January 12, 2007 Center for Faculty Development and Diversity Office for Postdoctoral Careers Postdoctoral Research Fellow Luncheon Barbara E. Bierer,

January 12, 2007

Center for Faculty Development and DiversityOffice for Postdoctoral Careers

Postdoctoral Research Fellow LuncheonBarbara E. Bierer, M.D.

Senior Vice President, Research, BWH

Director, Office for Postdoctoral Careers (OPC)

Director, Center for Faculty Development & Diversity

Caroline Rotondi

Administrative Director

Office for Postdoctoral Careers (OPC)

Center for Faculty Development & Diversity


New Content! The OPC Homepage on the BWH Research Intranet:

http://bwhbri.partners.org/bwh-opc/home.asp

http://bwhbri.partners.org/bwh-opc/home.asp


Upcoming Programs:

A wide array of topics sponsored by:BWH Center for Faculty Development & Diversity Offices

BWH BRI Research Career Development Committee

Harvard Affiliated Postdoc Offices and Postdoc Association

National Postdoc Association, AAAS, NIH

FOR INFORMATION & REGISTRATIONVISIT BWH INTERNET CALENDAR


Professional Pathways Programs:

Careers in Industry

Research Compliance for New PIs - and as Career Path

Technology Transfer - and as a Career Path

Interviewing Skills for Academia and Industry




Communication Topics:

AAAS Grant Writing Workshop

How to Get Your Paper Published

Writers Workshop

Verbal Communications

Writing for Impact

BWH Grant Writing

Grants 101 @ HMS


Promotions Series:

Research Track

CV using FIRST

Instructor to Assistant

Assistant to Associate

Associate to Professor




Gender, Work and Family:

Modern Dads

Issues of Gender in Academic Medicine

Managing and Thriving in a Dual Career Life

Women as Leaders in Medicine and Science



Additional Topics:

Legal Seminar for International Postdocs

Individual Development Plans and Mentorship

Negotiations

ORI Conference - Data Fabrication & Falsification


BWH Event Calendar: http://www.brighamandwomens.org Health Information

Classes and Programs

List Events

http://www.brighamandwomens.org/

February 6th, 20074:00 - 5:30pmBornstein Amphitheater

Imaging Program Seminar Series

Clare Tempany, M.D. Director of Clinical MRI, BWHProfessor of Radiology, HMS“Image-guided Therapy Research at Brigham and Women’s Hospital”

Stephen Moore, Ph.D.Director, Nuclear Medicine Physics, BWHAssociate Professor of Radiology, HMS“Technical Advances in Nuclear MedicineImaging of Rodents and Humans”

Please register by sending an email to [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Cardiovascular Research Center RetreatCardiovascular Research Center Retreat

Open to BWH scientists of all levels, interested in any aspect of cardiovascular disease,

diabetes, and metabolic disease research

February 13th, 20071:30 - 5:30pm

New Research Building (NRB),77 Avenue Louis Pasteur

~ CALL FOR ABSTRACTS ~CALL FOR ABSTRACTS ~

Abstracts from BWH scientists of all levels are welcome and should be submitted to [email protected]

on or before January 30, 2006. Please specify if you’d like to be considered for a talk, poster or both.

mailto:[email protected]


Case Studies: Post-doc Issues, Research Ethics

and Authorship Questions

Barbara E. Bierer, M.D.

Senior Vice President, Research, BWH

Director, Office for Postdoctoral Careers (OPC)

Director, Center for Faculty Development & Diversity


Rules of the day:

• This is a discussion

• Silence is not golden

• No comment is too stupid

• There is no right answer

• All cases are made up

• If you know anyone that sounds like this, speak to me later.


Case 1:

You arrive in the laboratory and are assigned to finish a project that was initiated by a very talented postdoc that just left the lab. The materials are prepared and methods have been well described.

Should you do it? Any upside? Any downside?

Do you discuss authorship before you start?

You decide to take on the project. The methods are familiar to you. It takes a few weeks to establish the system again, but the results do not replicate the initial results.

What do you do?


Case 1:

You continue to repeat the experiment, trying many variations of the protocol, generating all new reagents, calling the postdoc for advise and direction. While she is helpful, the results continue to be equivocal. The PI wants you to give lab meeting, presenting the earlier successful results.

What should you do?

What should you present?

The PI decides that he wishes to submit an abstract to a meeting that will be held in 5 months, convinced that by then you will have good results. He tells you to ‘write it up.’

What do you do?

Authorship?


Case 1:

After 6 months of frustration, you want to move on to another project. Your PI doesn’t want you to ‘quit’.

What should you do?

What do you do with the now submitted abstract?

Has there been research misconduct?

Misconduct: fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism


Case 2:

You have been in the laboratory for about 3 years, working steadily on a new project that is finally yielding publishable results. It is your first paper and, while others have worked on parts of the project, this has been your principal project. You plan the paper with your PI.

What assumptions do you have about authorship?

First? Last? Guidelines for other contributors?

The PI tells you that the department chair has been very supportive of your career, and indeed has covered your salary for the last year, and should be an author. The Chair has heard you present twice and you know he is familiar with the work.

Should the department chair be an author?


Case 2:

You include in the paper three additional figures: one figure is contributed from your friend in the laboratory.

Should your friend be an author?

One figure is contributed from your collaborator (postdoc) working in the laboratory of the division chief (PI)

Should the postdoc be an author? Should the division chief?

One figure is generated by the technician.

Should the technician be an author?

The PI tells you that the postdoc who oriented you to the laboratory 3 years ago and now a clinical fellow in the hospital, should be an author.

Should the clinical fellow be an author?


Case 2:

Your best friend in the laboratory is also writing up his paper. You have discussed his project often, and you know his work. He has been helpful to you over the years. He suggests that he will make you an author on his paper if you make him an author on your paper.


Is there any problem with reciprocal authorship?

The DNA construct was made by your friend in the next laboratory.


Does it matter if the construct has been previously published?

Does it matter when the construct was provided?

Does it matter if the construct was a critical reagent?


Case 2:

Many years and many papers later, you accept a fabulous job as assistant professor at an academic institution. That first paper was submitted several times but never accepted for publication and is now getting old in a file. You move on and get to work. The paper sits in your files until one day your old PI calls you. He explains that another postdoc picked up your project and has spent four months adding several experiments with RNAi that makes the findings ‘sexier’. These experiments confirm your conclusions.

Should the current postdoc be an author on the paper?

Your PI suggests that his current postdoc be first author on the paper. After all, he argues, you don’t need it anymore.

What should you do?

Are there alternatives that you could propose?

First? Last? Second? Second to last? Corresponding? Asterisk?

Documents

January 12, 2007 Center for Faculty Development and Diversity Office for Postdoctoral Careers Postdoctoral Research Fellow Luncheon Barbara E. Bierer,