Author: admin

Although authorship is not as morally weighty as other
topics in scientifi c research, such as misconduct, confl icts of interest, or
protection of human subjects, it is a topic that has great signifi cance for
scientists, students, and trainees because of its implications for career
advancement. Furthermore, because authorship disputes are often linked to other
ethical problems in research, such as exploitation of subordinates, bias, and
even plagiarism, authorship has been and will continue to be an important topic
in research ethics.

One of the reasons that authorship is so important in
science is that it helps to establish the priority of discoveries and
inventions. Scientists are rewarded for being the fi rst to make a discovery,
propose a theory, or develop an invention (Merton 1973). Scientifi c journals
are usually interested in publishing research that is new and original. The
patent system (discussed in more detail in chapter 6) awards patents based on
the originality of the invention. Many episodes in the history of science
illustrate the importance of priority, including the dispute between Newton and
Leibniz over the discovery of calculus, the agreement between Charles Darwin
and Alfred Russell Wallace concerning publication of the theory of natural
selection, and the race between Watson and Crick, Linus Pauling, Maurice
Wilkins, and Rosalind Franklin to discover the structure of DNA. In the 1980s,
a bitter priority dispute erupted concerning the discovery of the HIV virus and
patents on blood tests for the virus. Two prominent researchers, Luc
Montagnier, from the Pasteur Institute in France, and Robert Gallo, from the
National Institutes of Health (NIH), were both trying to isolate the virus that
causes AIDS, and Montagnier named his strain LAV. Montagnier cultured infected
immune system cells (T-lymphocytes) from an AIDS patient known as L.A.I.
Montagnier also had blood samples in his laboratory from an AIDS patient known
as B.R.U. At the same time, Gallo was attempting to culture T-lymphocytes
infected with HIV in his laboratory. Gallo named the virus he was working with
HTLV-IIIb. Both researchers believed they were working with different viral
strains, and theyexchanged samples. There was a spirit of cooperation among the
different research groups, at least at fi rst (Hilts 1991). In 1983, Montagnier
was preparing to submit a paper reporting his discovery of the B.R.U. strain to
Nature. Montagnier received a call from Gallo, who told him that he was
preparing to submit a paper to Science on the HTLV-IIIb virus. Gallo convinced
Montagnier to switch journals, so that both papers would appear in Science.
Montagnier sent Gallo his paper to submit to Science, but he forgot to write an
abstract. Gallo wrote the abstract for Montagnier, which stated that Montagnier
had discovered an HTLV virus strain, which would confi rm Gallo’s work on HTLV.
Following publication of the two papers, Gallo received top billing for the
discovery of HIV and Montagnier was largely ignored (Crewdson 2003). In
addition to publishing papers claiming to discover HIV, both researchers sought
to patent a test for the virus. The researchers were stunned when genetic tests
indicated that their viral strains were nearly identical (Hilts 1991).
Montagnier charged Gallo with misconduct, arguing that Gallo had deliberately
taken B.R.U. samples and claimed them as his own. This accusation led to a
misconduct investigation by the NIH and ORI. A U.S. House of Representatives
committee that oversees the NIH, chaired by John Dingell (D-Mich.), also looked
into the case. Gallo was eventually cleared of these allegations, though
Dingell accused the NIH of trying to cover up fraudulent research. The French
and U.S. governments fought a legal battle concerning patents on the HIV test.
The two governments eventually reached an out-of-court settlement, signed by
the presidents of both countries. Under the terms of the agreement, Montagnier
and Gallo were acknowledged as codiscovers of HIV. The two governments would
also split the royalties from patents on HIV tests, with 80% of the money
allocated toward HIV/AIDS research (Hilts 1992). After investigating the
different strains of HIV and examining their laboratory practices carefully,
the researchers also agreed that the most likely explanation of the similarity
between their strains was due to contamination of both strains by the virus
from the patient known as L.A.I. According to this explanation, the virulent
L.A.I. virus somehow infected B.R.U. samples in Montagnier’s laboratory.
Montagnier sent samples of the B.R.U. to Gallo. Gallo began working with the
samples sent by Montagnier, and the L.A.I. virus also infected the other
samples that Gallo had in his laboratory. Although they did not know it at the
time, researchers in both laboratories isolated the exact same strain of the
virus, because the L.A.I. virus contaminated both strains—LAV and HTLV-IIIb—in
their different laboratories (Hilts 1991). Montagnier shared the 2008 Nobel
Prize with two others, not including Gallo. The dispute between Gallo and
Montagnier had a negative impact on HIV/AIDS research and on the public’s
acceptance of the hypothesis that HIV causes AIDS. Leaders in some African
nations openly questioned whether HIV causes AIDS, and some still do.
• Why do you think that Gallo and Montagnier had such a
bitter dispute over scientifi c priority?
• What factors do you think contributed to the controversy?
• Do you agree with the way the case was handled by the
scientists and the respective governments?

A graduate student was studying at a university where his
faculty mentor is also a full-time employee of the affi liated hospital. He and
his mentor discovered a major environmental airborne toxin, and the media
covered the story. The mentor then died suddenly of a heart attack. They had a
manuscript already written and about to be submitted for publication in a
prestigious journal. The chair of the department, who worked in a closely
related area, became the new student’s mentor. She took the manuscript and put
her name as the senior author (last) and eliminated the name of the deceased.
She had no involvement in the project prior to the death of the former mentor.
The paper was published after minor revision.
• What should the student do?
• What should the mentor do?

