Ideas for a seminar course on Ethical Issues and Behavior in Scientific
Research.

  This seminar is listed as Physics 578A for the Spring Quarter,
with the inappropriate name Special Topics in Theoretical Physics.
It will meet on Thursdays in the time interval from 4 to 6 in PAT
(Physics-Astronomy Tower), room C421.  During the first meeting, on
Thursday April 3 at 4 pm, we will see how the competing needs of people
who cannot make it by 4 and those who have to leave well before 6 can be
best accommodated.

  This is on the time schedule at last, although we are still struggling
to get my name listed as Instructor, so registration is at last
possible.  There are no prerequisites, but some practical experience of
working in science would be helpful.  Visitors and auditors are welcome,
but a core of regular participants and contributors is essential for
success of the seminar.

  This seminar is designed to promote discussion and thought about the way
in which physics research is conducted in an academic environment, and
about how contentious issues about intellectual property and the
reliability or reproducibility of results can be assessed.  It is aimed at
graduate students or potential graduate students in physical sciences.  I
would expect the seminar to meet for a two hour period once a week, and
that the instructor should direct and lead the discussion rather than try
to resolve the issues that arise.  Students will be expected to make or
contribute to presentations on particular issues.

  Among the issues that should be discussed are:

1)  Authorship of papers and responsibility for their contents.

  Whose names should be on a paper?  Whose names should be in the
acknowledgements?  Are all authors equally responsible for the contents,
or do some, such as makers of samples or data analysts, have a strictly
limited role?  Should the paper indicate such differing
responsibilities?  Should one make over the copyright to the publisher, or
should you choose a publisher who allows you to reserve some rights?

2)  What happens when things go right.

  Whose names should be on a patent application, and who gets financial
benefit?  What happens if one or two participants want to exploit an idea
themselves?  How free should collaborators be in revealing information
before publication, and who should authorize or control such release of
information?  What use may you make of information that you get from such
an informal release?  What information can you use if you review a grant
proposal or a paper submitted for publication?

3) What happens when things go wrong.

  If data are unreliable, calculations are faulty, or conclusions are not
justified by the evidence and arguments, who should have spotted trouble
before publication?  How does a group protect itself against carelessness
or fraud by one of its members?  How is an argument about contentious
results settled?

4) Plagiarism and failure to cite relevant literature.

  What constitutes plagiarism?  How does one do an adequate search of the
existing literature?  How does one acknowledge sources that one only
realized were important to you long after hearing about them?

5) Management of a research group.

  How much can or should the PI of a group direct the work?  How much
freedom should other members of the group have to make their own decisions
about how the work is carried out?  Does a group member have freedom to
pursue his/her own ideas in a different direction.  Should a PI be able to
veto independent publication by a group member?  How does a PI develop
ideas for the next proposal while working on the current grant?

6) Record keeping.

  Is there a lab notebook for keeping day by day records of the work that
is done?  If not, how can one reconstruct who did what when? How should
progress and dead ends be documented?  Are records kept on a computer
tamper-proof, or how can they be made tamper-proof?  Can your records be
examined by outsiders?

7) Fairness.

  How does one balance the need to be fair to rival groups and other
people in your own group against the natural tendency to see everything
from one's own point of view?  How do you balance the need to discuss
on-going work with outsiders against the need to discourage other people
from jumping on your ideas and results before you and your colleagues have
had a chance to work through them properly?  How does one write fair
letters of recommendation, giving junior collaborators proper credit for
their work without unduly playing down their colleagues' or competitors'
contributions to their success?