the videos

Abstract
After months of frustrating disappointments, Peter decides to leave the project. Soon afterwards, his partner, Harriet, looks back over a notebook and computer disk left behind by Aaron Kagan, a collaborator who had tutored Harriet in the early stages of the project and who left the lab some months earlier. In Kagan's notebook she finds a "missing step" that enables her to achieve the results that had been hypothesized. She presents a draft manuscript to her laboratory director, Dr. Harry Garnett, showing only the two of them as co-authors. Garnett is pleased with her achievement, but questions her choice of co-authors. Harriet is firm in her conviction that she has earned the authorship and is not prepared to share it with anyone but Garnett. She reminds him of how critical this publication will be to her hopes of securing a permanent research position.

Issues for Discussion
The case presents an opportunity to discuss the importance of publication in science, how it influences one's career, and how pressures to publish permeate research laboratories and affect relationships among scientists. How authorship is determined in a collaboration among several researchers is a critical issue in science, as is how otherwise to attribute credit. Discussion could identify a range of contributors and their contributions to a research project and then assess who deserves authorship, and for those who do not, how their contributions should be acknowledged. Differences in how various disciplines treat these matters could be pointed out. The scenario also highlights issues related to the maintenance and retention of notebooks by researchers in the laboratory, and who should have access to them. The "stick-um" note found in Kagan's notebook can prompt a discussion of sloppiness and possible misrepresentation in science. The role of laboratory directors and mentors in resolving authorship disputes is another matter that could be explored. In conversations with Pete and Harriet, Garnett acknowledges that it is important for researchers to "know when something is futile." The distinction between commitment and obsession is often a thin line and it might be useful to discuss what factors scientists should consider when deciding when to change directions or completely drop a particular line of research.

Discussion Questions
1.Is Harriet's proposal that only she and Garnett be co-authors on the manuscript reasonable? If so, should she or Garnett be first author? Do ideas and the confirming empirical work deserve equal credit?
2.Explain why Peter or Aaron deserves or does not deserve to be a co-author?
3.When Peter decides to move to another lab, he telephones Harriet "first because you're my partner." What do you think of Harriet's failure to tell Peter of her discovery of the missing step?
4.Garnett refers to the initial steps of the research taken in collaboration with Aaron Kagan as "so promising." When he suggests to Harriet that they call Kagan, she objects, noting that he "abandoned the project when he left" and that his papers "belong to the lab." Does either Harriet or Garnett have a responsibility to inform Aaron of their findings? What does she mean by her comment that Kagan's papers "belong to the lab"?
5.How would you assess Garnett's responses to Harriet's views regarding Peter and Aaron as co-authors? Should he have been more assertive?
6.What credit, if any, should Ivan receive for the replication experiments that he performed at Harriet's request?
7.What can be inferred from Aaron's omission of a key step from the disk version of the protocol? How might one determine whether it was sloppiness or an intentional misrepresentation?
8.What are appropriate criteria for determining authorship? Who should establish the criteria?
9.How should disputes among authorship claims be resolved?
10.Of what importance is the sequence of authors' names on a paper?
11.What provisions are or should be available to acknowledge contributions from non-authors?
12.There are several conversations among the researchers about knowing when the time has come to change directions in their research. How can a scientist "know" when that time has arrived?

Key Terms Defined
T Cells:
A type of cell involved in immune functions.
Photomicrographs:
Photographs taken through a microscope.






	Video 4 - Where Credit is Due (9 minutes)
	Abstract After months of frustrating disappointments, Peter decides to leave the project. Soon afterwards, his partner, Harriet, looks back over a notebook and computer disk left behind by Aaron Kagan, a collaborator who had tutored Harriet in the early stages of the project and who left the lab some months earlier. In Kagan's notebook she finds a "missing step" that enables her to achieve the results that had been hypothesized. She presents a draft manuscript to her laboratory director, Dr. Harry Garnett, showing only the two of them as co-authors. Garnett is pleased with her achievement, but questions her choice of co-authors. Harriet is firm in her conviction that she has earned the authorship and is not prepared to share it with anyone but Garnett. She reminds him of how critical this publication will be to her hopes of securing a permanent research position. Issues for Discussion The case presents an opportunity to discuss the importance of publication in science, how it influences one's career, and how pressures to publish permeate research laboratories and affect relationships among scientists. How authorship is determined in a collaboration among several researchers is a critical issue in science, as is how otherwise to attribute credit. Discussion could identify a range of contributors and their contributions to a research project and then assess who deserves authorship, and for those who do not, how their contributions should be acknowledged. Differences in how various disciplines treat these matters could be pointed out. The scenario also highlights issues related to the maintenance and retention of notebooks by researchers in the laboratory, and who should have access to them. The "stick-um" note found in Kagan's notebook can prompt a discussion of sloppiness and possible misrepresentation in science. The role of laboratory directors and mentors in resolving authorship disputes is another matter that could be explored. In conversations with Pete and Harriet, Garnett acknowledges that it is important for researchers to "know when something is futile." The distinction between commitment and obsession is often a thin line and it might be useful to discuss what factors scientists should consider when deciding when to change directions or completely drop a particular line of research. Discussion Questions 1.Is Harriet's proposal that only she and Garnett be co-authors on the manuscript reasonable? If so, should she or Garnett be first author? Do ideas and the confirming empirical work deserve equal credit? 2.Explain why Peter or Aaron deserves or does not deserve to be a co-author? 3.When Peter decides to move to another lab, he telephones Harriet "first because you're my partner." What do you think of Harriet's failure to tell Peter of her discovery of the missing step? 4.Garnett refers to the initial steps of the research taken in collaboration with Aaron Kagan as "so promising." When he suggests to Harriet that they call Kagan, she objects, noting that he "abandoned the project when he left" and that his papers "belong to the lab." Does either Harriet or Garnett have a responsibility to inform Aaron of their findings? What does she mean by her comment that Kagan's papers "belong to the lab"? 5.How would you assess Garnett's responses to Harriet's views regarding Peter and Aaron as co-authors? Should he have been more assertive? 6.What credit, if any, should Ivan receive for the replication experiments that he performed at Harriet's request? 7.What can be inferred from Aaron's omission of a key step from the disk version of the protocol? How might one determine whether it was sloppiness or an intentional misrepresentation? 8.What are appropriate criteria for determining authorship? Who should establish the criteria? 9.How should disputes among authorship claims be resolved? 10.Of what importance is the sequence of authors' names on a paper? 11.What provisions are or should be available to acknowledge contributions from non-authors? 12.There are several conversations among the researchers about knowing when the time has come to change directions in their research. How can a scientist "know" when that time has arrived? Key Terms Defined T Cells: A type of cell involved in immune functions. Photomicrographs: Photographs taken through a microscope.