Category: Writing

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 new postdoctoral fellow in a genetic research laboratory
must sequence a 4-kDa fragment. After the sequence, he is to prepare a 200-base
unit to use as a potential regulator of a DNA-related enzyme. The 4-kDa
fragment is suspected to contain the 200-base unit. The sequence of the
200-base unit is already known in the literature, but not as part of the 4-kDa
fragment, and not as a potential regulator. The fact that the 200-base unit is
known is what gave the mentor the idea that it may have a functional role. The
new postdoctoral fellow tried for three months to sequence the 4-kDa fragment,
without success, and so simply proceeded to synthesize the 200-base unit without
locating it within the fragment. After two years of research, the 4-kDa
fragment appeared to play a key regulatory role in an important discovery, but
at this time the mentor learned that the postdoc never sequenced the original
4-kDa fragment. The mentor could never fi nd a “good” record of the attempts to
sequence the 4-kDa fragment.
• What impression do you gather about how this mentor runs
the laboratory?
• Should there be records of sequence attempts of the 4-kDa
fragment?
• How should the mentor proceed?
• If you were the new postdoc, what steps you would take to
ensure proper records of your work?

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.

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?

Five large industrial plants near a university are planning
to give $12 million each to endow a Center for Environmental Science (CES). The
total gift to the university will be $60 million. As a condition of the gift,
the companies require the following:
1. The CES will have a governing board consisting of 10
members of academia and industry; fi ve members of the board will represent the
companies giving the gift.
2. The governing board will have the power to appoint a
director of the CES and will also approve all faculty appointments to the CES.
3. The governing board will also have the power to approve
course development activities, conferences, guest lectureships, and research
projects sponsored by the CES.
• Do you see any problems with this arrangement?
• Should the university accept this gift?

A medical student has a summer job with a faculty mentor at
a research university. The student is bright, hard working, and industrious and
hopes to publish a paper at the end of the summer. He is the son of a colleague
of the mentor at a distant university. The student is working on a cancer cell
line that requires three weeks to grow in order to test for the development of
a specifi c antibody. His project plan is to identify the antibody by the end
of the summer. The student has written a short paper describing his work. The
mentor went over the raw data and found that some of the data were written on
pieces of yellow pads without clearly identifying from which experiment the
data came. She also noticed that some of the experiments shown in the paper’s
table were repeated several times without an explanation as to why. The mentor
was not happy about the data or the paper, but she likes the student and does
not want to discourage him from a potential career in research.
• What is the primary responsibility of the mentor?
• Should the mentor write a short paper and send it for
publication?
• Should the student write a short paper and send it for
publication?
• If you were the mentor, what would you do?
• Should the mentor or her representative have paid more
attention to the student’s work during the course of the summer? Should the
student been taught some quality control and/or GRP during the summer?

A fi fth-year graduate student about to receive her doctoral
degree discovers through gossip at a national meeting that her research has
been tapped by a company. After talking to her mentor, she learns he has been
discussing patents and obtaining a contract to develop the discovery into a
patent. The student was told that all this would occur in the future and that
she has nothing to do with it. She was also told that her data will earn her
the PhD she sought and that is what the work was for.
• Do you see any problem?
• Does the student have any grievance toward her mentor?
• What should the student do, if anything?
• How you would have dealt with this situation if you were
the mentor?

A large pharmaceutical company pays a researcher at a
university consulting fees of $10,000 per year, and once or twice a year an
honoraria of about $3,000 to give a talk. The same researcher also serves on
one of the FDA advisory councils.
• Do you have any concerns? What are they?
• How should these concerns, if any, be managed?

A large pharmaceutical company awards a $6 million contract
for three years to a researcher at a university to conduct trials on patients.
The company’s proposed conditions are as follows:
1. Six-month delay in publication of research outcomes
2. First rights of patenting and licensing of the
discoveries
3. The researcher serves on its scientifi c advisory board
4. The researcher will conduct the research
• What is the role of the university in this arrangement?
• Should the university accept the terms as they are offered
or make a counteroffer? What should the counteroffer be?
• How would you manage the confl ict, if one exists?

Dr. Trotter is a molecular geneticist who applies Darwin’s
principle “survival of the fi ttest” to his laboratory environment. Each year,
he hires two new postdoctoral students for one year. He assigns them both to
work on the same experiment. Whoever fi nishes the work fi rst, with
reproducible results, will get to be an author on a paper; the loser will not.
He runs several such contests during the year. At the end of the year, the
postdoctoral student who has the best results will be hired for a three-year
position, and the loser will be terminated. What do you think about this Dr.
Trotter’s policy? Is it ethical?