Jayson Laurel 11-Gemini

ANSWERS

CASE # 1: CO-AUTHORSHIP─WHEN CHANGING LABS, HAVE YOU DONE ENOUGH TO BE INCLUDED?

1. Yes because maybe the new student is more than intelligent to write or publish a paper, so she need a coauthor to
make a good output.

2. Yes, Sarah should accept that offer to show to Dr. Jones that she is a good writer.

3. The department chair should response to this situation with a full of equality because both Sarah and new student they
do their job to finish their work

4. Sarah and her advisory should be talk to each other to know their own sides to prevent disagreement

CASE # 2: FIRST AUTHORSHIP, PUBLICITY, AND MULTIPLE INSTITUTIONS

1. Smith and Jones author ships change is reasonable because Smith is frustrated while Jones is very excited

2. By balancing their own career so they have no problem at all

3. To avoid disagreement

4. By turn to advocacy is not a involved to the author because it is just only for their advocacy

5. To avoid unnecessary problem or other cause of disagreement

CASE 3 - BORROWING ENGLISH

1. I think Dr. X has done in Plagiarism because Dr. X did not write the name of the author of what he copied in his study

2. The difference between the two introduction is the word he used in his introduction but it is the same meaning

3. Yes, he should use his own language in his second paper to avoid plagiarism

4. because he copied it to Dr. Z , if when Dr. X made his own introduction they might not accept it because he knows
how he insecure about his ability to write in English

5. He Should better include the references to the previous paper. He will repeat of what he made and include the name
of Dr. Z because copying without including the preferences may cause plagiarism
WRITTEN WORK #2

Direction: Read the case carefully and answer and explain the questions briefly and direct to the point.

RUBRIC

POINTS POINTS POINTS POINTS

INDICATORS POINTS EARNED EARNED EARNED EARNED
NO. 1 NO. 2 NO. 3 NO. 4
1. Identifies & explains
4
issues
2. Solves the problem or
3
issue
3. Organization of Thoughts 3
Total 10

Questions/ Cases:
CASE # 1: CO-AUTHORSHIP─WHEN CHANGING LABS, HAVE YOU DONE ENOUGH TO BE INCLUDED?
(Based on Shamoo A. and Resnik D., Responsible Conduct of Research, 2003)

Sarah is a graduate student that worked in the lab of Dr. Jones for a year studying a novel transmembrane protein found only in tumor
cells. Sarah isolated some of the protein and then used a contract laboratory to develop a sensitive rabbit antibody that recognizes an
extracellular portion of the protein. Her dissertation project was going to involve using this antibody (along with other methods) to
study the protein and its potential role in tumor progression and metastasis.

Despite this progress, she unfortunately did not get along well with Dr. Jones and decided to leave the lab and move to Dr. Smith’s lab
to begin a new project.

A few months later, Sarah finds out that her former advisor is preparing a paper based on subsequent research conducted by a new
graduate student, but using the antibody Sarah developed. Sarah feels that she should be a coauthor and brings this up with Dr. Jones.
The former advisor explains that the data being published were obtained solely by the new graduate student, and that raising an
antibody is merely a technical activity that does not justify co-authorship. Sarah argues that the isolation of the protein and the
decision about what peptide to select as antigen constituted original scientific thinking. Dr. Jones disagrees, saying that the literature
contains numerous examples of this type of work.

Discussion Questions

1. Should Sarah be a coauthor on the paper?

2. Dr. Jones suggests that she will write a methodological paper limited to describing the preparation and characterization of the
antibody. She offers Sarah coauthorship. However, she can’t get to work writing that paper until her new student’s paper has
been submitted. Should Sarah accept this offer?
3. Sarah brings her complaint to the chair of the department. She argues that the new student’s research could not have been
done without her antibody and its characterization. How should the department chair respond to this situation?
4. What could Sarah and her advisor have done prior to her departure to prevent this disagreement from occurring?
Direction: Read the case carefully and answer and explain the questions briefly and direct to the point.

RUBRIC

POINTS POINTS POINTS POINTS POINTS

INDICATORS POINTS EARNED EARNED EARNED EARNED EARNED
NO. 1 NO. 2 NO. 3 NO. 4 NO. 5
4. Identifies & explains
4
issues
5. Solves the problem or
3
issue
6. Organization of Thoughts 3
Total 10

CASE # 2: FIRST AUTHORSHIP, PUBLICITY, AND MULTIPLE INSTITUTIONS

Dr. Williams recently joined the Population Branch as a post-doctoral fellow very interested in vitamin research. At their first formal
meeting upon arrival, his primary mentor and early tenure-track investigator, Dr. Smith, suggests several timely hypotheses with data
currently available for analysis and publication. They agree on three analyses to be completed in the next 12-18 months, with the
first looking at vitamin D status and breast cancer risk. Williams is very excited, and he quickly submits the study mini-proposal to the
parent cohort study data-base for documentation and approval, finalizes the analytical plan, and begins working on the multivariate
risk models.

