit manuscripts for
publication. Santiago believes the work to date is good, but not enough has
been done. If Patton would only focus on her work and put in more effort,
Santiago is sure Patton could get more of the high quality data required.
Santiago doesn't want to jeopardize her fine reputation and funding by
submitting inferior manuscripts. If Patton wants to graduate sooner, Santiago
feels she can either start working harder or try to graduate without
publishing. If the committee requires it, Santiago is prepared to continue
supporting Patton until the time is right to publish, which, she admits, may
still be two or three years in the future.
Discussion questions
1. Are Santiago's standards unreasonable? Is Patton's work ethic lacking? What are some possible "objective" criteria for determining when a Ph.D. has been completed? What, if anything, can the committee members do to resolve this conflict?
2. How could an institution prevent situations like this one? How can a department or institution encourage good adviser/student relationships?
3. Santiago does not want to publish Patton's work because she feels that publication will not benefit her own career. What, if any, are her obligations to her students' careers?
4. Suppose Santiago's industrial collaborators do not want the work to be made public. How does that affect Santiago? How does it affect Patton? Does Santiago's relationship to industry have priority over her relationship to her students?
1.4 How Much Help Is Too Much?
The
Department of Chemistry at Anywhere University (AU) has established a number of
requirements for the Ph.D. degree, including successfully completing several
courses, engaging in original research and publishing the results, and passing
a number of cumulative exams. These exams are given three times a semester and
cover the four major areas of chemistry. In order to meet the requirement,
students must pass exams in more than one area. It is the department's policy that
the topic and the identity of the faculty member preparing the exam remain
secret until exam time.
Part 1
James is a graduate student who is just completing his second year in the AU chemistry program. When he first enrolled in the program, the requirements for completing the Ph.D. were explained to him.
James
decided to join the research group of Dr. Brown, a senior member of the
department and chose a project that Brown said would produce results and not be
difficult. Although James did not like the project, he began the experiments
and continued them on Brown's assurances of results.
Now two years into his graduate career, James has completed the required courses for his degree, but has failed to pass a single cumulative exam. Seeing that one of his students is in trouble, Brown decides to aid James on the exams. As a faculty member Brown knows who will be giving the upcoming exams. Brown begins to suggest to James exactly which articles and books would be helpful in preparing for the exam, a clear violation of departmental procedure. Over the next year James is able to score well on all of the exams he takes and completes his requirement. Although many of the departmental faculty and students are aware of this situation, no one challenges Brown.
Discussion Questions
1. What are advisers' responsibilities when they see that students are struggling? What are the responsibilities of the student? The department?
2. How much help should Brown (or any professor) provide? What determines the appropriate level of help when a student is struggling?
3. When faculty or students are considering complaining about unfair or unequal treatment, what issues should be considered in determining a course of action? Are any issues specific to the faculty? the students?
Part 2
Three
more years pass, and James is finishing his fifth year in the program. James
has put in long hours and worked hard, but his experiments have failed to yield
reproducible results. Brown and James meet to discuss his impending graduation.
During the meeting Brown reminds James that he needs to publish in order to
complete the departmental requirements. As the meeting progresses, James
indicates his lack of interest in continuing the project. Brown concludes that
it is time that James finished and moved out of the lab, but he realizes that
James cannot graduate without assistance. Therefore Brown decides that he will
add James's name to a paper that he (Brown) is writing based on data collected
by an undergraduate. Although James has not contributed in any way to this
research, he agrees to the plan.
Discussion Questions
1. What are the criteria for authorship?
2. Is James's effort in a failing project sufficient reason to include him on the manuscript? Why or why not?
3. Brown encouraged James to begin the project initially. What is his responsibility when the project fails to yield reproducible results?
Part 3
Once
the article is published, James begins to write his dissertation. Although the
literature portion of the dissertation is his own, the research chapters are
simple expansions of the paper to which his name was added and which he has
studied thoroughly. At his defense, James makes his presentation and is asked
to leave the room while the committee discusses his accomplishments. During
this discussion, the members of the dissertation committee conclude that James
has not completed the minimum requirements for the degree (i.e., conducting and
publishing original research). However, many of the committee members are
friends of Brown. With some lobbying, the committee decides to award the degree
to James.
