1,Surviving in academia without selling ones soul,A panel discussion moderated by K. Nandakumar Univ. of Alberta,Sources of pressure,University “Top Notch” gets a new president, who wants to move it higher by one notch! He advocates a tougher tenure system. Only one in three will get tenure! Is the tenure system imposing enormous pressure on young, new faculty to publish? Is it an unfair practice? Is it unethical? Does it have any positive features? Should U of A (Chem Eng) follow it?,Transmitting the pressure,Prof. Hot Shot (a new faculty member on tenure track stream) gets 3 grad students and lots of ($250,000) startup money! Prof. Shot has a great idea that might lead to fame & glory and tenure! Prof. Shot puts all his 3 students on the same project and tells them the one to finish first will get the PhD, Others will have to start over! Is it ethical? What should the students do?,Joint Authorship Of Paper,Engineer A and Engineer B are faculty members at a major university. As part of the requirement for obtaining tenure at the university, both Engineer A and Engineer B are required to author articles for publication in scholarly and technical journals.,Joint Authorship Of Paper,During Engineer As years as a graduate student he had developed a paper which was never published and which forms the basis of what he thinks would be an excellent article for publication in a journal. Engineer A discusses his idea with Engineer B and they agree to collaborate in developing the article.,Joint Authorship Of Paper,Engineer A, the principal author, rewrites the article, bringing it up to date. Engineer Bs contributions are minimal. Engineer A agrees to include Engineer Bs name as coauthor of the article as a favor in order to enhance Engineer Bs chances of obtaining tenure. The article is ultimately accepted and published in a refereed journal.,Joint Authorship Of Paper,Was it ethical for Engineer A to use a paper he developed at an earlier time as the basis for an updated article? Was it ethical for Engineer B to accept credit for development of the article? Was it ethical for Engineer A to include Engineer B as coauthor of the article?,Credit for discovery of pulsars?,A much-discussed example of the difficulties associated with allocating credit between junior and senior researchers was the 1967 discovery by Jocelyn Bell, then a 24-year-old graduate student, of pulsars. Over the previous two years, Bell and several other students, under the supervision of Bells thesis advisor, Anthony Hewish, had built a 4.5-acre radiotelescope to investigate scintillating radio sources in the sky.,Credit for discovery of pulsars?,After the telescope began functioning, Bell was in charge of operating it and analyzing its data under Hewishs direction. One day Bell noticed “a bit of scruff“ on the data chart. She remembered seeing the same signal earlier and, by measuring the period of its recurrence, determined that it had to be coming from an extraterrestrial source.,Credit for discovery of pulsars?,Together Bell and Hewish analyzed the signal and found several similar examples elsewhere in the sky. After discarding the idea that the signals were coming from an extraterrestrial intelligence, Hewish, Bell, and three other people involved in the project published a paper announcing the discovery, which was given the name “pulsar“ by a British science reporter.,Credit for discovery of pulsars?,Many argued that Bell should have shared the Nobel Prize awarded to Hewish for the discovery, saying that her recognition of the signal was the crucial act of discovery. What do you think?,Surprise Authorship, Credit and Responsibility,In your first year as a graduate student, you worked in a research team with two more advanced students and the supervising professor. Two years later, after the other students have graduated, you look through the proceedings of an important research symposium in your area and are surprised to come upon a paper coauthored by all four members of your former group, including yourself. One of the advanced students is listed as the first and corresponding author.,Surprise Authorship, Credit and Responsibility,The paper is in two parts. The first part represents some of your group work. The second part concerns a loosely related point of theory. There is no issue of fraud or incompetence: the presentation and conclusions in both parts of the paper appear respectable, though you are not familiar enough with the theoretical background of the second part to be confident about vouching for it. What, if anything can or should you do?,What about my contribution?,For the first year of your graduate studies you worked with Professor Smart on the Hot Research project. By the end of the first year you made a small but notable refinement to the approach to the segment assigned to you. At the end of the first year Professor Smart went on leave for a semester and you started working on a different project with a