the videos

Abstract
Jim and Peggy, collaborators on a large, multi-site research project, meet face-to-face for the first time to review their progress and discuss future collaboration on the project, which is partially funded by a pharmaceutical company. Peggy mentions that she has not received a response to her request for several of Jim's knock-out mice. She acknowledges having received a transfer agreement from the company that would have permitted her to obtain the mice, but claims not to have signed it because of "all sorts of restrictions." Jim shares her frustration and promises to follow up with the company. A company executive, Harry Carter, reminds Jim of the firm's long-term support of his work and stresses how important it is for the company to retain control over its research investment in the highly competitive pharmaceutical industry. Peggy can have the mice when a signed transfer agreement is received. Later that evening, Jim informs Peggy of his meeting with Carter and admits that he simply can't hand the mice over to her. Peggy appears resigned to abandoning this part of her research protocol, when Jim offers her the mice along with the transfer agreement, and tells her she can submit it upon her return home, implying that the decision to do so would be up to her.

Issues for Discussion
With government funding of research growing tighter, scientists are increasingly seeking alternative sources of support, and for many the prospect of industrial funding is very appealing. This case provides an opportunity to discuss the effects of public or private funding on scientific research, on academic scientists, and on their students, including the importance of technology transfer, and how the source and nature of funding can affect the sharing of data and resources and the publication of results. Jim's apparent naivete about his relationship with the pharmaceutical company should stimulate discussion about the responsibilities of researchers to be informed about the terms of any agreement into which they enter and to be sensitive to its impact on collaborators who may not be a direct party to the agreement. Carter's insistence on a signed transfer agreement and Peggy's reluctance to sign it set the stage for a discussion of the increasing influence of legal rules on the conduct of science and on relationships between scientists. The conflict Jim experiences at the end is a good point at which to assess how researchers can reconcile differences among professional values, legal obligations, and loyalty to collaborators.

Discussion Questions
1.What do you think of Jim's decision to offer Peggy the mice without receiving a signed transfer agreement in advance? What motivates his decision?
2.Should Peggy accept the mice from Jim? Is she playing on Jim's sense of loyalty to her and the other collaborators to gain access to the mice? Is she under any legal or ethical obligation to return a signed transfer agreement? What might be the consequences for her or Jim if she uses the mice in her research but fails to sign a transfer agreement? Could the whole matter be resolved if Peggy spent the coming year at Jim's lab, using the mice there?
3.What does the conversation between Jim and Harry Carter reveal about the respective missions of industry and universities? What are the appropriate roles of universities and industry in promoting the development of useful products from the research bench to the market place?
4.How would you characterize Jim's plea for the unrestricted accessibility of data and research resources to all researchers? Idealistic? Naive? Public spirited?
5.Is it reasonable for Mendoza, as the research sponsor, to exercise so much control over the availability of the mice? Should they be less restrictive? What other mechanisms are available to industrial firms for exercising control over their research tools and products?
6.What are Jim's responsibilities to be familiar with the terms of his contractual agreement with Mendoza Pharmaceuticals? What is the role of his university in such matters? Is renegotiating the contract a viable option?
7.What are some of the advantages and disadvantages for researchers in using industry versus government funding to support their work? Are these considerations the same for trainees or students?
8.Can you think of any restrictions that either industry or government could impose that should prompt scientists to refuse their support?
9.How would the thrust of this case be changed, if at all, if the research in which Jim and Peggy were involved was funded solely by the federal government?

Key Terms Defined
Transfer Agreement:
A legal agreement defining conditions for possessing, sharing and using data and other related matters arising as a result of collaborative research between two different groups, often one in industry and the other in academia.
YAC:
Yeast artificial chromosome, used for studying large fragments of DNA as part of research aimed at identifying particular genes.
Knock-out Mouse:
A mouse that has been genetically engineered so that it lacks a gene whose function is being studied.