Discussion Questions
1. What are the dissertation committee's responsibilities? Did James's committee fulfill these responsibilities?
2. What are the expectations of a person with a Ph.D.? Does James meet these expectations?
3. What are the consequences, if any, of awarding James the Ph.D.?
4. What alternatives are/were available to the dissertation committee?
Part 4
After
his graduation, ABC Chemicals hired James to work on drug discovery. While
James was interviewed like every other candidate, the strength of his
recommendations secured him the position. After only six months, however, it
was clear that James was incapable of completing even the simplest research
tasks. He has cost the company time and resources by failing to complete his
experiments. One of ABC Chemicals' senior scientists, Dr. Georges, is a former
student at Anywhere University. Georges decides to call his former adviser;
after a brief conversation, he learns the story of James's graduate training.
Incensed that AU would award James a Ph.D., Georges immediately calls the
department chair as well as the dean of the graduate school threatening to
inform the American Chemical Society (ACS) if some action is not taken. Fearing
a loss of certification, the dean sends a memo to the chair indicating that he
should "take care of the problem."
Discussion Questions:
1. Should James's Ph.D. be revoked? Can it be revoked? Would revocation of his degree undermine the assumption that the faculty will be fair and impartial in their evaluation of students?
2. What, if any, action should be taken against Brown? the other sources of James's letters of recommendation?
3. Should the journal to which the paper was submitted be alerted that James's name was added to the paper inappropriately?
4. Should the ACS be alerted to this incident, or should Georges wait until he hears from the chair about what will be done? What criteria could be used to determine his course of action?
5. What alternatives are/were available to Georges?
6. Should ABC Chemicals develop a new company policy to ensure that recently hired employees are competent?
1.5 The Graduate Student Laborer
Joe
McGrath is a second year graduate student who will begin to write his master's
thesis at the end of the term. Joe has worked extremely hard during the two
years of his master's program, regularly working six or seven days a week. The
effort has paid off, however; Joe already has four publications with two
additional papers in preparation and, most importantly, a starting date for a
new job at a small pharmaceutical company. The company is very excited to have
hired Joe because they are starting a new initiative and need Joe's expertise
to get the project off the ground. This situation puts Joe on a very tight time
schedule to finish his last set of experiments and write his thesis, but the
job is exactly what he had hoped for.
It
is Friday afternoon. For the past week, Joe has put his experiments on hold.
Instead, he has been making graphs and figures for a presentation that Dr.
Smith, his research adviser, will be making at a conference the following
Wednesday. Smith has requested specific figures based on data from experiments
completed by Joe and his predecessors in the lab. At 3 p.m., Smith comes into
Joe's office and says, "I hate to ask you to work on a weekend, but will
you come in and work tomorrow? It is really important that the presentation is
ready on Monday."
Joe hesitates. He was a bit taken aback by Smith's request, because he almost always comes into the lab Saturday mornings, "Isn't Smith aware of this after two years?" he asks himself. Furthermore, he had planned to start the last set of experiments he needs for his thesis, which he has been delaying all week.
Finally, Joe replies, "Yes, I can come in and finish up these figures tomorrow." "Thanks, Joe," Smith says. "I really appreciate the fact that you have spent so much time compiling and analyzing the data collected by Dave and Frank, who left without finishing their degrees; without that information, the presentation would have been very thin. By the way, I've decided to list you as the fourth author on the presentation, because it was the other students who actually collected the data," Smith says. Although Joe feels disappointed that he will be listed as the last author on the presentation, he doesn't want to quibble about whether doing the data compilation and analysis was more significant than collecting the raw data.
After discussing a few more details about the presentation with Smith, Joe closes the conversation by saying, "Well, have a good evening and I'll see you tomorrow!" Smith stops as he is leaving the lab and replies with a surprised tone, "I'm not working tomorrow."
Should Joe spend Saturday making the figures for the presentation, or should he start his experiments as planned?
Discussion
Questions
1. Is it appropriate for Smith to ask Joe to work on Saturday? Is it appropriate in light of the fact that Smith is not going to work? Are there valid reasons why Smith might ask Joe to work although he is not planning on working himself?
2. Would it seem less onerous a request to complete the figures and graphs at the sacrifice of his dissertation work if Joe were compiling and analyzing data from his own experiments rather than data from students who left the program?
3. What are the proper roles and responsibilities of graduate students in preparing presentations that include the entire research group's efforts?
4. What