|
||||
Case for Discussion Melvin Evans, a cell biology graduate student, has purified two recombinant proteins as part of his dissertation research. These proteins differ only at a few key amino acid positions. Based on other biochemical data, Melvin believes the proteins are virtually identical. Following a discussion with a Jeff Lee, a biochemistry graduate student, Melvin concludes that it would be reasonable to compare these two purified proteins by circular dichroism. Jeff offers to collaborate on the project by analyzing the two proteins by this technique. Dr. Dawson, Jeff's advisor approves of this and he alerts Melvin's advisor that this will be a fruitful collaboration which should result in a co-authored publication. He argues that his rationale for this is based on: 1)Jeff's intellectual contribution in presenting the data and operating highly technical instrumentation; and 2) on his own intellectual and financial support of the circular dichroism instrument facility. Melvin's advisor is opposed to a co-authored paper, arguing that the Jeff's contribution is largely technical and does not merit coauthorship. He suggests that Jeff and Dr. Dawson be acknowledged in the paper along with the grants used to support the circular dichroism facility. Discuss the relevant issues of authorship in this case. used with permission |
||||