Laboratory Notebook Policy - Questions Received and Answers Given
Q) From a Group Leader on countersigning - Who should countersign work from my lab? Should it be me? Or am I a co-inventor for everything they do anyway?
A) The 'counter-signer' should be someone from another lab, because you may be a co-inventor for work happening in your own lab. You become a co-inventor if you make a significant, inventive contribution to the potential patent - as Group Leader the chances are high that you would do this in one form or another (intellectual contribution, direction of project, lab results, etc).
Q) About visitors to the Branch - My opinion is that scientists who visit to carry out collaborative work, but who are employed at another institution, should not have to fill in LICR notebooks, since they have their own notebooks from their institution and should abide by the rules of that institution. On the other hand, visiting students who are training here (usually undergraduate students or masters students) and therefore carrying out research initiated here should use LICR notebooks. Is this right?
A) Absolutely. According to Dr. Jonathan Skipper, visitors to the Branch are not employed by LICR, so we have no direct rights to their IP (nor would we have the responsibility of investigating charges of error or fraud), unless there is a specific agreement otherwise. Specific IP rights (and the responsibility for investigating charges of error or fraud) would belong to their real host institution/employer. Thus the notebook-keeping of visitors should be directed by their own employer’s policy.
Q) We use a tape back-up system (from the Branch server) and personal computer hard-drives for storing our data, not CDs or zip discs. Is that OK?
A) The important thing is to have two back-ups. Using the Branch server or tape system is fine, though remember that tape recovery is not always reliable (which is why the Office of Information Technology recommends removable disks as the preferred media).
Q) Isn’t the case you referred to in the NewsLink article sometimes called the ‘Baltimore Affair’?
A) While a lot of people call the case at Rockefeller the ‘Baltimore
Affair’, this is neither accurate nor fair. Dr. Imanishi-Kari was the
accused in the case, although, as described, she was later completely exonerated.
Dr. David Baltimore was completely exonerated from a lesser accusation of
what essentially amounted to failing to confirm a collaborator’s research
results. It is unfortunate that people link Dr. Baltimore’s 1991 resignation
as President of Rockefeller University to the ‘Imanishi-Kari Affair’,
as it was not the reason for his resignation. It should be remembered that
Dr. Baltimore received the National Medal of Science in 1999 and was awarded
an Honorary Doctorate at Rockefeller University in 2004.