ABS Historian, Zuleyma Tang-Martinez
In looking over my archives of past ABS newsletters, I came across a series of posts on professional ethics written by one of our founders and former presidents, the late Stuart Altmann. The history behind these posts is that, in the 1990s, the ABS had an Ethics Committee that dealt specifically with professional ethics amongst researchers; Stuart chaired this very active committee and, as part of his leadership, wrote about ethical issues and problems that can come up in a scientific setting. In re-reading these posts, I was struck that even now, almost 30 years later, the issues and examples he discussed still feel fresh and timely. For this reason I decided that re-publishing some of his posts is worthwhile – a trip down memory lane for some of us old-timers and a fresh look at ethical concerns and the history of our society for our newer members. Because of the length of the original, and current space constraints, I have excerpted the following post, first published in the February 1996 ABS Newsletter. I have deleted a few of the examples and other information that was only relevant at the time; otherwise I have tried to leave Stuart’s column as close to the original as possible.
An interesting observation is that, in the examples he provides, Stuart alludes to the earlier tradition of ordering the list of authors such that the first author is assumed to have contributed the most and the last author is regarded as having contributed the least to the study. This, in fact, was the accepted convention for many years. More recently however, as most of you know, this protocol for assigning credit has changed. The last author now is typically the head of the lab in which the research was conducted and, therefore, considered the primary supervisor of the research, meaning that currently being listed last is highly desirable and confers special professional credit on the last author. Clearly, this was not always the case, and the change, when it occurred, caused confusion and resulted in some authors not receiving the credit that they might otherwise have deserved (for example, currently, last authors are typically regarded as deserving more credit than second or third authors). The reasons for these changes in how order of authorship is decided and how much credit each author gets - and the effects of these changes on academia and scholarship - is another story and will not be discussed further in this note. However, to make sense of the subsequent Scenario 1, readers should keep these changes in mind; likewise, note that in Scenario 2, there is even a question as to whether the director of the lab should automatically be listed as a coauthor on the paper simply because the research was done in hi/her/their lab - a problem that seldom arises at present because it is generally accepted that lab directors will be listed as last authors, thereby receiving as much or more credit than the first author! The case discussed by Stuart Altmann raises questions as to the fairness of this - and offers food for thought.
ABS members who wish to comment or suggest other topics for future “Notes from the Historian can contact me at [email protected].
In what follows, […] denotes that I have deleted material in the original because of space constraints.
PROFESSIONAL ETHICS: ON AUTHORSHIP AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS by Stuart Altmann Chair, ABS Ethics Committee. February 1996.
"Authorship of original research reports is an important indicator of accomplishments, priority, and prestige within the scientific community. Questions of authorship in science are intimately connected with issues of credit and responsibility." So begins a discussion of the ethics of scientific authorship, by a panel of the National Academy of Sciences (1). "Publication is the hard currency of science--it is the primary yardstick for establishing priority, the chief source of recognition from one's peers, and the standard on which advancement of science is based" (2).
Scientific publications benefit both society as a whole, by increasing our understanding of the natural world, and the authors, who receive credit for the research and, where appropriate, the benefits of copyright and patent protection. At the same time, authors assume responsibility for the veracity and originality of what they publish. That is, publishing a scientific report is an implicit claim that the research has not been fabricated, falsified, or plagiarized, and that any data or concepts not accredited to others are the authors'. Beyond that, the act of publishing is an implicit claim to the right to publish the information that is presented.
In an earlier column in this series (4), I discussed the order of authors and other problems of multiple authorship. Here I take up other aspects of authorship, including the basic question of who is entitled to be an author. The scenarios that follow caricature some common problems. Several are based on actual events.
Scenario 1. Proofrock, while a postdoctoral fellow in Professor W. Jabberwock's lab, successfully carries out research under Jabberwock's guidance that leads Jabberwock and several others in the lab to design follow-up studies. However, after leaving Jabberwock's lab, Proofrock moves on to other things and never publishes the work he did in Jabberwock's lab, despite Jabberwock's repeated urging. Two years later, Jabberwock realizes that none of his follow-up studies can be published without reference to the results of Proofrock's research. When Proofrock still shows no inclination to analyze and publish his data, Jabberwock assigns this task to his new postdoc. The resulting manuscript is submitted for publication, with the new postdoc, Jabberwock, and Proofrock as authors, in that order. Proofrock protests that they have no right to publish his research, that he intended to publish it as soon as he could get the time, that he owns the data, and that he disagrees with the way the data were analyzed and how they were interpreted. He writes to the editor of the journal to block publication.
That scenario illustrates the problem of intellectual property, of who owns data and ideas and who has the right to publish them (5). It also shows how readily misunderstandings can occur when a lab has no explicit and agreed upon policy regarding the handling of intellectual property. The dispute between Proofrock and Jabberwock could have been avoided if, from the outset, Proofrock had been told that the lab had a two-year 'statute of limitations' on research results: that publication rights to any research not submitted for publication within that period revert to the laboratory director, at his discretion. While policies on intellectual property may vary from lab to lab, one organization, the Society of Professional Archaeologists, promulgates a general policy among its members. It declares that after ten years, the researcher waives "the right of primacy with respect to analysis and publication of the data," which should then "be made fully accessible for analysis and publication by other[s]." (2)
Closely related is the question of who is entitled to be included among the authors of a paper, as the following scenario illustrates.
