reporting from SLSA NYC

[amy c.]

Hello, and sorry I've flaked completely on the collaborative fiction; haven't had time to write enough of the regular kind lately. Something interesting, though, from Roald Hoffmann at SLSA, which wrapped up today. In panel, talking about writing v. science, he said, "If there's anything [scientists] have done right...it is the ethics of collaboration." Which I thought a curious idea, given the fights that go on in name presence & order on papers, fears about stolen credit, etc. I mean it's true you guys work much more collaboratively than writers usually do, unless we're writing crap for pay and don't care how it comes out, really, but I don't recall having heard much happiness here about how collaboration works in science. Mostly sucking-breath-in fear about career jockeying.

Incidentally: What books and plays have to do with the actual business of science? (While Hoffmann was talking about Oxygen, I kept thinking of Glengarry Glen Ross and all those Malamud stories about store life. Business is great for drama, esp. if you leave the loud ER-type cliches alone.)

I claim nerd points for posting from the Apple store on Central Park South, btw.

-amy

[Dr Mike]

Amy - welcome back! Great to hear from you again.

My understanding about Jenny's definition of 'lab lit' is that all the pure books on the List (www.lablit.com/article/12) are exactly that - stories about the business of science, not necessarily science itself. Real scientists going through the manipulations.

And collaborations - we do them all the time, most of the time congenially. I think it's fascinating how we compete with some groups and team up with others. But sometimes you need more expertise than what you have in a lab, and the work can go twice as fast (to balance out that you are diluting you authorship by the same factor). Modern science is very rarely without collaborations - we share reagents before they are published at the very least.

[emmanc]

There was a really interesting article in the monthly journal of the ESA on the number of coauthors on Ecology papers since 1925. They show that not only has the average number of coauthors increased (from 1 to 5 I think) but the maximum number of coauthors as well (2 to 18). They also had an article proposing a method for the determination of the coauthorship. It was really interesting. If anyone wants a pdf of it, let me know and I can send it. A great example of collaboration was the recent article in Science - there must have been 20 coauthors on the paper with the genome of the sea urchin.

Collaboration works pretty well I think, as long as everyone plays by the rules, it's when someone doesn't that the problems start.

[The Prof]

Collaboration is alive and well in academia - nearly every lab I know is collaborating with another. It's one of the best things about my job. I also reckon it's one of the aspects of science that laypeople know the least about. They only hear about the backbiting, scandals and frauds. Better for headlines.

[Cat person]

Collaboration works pretty well I think, as long as everyone plays by the rules, it's when someone doesn't that the problems start.

Have you got a good horror story to share, then?

[emmanc]

lots, all about stealing, fighting, sniping scientists who should know better how to behave

[Mad Dan Eccles]

They're obviously not proper scientists then, acting that irrationally.

[Octavia]

<sigh>
MDE, I think you are deliberately missing the point. I've re-read that religion thread and they are just trying to say that believing in something as unprovable as god isn't rational - several of them also said they also believe in things that aren't rational despite being scientists, and quote, that's ok with them, because they do the same. Maybe your spectacles need a polish. Or you are just cross because the majority aren't taking your side? No need for snide comments in other forums, though, IMHO. Sorry to be blunt, but there you are.

Emma, I haven't had any bad experiences yet with collaborators misbehaving, but so far there's been a pretty strong sense of idealism about the big collaboration I'm in. I keep waiting for it to go sour but no sign yet. I suspect what makes or breaks some collabs is authorship order...but these things should be worked out in advance, how many papers there wil be overall and who will be first/last. Get it over with at the beginning and stick to your guns, even if the one paper you agreed to play second fiddle on turns into a Nature paper. (Ouch)

[Mad Dan Eccles]

Yeah, I apologize for that. Completely uncalled for .

I'm not cross that I'm outnumbered - I'm used to that by now - rather other things, and I will not bore this thread with them. I might post something in the other thread later.

[emmanc]

I've heard about (thankfully, I've never been the victim nor the perpetrator!):

Stealing and publishing of data without even an acknowledgment, never mind a coauthorship (several times and usually involving unwitting grad students/post docs but also at least one researcher)

Nastiness towards someone (telling them their experiments suck) and then going off and doing the self same experiments (aka psychological games)

Trying to get someone chucked out of grad school (linked with above)

Changing of author order as a function of the journal (Nature for example)

Project endangered by one collaborator not pulling their wieght (this is REALLY common)

Squabbling over the grant distributions

Overspending of one partner endangering the participation of others partners

I could go on but I won't......

[Mad Dan Eccles]

The interesting question, then, is what proportion of collaborations are 'good' versus 'bad'.

Because it's like news bulletins - you only hear about the bad stuff.

[Daughter of Darwin]

Hey Dan, here's hoping whatever's making you cross goes away soon. Hope it's not your data! Mine is currently failing to behave and it makes me want to flush it all down the loo. Lablit forums are great avoidance therapy!

I haven't heard many horror stories, myself. Things tend to go well in our collaborations. Both the groups are relatively young, though - I wonder if that makes a difference? Not so much posturing and flaunting the size of one's...grants.

[Beatrice]

Changing of author order as a function of the journal (Nature for example)

This so happened to me - when I planned to submit it to JBC, nobody wanted to know or help. Then when I stumbled over something interesting and decided to submit to Science, suddenly there were my long-lost 'collaborators' whinging to my lab head that they (all 4 of them!) should be on the paper, and the precious post-doc (who had done sod all) should be CO-FIRST, I was so angry about it I could spit!

At the end I managed to retain sole authorship and the other 4 were somewhere in the middle...and the darned thing ended up in JBC anyway.

[tideliar]

nice one!

[John from Florida]

Serves them right! (Not that I'm happy it didn't get into Science, but I bet they felt like dorks!)