From the Online Ethics Center for Engineering and Science
Upon entering the graduate program, Alyssa decided to do start
working in the laboratory of Dr. Harry Swift. She started on a
project that consisted of administering and evaluating the effects of
an anti-malarial agent using an animal model. Although six other
graduate students were working in the laboratory (not doing
rotations), none of them was involved with the project, other than
occasionally assisting Alyssa with the animals. She presented her
data at weekly laboratory meetings attended by all members of Swift's
lab, including Swift.
Alyssa and Swift did not get along very well. Swift believed that
although Alyssa was a hard worker, she required too much supervision
and was not an independent thinker. Alyssa, on the other hand,
believed that Swift expected too much from his students and failed to
provide adequate direction. Therefore, after completing the project,
which took approximately nine months, Alyssa decided to leave the lab
and begin working in another laboratory in the same department.
Alyssa's lab book remained in Swift's lab, and Swift told her that
the work did not merit publication.
Approximately one year later, Alyssa learned that her data had been
published. The paper did not list her as an author, but it did list
the names of other graduate students who had worked in Swift's lab
during Alyssa's tenure. Alyssa decided to bring this situation to the
attention of the departmental chairman, who referred her to the
Director of Student Affairs. The director formed a committee of
senior faculty members from outside Alyssa's department to
investigate the situation.
When the committee questioned Swift about the exclusion of Alyssa as
an author, he responded that Alyssa did the work but had not
contributed intellectually to the project. Rather, she had functioned
primarily as a technician. Swift commented that he had had several
discussions with Alyssa about her inability to add to the project,
other than data collection, and she had made no effort to increase
her input. The committee questioned Alyssa and reviewed her lab book.
The other graduate students who had worked in Swift's laboratory were
never questioned.
The committee decided that Alyssa was responsible for the data
presented by Swift. They also concluded that she did not have a major
input into the experimental design, nor did she carry out the
statistical analysis of the data required for publication. The
committee concluded that the decision to include Alyssa as an author
was at Swift's discretion.
Discussion questions
1. Should Swift have notified Alyssa about the decision to
publish the work?
2. Should Alyssa have been given an opportunity to analyze the data
for publication?
3. Should Alyssa have approached Swift about the matter before
approaching the department chair?
4. Should the committee have questioned more individuals associated
with Swift, (e.g., the other graduate students working in the lab who
were listed as authors on the paper)?
5. Should the university have rules about acknowledging students'
contributions to laboratories?
6. What criteria should determine authorship?
7. What are the responsibilities of mentors, students, and
institutions to the successful conduct of graduate/postgraduate
education?
8. Did Swift fail in his responsibility to Alyssa as a graduate
student adviser by allowing her to function solely as a
technician?
9. Did Alyssa fail in her responsibility as a graduate student to
contribute intellectually to the project rather than limiting her
contribution to data collection?
10. Is it necessary for graduate programs to spell out the
responsibilities of advisers and graduate students, or are they
implicit?