Research on alternative treatments for fever due to infectious diseases

Mary admires the NIH-funded work of her postdoctoral advisor, Henryk, who pioneers research on alternative treatments for fever due to infectious diseases. Mary is one of many co-workers who has assisted Henryk in compiling the most comprehensive database ever assembled, tracking many different infectious agents, species of animals, and different interventions and their outcomes. Henryk’s interpretation of this rich dataset suggests that some “alternative medicines” are highly effective in certain species, but have no therapeutic value in others. He is completing his analysis and interpretation, and is preparing a manuscript for submission. Mary will be a co-author because of her part in collecting data for the study. Mary is preparing to seek an Assistant Professor position and wants to build on her postdoctoral work. She asks Henryk for permission to use the dataset to develop her own project. However, she plans to use a different methodology for analysis and interpretation of the dataset to address a different aspect of the outcomes of treatment. At that point, she will develop a career development proposal to submit to the NIH. Henryk is unwilling to share the entire dataset prior to publishing his interpretation of these data. However, Mary has access to the database as part of her current project, and therefore she decides that it is ethical for her to look more closely at the data. Mary spends quite a lot of time looking at the data and Henryk’s analysis, and realizes that he has excluded specific datapoints that impact his interpretation. Henryk’s draft manuscript carefully justifies the exclusion of these data in the methods section so that there is no issue with data falsification. Mary realizes that if she includes these datapoints, an entirely new understanding of therapies to treat fever could emerge. Mary is excited about her impending grant proposal, but is concerned about how to broach the discussion of her use of the data with Henryk. Discussion Questions 1. Must Henryk share his database with Mary before publication? After publication? Must he share it with others, outside his lab, and if so, when? 2. Who owns the database at this point: Henryk? The institution? NIH? The public? 3. Why is sharing a dataset beneficial to the person who collected it? How is it potentially risky? 4. Is Henryk obligated to document how datapoints were included or excluded in the methods section of his paper?

Sample Solution

Henryk is not obligated to share his database with Mary before publication. The database is his intellectual property, and he has the right to decide when and with whom to share it. However, once the database is published, it becomes part of the public domain and anyone can access and use it.

Full Answer Section

Henryk is also not obligated to share his database with others outside of his lab. However, there are many benefits to sharing data, and it is generally considered to be an ethical practice in the scientific community. Sharing data allows other scientists to verify results, build on previous work, and develop new hypotheses.

If Henryk decides to share his database with others, he should do so in a way that is fair and equitable. He should make the database available to all interested researchers, regardless of their affiliation. He should also make sure that the database is well-documented so that other researchers can understand how it was created and how the data was collected.

2. Who owns the database at this point: Henryk? The institution? NIH? The public?

The ownership of the database depends on a number of factors, including the terms of Henryk's employment contract, the policies of the institution where he works, and the funding sources for the research.

If Henryk is employed by a university or other research institution, the institution may claim ownership of the database. This is because the institution may have provided Henryk with the resources he needed to create the database, such as laboratory space, equipment, and funding.

However, if Henryk created the database using his own resources and time, he may retain ownership of the database, even if he is employed by an institution.

The NIH may also claim ownership of the database if the research that led to the creation of the database was funded by the NIH. This is because the NIH provides funding to researchers to create new knowledge and to share that knowledge with the public.

The public may also have a claim to the database, especially if it is seen as a public good. This is because the database was created using public funds and because it contains important information about the treatment of fever.

Ultimately, the ownership of the database is a complex issue that may need to be resolved by a court of law.

3. Why is sharing a dataset beneficial to the person who collected it? How is it potentially risky?

There are many benefits to sharing a dataset. Sharing data can help researchers to:

Validate their findings
Build on previous work
Develop new hypotheses
Increase the visibility of their research
Attract collaborators
Obtain funding for new research

However, there are also some potential risks associated with sharing data. For example, sharing data could lead to:

Plagiarism
Scoop competition
Misuse of the data
Loss of control over the data

It is important to weigh the benefits and risks of sharing data before making a decision.

4. Is Henryk obligated to document how datapoints were included or excluded in the methods section of his paper?

Yes, Henryk is obligated to document how datapoints were included or excluded in the methods section of his paper. This is an important part of the scientific process, as it allows other researchers to understand how the data was collected and analyzed.

Henryk should explain why he chose to include or exclude certain datapoints. He should also provide evidence to support his decisions. For example, if Henryk excluded datapoints because they were outliers, he should provide statistical evidence to support this decision.

By documenting how he included or excluded datapoints, Henryk is helping to ensure that his research is transparent and reproducible.

Case of Mary and Henryk

In the case of Mary and Henryk, Henryk is not obligated to share his database with Mary before publication. However, he should be willing to share his data with her after publication, especially if she is a co-author on the paper.

Mary should also be transparent with Henryk about her plans to use the data. She should explain her research question and her methodology for analysis and interpretation. She should also get Henryk's permission before using the data for her own project.

Henryk should also be transparent about how he included or excluded datapoints in his analysis. He should provide Mary with a copy of his data analysis code so that she can review it and ensure that it is accurate.

By working together, Mary and Henryk can maximize the benefit of their research and advance the field of knowledge.

We are here to help

We have crazy offers

It’s quick and easy to place an order. We have an efficient customer service that works 24/7 to assist you.It’s quick and easy to place an order. We have an efficient customer service that works 24/7 to assist you.

We are here and ready to help

Order Now