Dr. Thomas published a review article on recent developments
in mitochondrial genetics. In the article, he mentioned his own work
prominently but failed to mention the work of several other researchers who
have made key contributions to the fi eld. Dr. Thomas is clearly one of the
most important researchers in the fi eld, and he has done some important work.
But he also has some long-running feuds with some of the other prominent
researchers in the fi eld, based in part on fundamental disagreements about the
role of the mitochondrial DNA in human evolution. In his review article, in
several instances he cited his own work instead of giving proper credit to
colleagues who had published their articles before his.
• Is this plagiarism?
• Is it unethical?

Drs. Clearheart and Wing are studying socioeconomic factors
related to incarceration. They recently read a paper published by Drs. Langford
and Sulu on the relationship between juvenile incarceration and the mother’s
age at birth. Clearheart and Wing believe that they may be able to incorporate
the supporting data obtained by Langford and Sulu in their analysis, so they
send them an e-mail asking them to share the data used to support their
publication. (Due to space constraints, the journal published some of the data,
but not all of the supporting data.) Langford and Sulu agree to send Clearheart
and Wing the supporting data provided that Clearheart and Wing list them as
authors on any publications that use the data. Dr. Wing is uncomfortable with
agreeing to this request, because he believes that one should do more than just
provide data to be an author. Dr. Clearheart wantsto honor their request. “Our
publication will be much stronger,” he says, “if we incorporate their data into
our analysis.”
• What should they do?
• Is it ethical to name someone as an author for providing
data?

Three economists, Stroud, Jones, and Wicket, published a
paper describing a mathematical model for representing collective bargaining.
The following year, Stroud and two other authors, Weinberg and Smith, published
a paper that applied the model to a collective bargaining dispute between a
teacher’s union and a school district. The paper included two paragraphs in the
methods section that were identical, word for word, to two paragraphs in the
methods section of the paper published by Stroud, Jones, and Wicket. The paper
by Stroud, Weinberg, and Smith did not mention or even cite the paper by
Stroud, Jones, and Wicket.
• Is this unethical?
• Is this plagiarism? Self-plagiarism? A possible copyright
violation?

Dr. Gumshoe is a family physician specialist conducting a
clinical trial on a new treatment for foot wounds for people with diabetes. The
treatment is a cream she developed. Although all of the compounds in the cream
have been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the
treatment itself has not. The FDA has classifi ed it as an investigational
combination therapy. Dr. Gumshoe has completed the clinical trial, which has
demonstrated that the new treatment is twice as effective as current therapy
for diabetic foot wounds. She is getting ready to publish a paper and needs to
decide (a) who should be an author and (b) the order of authorship. The
following people have worked on the project: Dr. Gumshoe developed the cream,
designed the experiments, interpreted the data, and wrote the paper. Dr.
Wainwright is a pharmacist who helped Dr. Gumshoe develop the cream, interpret
the data, and edit the paper. Dr. Sabrunama is a biostatistician who helped to
design the experiments and analyze and interpret the data and who read the
paper but did not edit it for content. Ms. Stetson is a nurse who provided
treatment to patients in the study and collected data and who read the paper
but did not edit it for content. Ms. Williams is a medical student who provided
treatment to patients in the study and collected data and who read the paper
but did not edit it for content. Mr. Gumshoe is Dr. Gumshoe’s husband. He has
been providing legal assistance to Dr. Gumshoe concerning her FDA and
institutionalreview board applications and patents on the treatment. He read
the paper and edited it for style and grammar. Mr. Jensen is a pharmacy
technician who works for Dr. Wainwright who helped to prepare the treatment.
Dr. Chu is a colleague of Dr. Gumshoe’s. He has discussed the project with her
several times over lunch. He encouraged her to initiate the clinical trial and
has given her critical feedback. Dr. Rogers is a diabetic foot specialist. He
has provided Dr. Gumshoe with tissue samples and data that she has used in her
study.
• Who should be an author?
• Who should receive an acknowledgment?
• What should be the authorship order?

1. What is the premise of peer review—what are the reasons
behind it? What is the goal? Can you change the premise? Why would you want to?
2. What suggestions would you make to improve the current
manuscript review process for journal publication?

1. What is your personal experience or your colleagues’ or
mentor’s experience with peer review?
2. How would you promote ethical practices among your
colleagues regarding peer review?
3. Do you think researchers should disseminate their fi
ndings in the media? How and why?

1. Do you think it is ever a good idea to censor scientifi c
research that poses a national security risk? Why or why not?
2. A very busy researcher is also a member of an NIH study
section. He received 15 proposals to review in four weeks. He is the primary or
secondary reviewer for six proposals. The primary and secondary reviewers are
supposed to prepare a report about each proposal. Also, all reviewers are
supposed to read all of the proposals. The researcher delayed reading the
material until the night before the meeting. He read thoroughly two of the six
proposals where he was the primary/secondary reviewer and prepared reports.
Lacking in time, he skimmed the other fi ve proposals and wrote reports laden
with generalized statements of praise or criticism. He never read the other
nine proposals.
• What should he do?
• What would you have done?