Case study 2.3
After thoroughly reading through the case study it seems that both scientists were engaged in
appropriate reporting of their prospective research only because experiments should be reproducible
and just because the end result is the same it does not mean the that approach and methods, they used
to be identical. Authors of the PNAS define authorship to those who have contributed substantially to
the work (Macrina, 2014); as in the case hear the second biochemist could have engaged in a
reproduction of the experiment excluding the east coast geneticist. Therefore acting in an appropriate
fashion.
Case Study 4.3
In the case of Arati Shankar, I believe that she does have a case to be mentioned as a coauthor
because it was her seminal idea that lead to the discovery of the newly observed overproduction of Xgro
in the mouse model. Authorship criteria sates that an author must make a significant contribution to the
work in question. In the case of Dr. Shankar her astute observation led to her experiment being
reproduced to subsequently finding a breakthrough. In light of her observation was the means to the
end. There are some journals that require that the contributions of all coauthors be mentioned or
described in the papers to reduce the ambiguity and take responsibility for the integrity of the work
(Macrina, 2014).
Case Study 4.7
In the case of Fred Taylor the retired professor at Western State University (WSU) after his 5
yearlong research project that was eventually archived was then used reinterpreted by a new algorithm
years later by a junior faculty member and her student. I believe Dr. Taylor claim has plenty of merit
because as defined by the ICMJE he had substantial contributions to the conception or design of the
work as the leading investigator 5 years prior (Macrina, 2014). Dr. Taylor fits within the criteria for
authorship, as the data was archived in the University then reinterpreted years later requires his name as
an author and final approve and agreement should of have been made with him. The junior faculty
member and her trainee are at fault only because they were aware of the data set that they were
reinterpreting without proper acknowledgement of the work done before them.
