Marie Helweg-Larsen said:

> In fact, in the biological sciences it is common for the lab
> director to be an author on every paper produced by his/her
> lab even if he/she did nothing specifically to
> create the paper or research. 

I don't see this as a major concern. The standard practice is for 
the individual who actually did the work  to receive first 
authorship. The names of others who made major but lesser 
contributions follow. The lab director who provided grant support 
and supervision goes last, even if he/she made no direct 
contribution to the paper. 

This is not a big deal because it's all out in the open. There's no 
subterfuge, and everyone recognizes who's responsible for what 
(ideally, anyway).

Marie continues:

> I don't know much about ghost writing popular books. Doesn't it 
> usually say "famous person's name" WITH
> "ghost writer" on the cover? 

I have no problem with this either, again because there's no 
subterfuge. When the great physicist Richard Feynman 
published his hugely entertaining autobiography (Surely You're 
Joking, Mr. Feynman), the title page listed the author as Richard 
P. Feynman as told to Ralph Leighton. So we know exactly who 
did what.  Feynman told the stories; Leighton set them down.  

A less clear example is Greg Mortenson's book on building 
schools in Pakistan (Three Cups of Tea). The cover lists the co-
authors as Mortenson and David Relin. But Relin's introduction 
makes it clear that he wrote it. At least Relin made it to the title 
page along with Mortenson. 

Then there's the McGill psychology professor Barbara Sherwin 
iwho got caught putting her name to a review paper which she 
did not author. . The real author was not revealed and we had 
no reason to think that anyone other than Dr. Sherwin wrote it.  

Similarly for John Kennedy. His name alone appears on the 
cover of _Profiles in Courage_. You can check out his 
introduction using the "look inside" feature" at Amazon. While he 
acknowledges the contribution of Sorensen, one comes away 
with the impression that Sorensen was more of a gopher and 
research assistant than the true author of most of it. See for 
yourself. 

Call me naïve but I think there's a simple ethical principle which 
covers all these cases. If the way in which the authorship is 
presented allows the presumed primary author to receive 
undeserved benefit, it's unethical. Or, in other words, if revealing 
the true authorship would diminish our estimation of the 
intellectual capability of the presumed author, it's unethical. 

Subterfuge is the tip-off.  If the author hides who really wrote it, it 
must be because to reveal it would impair the prestige that 
would otherwise accrue to the faux author.

Take John Kennedy. If voters knew that Sorensen, not he,  was 
actually responsible for the brilliance of _Profiles in Courage_ , 
would voters be as impressed with his wisdom and scholarship? 
That he was perhaps no more a scholar and intellectual giant 
than his opponent, Tricky Dick? So Kennedy hid Sorensen's 
authorship, and did so to obtain a benefit he did not deserve.

Ditto for Dr. Sherwin, or at least it appears.  Suppose we knew 
(as in fact we do now) that her seemingly fair and erudite review 
of estrogen treatment was actually sponsored by a drug 
company and written for her, how would we react to her 
conclusions? Certainly with more scepticism than if we thought 
it was her own work. So she keeps silent, gains a prestigious 
paper on her CV, and the drug company gets a review paper 
they like. 

Finally, what about the student who hands in a paper he or she 
has purchased? That's the easy one.  If we knew where the 
paper really came from, we would certainly be less eager to 
award the submitted paper a passing grade or better.

So all these people had reason to conceal true authorship 
because they would then get a benefit they would not otherwise  
receive.  But that would be wrong.

Stephen

--------------------------------------------
Stephen L. Black, Ph.D.          
Professor of Psychology, Emeritus   
Bishop's University
Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada               
e-mail:  sblack at ubishops.ca
---------------------------------------------

---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected].
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=6196
or send a blank email to 
leave-6196-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

Reply via email to