A graduate student at a research university fi nished her
dissertation and graduated with honors. Her mentor gave the continuation of the
project to a new graduate student. As usual, the mentor gave the entire
laboratory notebook (or computer disk) to the new graduate student, who had to
repeat the isolation of the newly discovered chemical entity with high-pressure
liquidchromatography (HPLC) in order to follow up the chemical and physical
characterization of the new compound. The new graduate student found that if he
follows the exact method described in the laboratory notebooks and published by
the previous student, he obtains the new chemical entity not at the same HPLC
location as published, but slightly shifted to the left, and there was a
different peak at the location stated. However, the new student discovered that
if the ionic strength is doubled, he could fi nd the same chemical at the same
location in accordance with the previous student’s dissertation. The new
student discussed with the mentor how he should proceed. The mentor replied,
“Why make a fuss about it? Just proceed with your slightly different method and
we can move on.”
• What are the responsibilities of the new student? Should
the new student refuse to accommodate the mentor’s request?
• Should the new student have read more thoroughly the
relevant laboratory notebooks prior to starting the experiment? Should there
have been a paper trail of the error in the laboratory notebook? Do you think
the error was intentional, and does it matter?
• If the laboratory notebook does not reveal the error, is
it then misconduct? Does it indicate that a better recording of the data would
have been helpful?
• Should the mentor have had training and education in
responsible conduct of research (RCR)? If the mentor has had the necessary
training in RCR, what actions would you suggest?
• Can you propose a reasonable resolution to the problem?
Leave a Reply