	Video 3 - Of Mice and Mendoza (9 minutes)
	Abstract Jim and Peggy, collaborators on a large, multi-site research project, meet face-to-face for the first time to review their progress and discuss future collaboration on the project, which is partially funded by a pharmaceutical company. Peggy mentions that she has not received a response to her request for several of Jim's knock-out mice. She acknowledges having received a transfer agreement from the company that would have permitted her to obtain the mice, but claims not to have signed it because of "all sorts of restrictions." Jim shares her frustration and promises to follow up with the company. A company executive, Harry Carter, reminds Jim of the firm's long-term support of his work and stresses how important it is for the company to retain control over its research investment in the highly competitive pharmaceutical industry. Peggy can have the mice when a signed transfer agreement is received. Later that evening, Jim informs Peggy of his meeting with Carter and admits that he simply can't hand the mice over to her. Peggy appears resigned to abandoning this part of her research protocol, when Jim offers her the mice along with the transfer agreement, and tells her she can submit it upon her return home, implying that the decision to do so would be up to her. Issues for Discussion With government funding of research growing tighter, scientists are increasingly seeking alternative sources of support, and for many the prospect of industrial funding is very appealing. This case provides an opportunity to discuss the effects of public or private funding on scientific research, on academic scientists, and on their students, including the importance of technology transfer, and how the source and nature of funding can affect the sharing of data and resources and the publication of results. Jim's apparent naivete about his relationship with the pharmaceutical company should stimulate discussion about the responsibilities of researchers to be informed about the terms of any agreement into which they enter and to be sensitive to its impact on collaborators who may not be a direct party to the agreement. Carter's insistence on a signed transfer agreement and Peggy's reluctance to sign it set the stage for a discussion of the increasing influence of legal rules on the conduct of science and on relationships between scientists. The conflict Jim experiences at the end is a good point at which to assess how researchers can reconcile differences among professional values, legal obligations, and loyalty to collaborators. Discussion Questions 1.What do you think of Jim's decision to offer Peggy the mice without receiving a signed transfer agreement in advance? What motivates his decision? 2.Should Peggy accept the mice from Jim? Is she playing on Jim's sense of loyalty to her and the other collaborators to gain access to the mice? Is she under any legal or ethical obligation to return a signed transfer agreement? What might be the consequences for her or Jim if she uses the mice in her research but fails to sign a transfer agreement? Could the whole matter be resolved if Peggy spent the coming year at Jim's lab, using the mice there? 3.What does the conversation between Jim and Harry Carter reveal about the respective missions of industry and universities? What are the appropriate roles of universities and industry in promoting the development of useful products from the research bench to the market place? 4.How would you characterize Jim's plea for the unrestricted accessibility of data and research resources to all researchers? Idealistic? Naive? Public spirited? 5.Is it reasonable for Mendoza, as the research sponsor, to exercise so much control over the availability of the mice? Should they be less restrictive? What other mechanisms are available to industrial firms for exercising control over their research tools and products? 6.What are Jim's responsibilities to be familiar with the terms of his contractual agreement with Mendoza Pharmaceuticals? What is the role of his university in such matters? Is renegotiating the contract a viable option? 7.What are some of the advantages and disadvantages for researchers in using industry versus government funding to support their work? Are these considerations the same for trainees or students? 8.Can you think of any restrictions that either industry or government could impose that should prompt scientists to refuse their support? 9.How would the thrust of this case be changed, if at all, if the research in which Jim and Peggy were involved was funded solely by the federal government? Key Terms Defined Transfer Agreement: A legal agreement defining conditions for possessing, sharing and using data and other related matters arising as a result of collaborative research between two different groups, often one in industry and the other in academia. YAC: Yeast artificial chromosome, used for studying large fragments of DNA as part of research aimed at identifying particular genes. Knock-out Mouse: A mouse that has been genetically engineered so that it lacks a gene whose function is being studied.