Scenario 2. Dr. Entre Preneur runs a large research lab with about a dozen graduate students and half a dozen postdocs. Dr. Preneur sees to it that the lab is well funded, well staffed, and well publicized, but he no longer participates in the research, and even his grant applications are based on the research plans of his postdocs. lma Ningrate, one of Preneur's postdocs, objects to his practice of putting his name on all publications that come out of the lab, particularly hers, since he does not actively participate in the research. Preneur points out to her that without his contributions--the lab, its staff and equipment, finances, and so on, her work could not have been done. Nonetheless, Ningrate submits a manuscript that does not list Entre Preneur as co-author. All hell breaks loose.
The case of Preneur vs. Ningrate raises the question of whether administrators and lab directors that do not actively participate in research, either intellectually or physically, are entitled to coauthorship. "Since authorship implies responsibility, one simple guideline could be that all authors should be capable of participation in a discussion or defense of their paper. This requirement would eliminate most support people such as technicians, data gatherers, computer programmers and administrators who presumably would not be able to deal with the concepts and scientific implications of the work. It might also eliminate the senior scientist, in charge of a large group, who has not maintained close enough contact with the laboratory to be familiar with the latest experimental methodology" (3)
To earn the right to authorship of a scientific paper, one must be sufficiently involved in the research to take public responsibility for it. Conversely, the ordinary contributions of secretaries and research technician do not, by this criterion, warrant coauthorship, the former because they are not scientific contributions (though they are welcome contributions to science), the latter if they are solely the products of routine tasks selected by others. By this criterion, administrators, financial supporters, electricians, and janitors are like secretaries in that ordinarily they contribute to science but they do not make scientific contributions, and so they merit our thanks but not coauthorship (4).
Dr. Preneur is a caricature of the lab director whose function is entirely administrative, yet expects honorary authorships. In real life, the extent to which lab directors and faculty mentors make scientific contributions to the' projects being done under their supervision is highly variable across labs and even within them. Add that to ambiguity about criteria for authorship and you have situations ripe for misunderstandings.
Although we usually think of authorship and the credit that it carries as the primary rewards of basic research, the rewards can be more substantial in some cases.
[….]
Scenario 4. Rhonda Bout has developed a method for analyzing certain kinds of data from sequences of behavior. Bout writes to lma Voyeur, who for years has collected just such data, and asks whether she can use Voyeur's data to try out the new method. Voyeur sends Bout her tabulated dala. Bout analyzes Voyeur's data and then publishes an article about the method, using Voyeur's'data to illustrate it and acknowledging Voyeur as the source of the data. Subsequently, Voyeur submits a paper, presenting her results. Her paper is rejected because, as one of the reviewers notes, the data along with an analysis have already been published. Voyeur is furious at Bout.
Like most of the cases illustrated here, the problems in this one could have been avoided if the participants had an explicit understanding ahead of time of how the material would be published. Perhaps the single most important thing that those involved in research can do to forestall future disputes with their mentors, their students, and other colleagues is to agree on explicit policies regarding the conduct of research, including intellectual property rights and publication. The earlier these policies are discussed, the better. Mentors and students should each take responsibility for assuring that these issues are discussed. If they are not brought up by a student's mentor, the student should approach the mentor about them. The Bout/Voyeur case illustrates the "borrowing" of data. The[re is also] the "borrowing" of ideas.
According to international copyright law, one can not copyright a scientific idea--a law of nature, if you will--but only its mode of expression. Yet, within science, theft of an idea is considered reprehensible. The set of actions that are unethical is broader than the set of actions that are illegal.
[…]
[Stuart Altmann goes on to detail certain guidelines on specific issues that were, at the time, under consideration by the ABS Ethics Committee]:
(a) Authorship should be limited to those who have made significant scientific contributions to the concept, design, execution and/or interpretation of the research study, and who share public responsibility for it. All those who have made significant scientific contributions should be offered the opportunity to be listed as authors. Conversely, no one shall be listed as an author without their consent. Others who have contributed to the study should be acknowledged, but not included as authors.
(b) Authors should strive to avoid presenting or publishing material that is fabricated, falsified, plagiarized, biased, exaggerated, or otherwise unwarranted.
(c) Because material not attributed to others is assumed to be original, proper acknowledgment of the work of others used in a research publication should always be given. […]
(d) Intellectual property rights should be respected. Unpublished data or concepts of others should not be included in a publication except as stipulated in an agreed-upon policy or by mutual consent.
(e) In supervised, mentored, or other collaborative research arrangements, participants are urged to arrive at mutually agreeable policies regarding publication of the results, including responsibility for data analysis, manuscript preparation, authorship, and disposition of records. This should be done at the earliest opportunity, and all parties involved should take responsibility for informing their collaborators of these policies or becoming informed, as appropriate. […]
Acknowledgments: For very helpful comments on earlier drafts of this column, I am grateful to Jeanne Altmann, Charles Blaich, Emilia Martins, Marc Bekoff, Janis Driscoll, Deborah Gordon, Barbara Turpin, and Jeffrey Walters.
References: (1) Panel on Scientific Responsibility and the Conduct of Research, National Academy of Sciences. 1992. Responsible Science, vol. l. National Academy Press. (2) Frankel, M.S. 1993. Ch. 2 in Responsible Science, vol. II. National Academy Press. (3) Bishop, C.T. 1984. How to Edit a Science Journal. Philadelphia, lSI Press. (4) Altmann, S.A. 1994. Professional ethics. 3. The problem of multiple authorship. ABS Newsletter, 39(2). (5) Weil, V. & J. W. Snapper, eds. 1989. Owning Scientific and Technical Information. Rutgers University Press.