Additional Commentary: Jack Fry's Interview
Author(s):
Brian Schrag
This case raises two primary issues: data sharing and
recognition of the contributions of others. The first issue
concerns when it is appropriate to share the work of one's
colleagues. Jack has procured Bob's work,integrated it with his
own material, and presented it as one cohesive unit. Whether
that is appropriate depends on the standards within Hill's lab
as well as on the standards throughout the scientific
community, in particular the standards that the interviewers
expect their job candidates to adhere to. If the standards for
sharing the work of a colleague are not explicitly stated, the
door is open for abuse. It could be argued that Hill has an
obligation to set explicit standards within his lab for data
sharing to prevent problems such as the one that has arisen in
Jack Fry's case.
Another point to consider is the power disparity between
Jack and Bob. Jack is a post-doctoral fellow, and Bob is a
graduate student. Because Jack is in many ways Bob's superior,
Bob may have felt he had to comply with Jack's request for his
materials. If Bob didn't comply, he may have been ostracized by
other members of the lab as disloyal, and, ultimately, his
career prospects could have been jeopardized. It is unethical
for Jack to impose the arrangement on Bob if Bob was complying
simply because he felt he had to show his loyalty to the lab.
Again, it is worth pointing out that if Hill had explicit rules
for sharing work amongst colleagues within his lab, these
problems could have been avoided. It is particularly important
to establish such criteria in a highly interdisciplinary lab
such as Hill's, where every project is conducted with the help
of several people.
The lack of explicit rules for sharing data, both in Hill's
lab and throughout the profession in general, raises another
interesting question: What are the expectations of Jack's
interviewers? They are from a chemical engineering department
where interdisciplinary work is probably much less common. Are
they aware of how Hill's lab is run? Are they aware that each
project is the work of several people, or do they expect Jack
to present only his own work, unless otherwise explicitly
stated? In the absence of explicit standards for data sharing,
Jack has an obligation to the interviewers, Bob and the other
candidates for the job, to clearly define his contributions and
the contributions of others to the work he presented. In
addition, the interviewers have an obligation to Jack, Bob, the
department, the university and the other candidates for the
job, to determine Jack's contribution to the work presented in
his talk.
If Jack does not explicitly declare Bob's contribution, he
is deceiving the interviewers. If his deception is found out,
Jack risks a marred reputation and a loss of his colleagues'
trust. Even if he is not found out, he will have to live with
himself as a deceiver, which may erode his sense of integrity
and self-confidence. Alternatively, he may decide that his
behavior was acceptable, and may repeat his deception later or
extend it to more serious breaches of integrity. He may spread
his tactics throughout the engineering profession by training
his students to adopt the same strategy in their
presentations.
If the interviewers fail to determine the degree of Jack's
contribution to the work he presented, they may hire Jack and
not a more capable candidate who did not embellish his talk
with the work of others. This would rob future students, the
university and the scientific community of the best possible
professor and researcher for their money. To clarify this
point, suppose the interviewers only really liked the
mathematical model portion of the talk, or suppose the
department only had the resources for mathematical modeling and
not for biological studies. In this case, they would have hired
Jack specifically for work he had no direct role in
producing.
The other issue raised by this case is proper recognition.
Again, if explicit norms existed, problems would be less likely
to occur. Recognition requires both permission and citation.
Jack apparently had permission, since Bob helped him prepare
for the talk and loaned Jack his slides. It is possible,
however, that Bob was coerced into providing Jack with
permission, in light of his vulnerable position as a graduate
student in Hill's lab.
The question of permission aside, did Jack properly
recognize Bob's contribution? One way of answering this
question is to consider whether Bob would have been satisfied
with Jack's acknowledgment slide if he had been in the audience
during Jack's presentation.
Added insight into this case can be gleaned by considering
various paradigm cases. First, consider the level of Bob's
permission. If Bob were in a higher power position than Jack
and had given Jack permission to use his materials, Jack's use
of the materials could be considered completely ethical.
Alternatively, if Jack had taken Bob's materials without his
knowledge (for example while Bob was on vacation), then Jack
would have been using the material without Bob's permission and
therefore would have been acting unethically.
A second set of paradigm cases concerns the level of Jack's
contribution to Bob's mathematical model. If Jack was so
involved in deriving the mathematical model that he was a
co-author of the paper, then his use of the mathematical model
in his talk would be ethical, because much of the work would
have been his own. Alternatively, if Jack had never helped Bob
with the mathematical model, then Jack's use of the
mathematical model would be unethical, unless he clearly stated
that he had not been involved in its development.
Finally, it is useful to consider the adequacy of Jacks
recognition of Bob's contribution to the mathematical model. If
Jack clearly stated that Bob derived the mathematical model
when the first slide discussing the mathematical model was
brought up, than Jack would have acted ethically. If Jack did
not acknowledge Bob's contribution at all, even in a final
acknowledgment slide, than Jack would have acted
unethically.
Considering the arguments and comments above, a creative
solution to Jack's problem can be offered. Jack clearly wishes
to come across to his interviewers as a competent engineer. He
has already established his competence in his graduate studies,
in which he had extensive mathematical modeling experience. If
he desires, Jack could provide the interviewers with copies of
his graduate school work to demonstrate his mathematical
modeling capabilities. Jack should use Bob's mathematical model
to illustrate the application of engineering principles to the
DDS problem. Jack should explicitly state that Bob developed
the mathematical model. By demonstrating his fluency with
modeling, Jack will show his capabilities as an engineer and
demonstrate how engineering can be applied to the DDS problem.
Most important, he can emphasize his ability to work with
others in a multidisciplinary environment to provide a complete
understanding of a complex problem, by conducting both
mathematical and experimental analyses. By being forthright and
honest in his representation of his skills and accomplishments,
Jack can satisfy his obligations to himself for career
advancement, to Bob for proper recognition of his work, and to
his interviewers and the other candidates for the faculty
position.