Upon her return 2 months later from three weeks of travel, Smith schedules a meeting to review Williams’ results. She senses that he
has some very exciting findings, and in fact he reports a very significant, 75% breast cancer risk reduction during the 10-year follow-
up period in women who had higher vitamin D levels. This result was generally consistent with their hypothesis, but the magnitude of
the preventive association was more than twice what they had anticipated, thereby elevating the potential impact of their findings
and affording them likely publication in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Williams is very excited about this and is ready to begin drafting the manuscript. Smith is also excited, but at the same time
frustrated that an analysis they believed would go to a modest journal will instead be highprofile, and could have helped her with
tenure if she were first author. She relates this development to the PI of the parent study, Dr. Jones. They both quickly realize that
one of them is going to miss out on much of the attention and credit by not being senior author, and decide to ask Williams if he
would accept a second author position so that Smith can write the paper and be first author, thereby boosting her chances for
tenure.

Williams is surprised by the request and feels pressured to agree, so he asks them to give him a few days to think about it. At the
same time, one of the five collaborating study centers, Seattle, informs Smith that a junior faculty member there is interested in the
same hypothesis, and would like to get started and lead the analysis based on their earlier discussions with the PI, Dr. Jones.

Discussion Questions:
1. Is the request by Drs. Smith and Jones for an authorship change reasonable? When should authorship roles/positions be
discussed?
2. In such a situation, how does one balance the career advancement of post-doctoral fellows and tenure track investigators?
3. How might consideration of co-first or co-senior authorship help out in this situation? What does it mean to be a senior
author? Corresponding author?
4. If Williams wants to remain first author, who can he turn to for advice or advocacy? Should the branch chief or IC training
office get involved or intervene on his behalf?
5. What should be done about the request from Seattle? How can such “late-breaking” overlapping requests or surprises be
avoided?
Direction: Read the case carefully and answer and explain the questions briefly and direct to the point.

RUBRIC

POINTS POINTS POINTS POINTS POINTS

INDICATORS POINTS EARNED EARNED EARNED EARNED EARNED
NO. 1 NO. 2 NO. 3 NO. 4 NO. 5
7. Identifies & explains
4
issues
8. Solves the problem or
3
issue
9. Organization of Thoughts 3
Total 10

CASE 3 - BORROWING ENGLISH

Dr. X, a visiting fellow, is putting together his first paper on his studies of the PrP-Sc protein. He feels somewhat insecure about his
ability to write in English, but is excited to be given the opportunity to prepare his paper. To start writing the introduction he has read
several papers from his laboratory, one of which has the following introductory paragraph.

One set of neurodegenerative diseases recently linked to ER stress is caused by aberrant metabolism of the widely expressed cell
surface glycoprotein PrP. These diseases can be inherited through PrP mutations or acquired via a transmissible agent composed
largely of a misfolded isoform of PrP termed PrP-Sc. Exogenous PrP-Sc is capable of converting the normal cellular isoform (PrP-C) into
additional PrP-Sc molecules, leading to its accumulation and generating additional transmissible agent. In the familial diseases, PrP
mutations appear to cause accumulation of misfolded PrP through poorly understood mechanisms that in some cases also generate
PrP-Sc. Thus, altered PrP folding, metabolism, and accumulation are the proximal causes of both familial and transmissible prion
diseases. However, the downstream events that culminate in selective neuronal death in any of these diseases are unknown.

Dr. X thinks the paragraph is well written and borrows heavily in the draft he provides his mentor Dr. Z.

Some neurodegenerative diseases recently linked to ER stress have aberrant metabolism of the widely expressed cell surface
glycoprotein PrP. These diseases can be inherited through PrP mutations or be acquired via a transmissible agent composed largely of
a misfolded isoform of PrP termed PrP-Sc. Exogenous PrP-Sc is capable of converting the normal cellular form (PrP-C) into additional
PrP-Sc molecules, leading to its accumulation and generating additional transmissible agent. In the familial diseases, PrP mutations
appear to cause accumulation of misfolded PrP through poorly understood mechanisms. Thus, altered PrP folding, metabolism, and
accumulation are the causes of both familial and transmissible prion diseases. However, the downstream events that lead to selective
neuronal death are not known for any of these diseases.

Dr. Z reads the draft manuscript and then gives Dr. X his comments. Dr. Z thinks Dr. X should completely rewrite the introductory
paragraph because it has been plagiarized.

1. Do you agree that what Dr. X has done is plagiarism?

2. How different do the introductions in different papers from the same laboratory need to be?
3. Could Dr. X reuse his own language in his second paper?
4. How could Dr. X make the paragraphs acceptable?
5. Dr. X plans to include a reference to the previous paper – how should he do that? Is this sufficient?