e d i to ri a l
Student Knowledge: Who Owns It? I
n a simpler world, long, long ago (a few decades, at least), science and technology were regarded as independent enterprises. The goal of science, as practiced by the academics, was envisaged as advancing fundamental knowledge, which is openly published and need not be immediately useful. On the other hand, technology is a private enterprise in which proprietary solutions to practical problems are sought, and the knowledge gained is protected by either secrecy or intellectual property vehicles, such as patents. These independent worlds were at the heart of a social theory of science espoused by Robert K. Merton (of Columbia University) in a set of essays published in the 1970s. Science and technology are no longer so sharply separated— if indeed they ever were so. Academic and industrial researchers alike possess hybrid motivations for their research: namely, basic enlightenment that will immediately solve practical problems. This attitude has become strongly encouraged by governments. The biomedical, pharmaceutical, and information sciences have been especially obvious catalysts in blurring the distinction between science and technology, but long before—even in the infancy of polymer science—there was little delay between gaining new basic knowledge and applying it. Numerous legal devices exist to provide intellectual property protection. Under the Bayh–Dole Act, universities have taken on more of the trappings of industry by seeking patent protection more often, even for the results of publicly funded research. We are in the midst of a continuing evolution in patent and copyright law, and the lawsuits keep an army of attorneys employed. Anyone, it seems today, has recourse for claiming protection for his or her intellectual property. Scientific journals intersect with intellectual property issues at several levels; most are well defined, but problem areas, such as ownership of the results of students’ research, exist. The traditional relationship between a professor and a student is a collaboration of responsibilities. The professor has the responsibility to challenge and develop the student’s intellectual skills in both depth and breadth and to educate the student in related matters, such as good writing and scientific ethics. The profes-
sor’s fund-raising efforts provide the means for doing the research and supporting the student. The student has a responsibility to work hard to fully capture the learning opportunities provided by the professor, and at the end of it all, to carry away an education into a successful career. The student and professor publish the results of their research collaboration—together. Ideally, there are no issues of “I own this, and you own that.” This happy partnership can fall victim to disagreements. For example, the professor may feel that the student did not deserve coauthorship on a research paper because of an insufficiently profound contribution. The student may consider this unfair. Another example: A student who has left the professor’s laboratory with unpublished results in hand may decide to independently submit the work for publication, including the professor as a coauthor or not at all. The professor may consider this unfair or may think that the work should not be published because it is of inadequate credibility. Manuscripts prepared under such circumstances can (and do) arrive on an Editor’s desk accompanied by complaints from one of the two parties. The Editor faces the tasks of being social and scientific arbiter—deciding whether to return the paper to the corresponding author saying, “You sort it out first with your student or professor,” or to seek a publication decision through peer review and a consideration of scientific merit. There are no standard, easy answers to these issues of intellectual property, short of legalism encroaching on and destroying the professor–student relationship. The best answer is to avoid such problems altogether. Professors can do their part by developing a higher level of sensitivity to students’ feelings of intellectual ownership, and both parties can agree to all aspects of manuscript preparation before the student finishes the degree. These are lessons well worth learning for professor and student. I do not like to contemplate where the alternatives may lead.
S E P T E M B E R 1 , 2 0 0 2 / A N A LY T I C A L C H E M I S T R Y
445 A
