PART 2
Based on your prior high profile publications, you are hired into a tenure-track position at the prestigious National Institutes of Health. Part of the attraction of the position is a laboratory doing state-of-the-art sequencing. You approach the head of the sequencing group, Dr. Max, to explore using the genomic sequencer for your own research. Although Dr Max is happy to collaborate with you, he spells out conditions that include that only Dr. Maxʼs technician may operate the instrument, and that all the original data must remain with Dr. Max. In addition, any paper submitted for publication that contains data obtained using the instrument must be reviewed by Dr. Max prior to submission, and he must be included as a co-author, with his two technicians acknowledged for their expertise.
Discussion Questions
1. Are the conditions requested by Dr. Max reasonable? What if his equipment was purchased for the whole Institute and his lab was considered a core facility? What do you think of the request that Dr. Max keep all original data? What about the requirement that he be an author on the resulting publications?
2. What do you think is an appropriate way to handle the contribution of the technicians who actually operated the sequencer? What about a technician in your lab who performed several of the experiments?

PART 3
Dr. Wong has developed a novel approach for analysis of genomic sequence data that is available on open source websites but is cumbersome to implement. After meeting Dr. Wong at a lab seminar, you mention that you plan to implement the method but you havenʼt been able to hire someone with the right computational experience. After the discussion, you share your data with him and about a week later you receive a series of summary figures, as well as an interpretation of the data and some ideas about additional genes to analyze and experiments to perform. Approximately 9 months later, you receive an angry email forwarded from your lab chief where Dr.Wong expresses outrage that you have published a paper using not just the analytic method but also
validating some of the genes that he had proposed. Dr. Wong expressed the opinion that based on his analysis and reporting the data back to you, as well as the fact that interpretation of the results at the level of predicting specific genes and pathways, required experience and insight and that was sufficient to have warranted co-authorship.
Discussion Questions
1. Was Dr. Wong justified in being upset? Are there corrective actions that you should take?
2. What actions could you have taken to clarify collaborative and authorship roles, and when might you have taken those steps? What were your expectations when you shared your data with him originally

Case # 3 ‒ Clinical Collaborations
A physician scientist and a molecular biologist are collaborating on a series of studies that involve cancer clinical trial subjects and biospecimens from those participants. The goal is to correlate genetic profiles with patient outcomes in response to the same protocol therapy. The clinician enrolls the subjects and his team obtains the samples which are processed in the molecular biologistʼs lab; i.e., germline and tumor DNA is prepared and preserved, and cancer cell lines are grown from the primary tumor. Both DNA and cell lines are kept in a facility readily accessible to both collaborators. The molecular biologist believes that there are important correlational genomic findings, apart from the clinical data, that merit separate publication. He prepares a manuscript that will need to have the clinical data added, but the clinician refuses to provide them, saying the report is premature. In the dispute that follows, the physician scientist asserts ownership of the DNA and cell lines from patient samples. The dispute is brought to you as the department head to mediate.
Discussion Questions
1. What are the data ownership issues for this collaboration? Who owns the clinical data? Who owns the DNA and cancer cells lines?
2. Who should have access to, and use of, the clinical data and the materials prepared from patient samples?
3. What could a publication agreement made at the beginning of the collaboration have
included?