Rights and Responsibilities
in Research
EECS, Fall 2002
(S. D. Senturia, T. Akinwande)
Scenario 1: The Endless Dissertation
You have been pursuing doctoral studies in Engineering for six years. You chose to do a thesis with Professor Zeno, despite having heard Zeno characterized as "a slave-driver." Although you found Professor Zeno to be an exacting supervisor, and the thesis work was challenging, nevertheless the two of you developed a fairly good working relationship.
You completed course work eighteen months ago and since then have worked solely on the thesis. During this period, you have submitted each chapter of the thesis to Professor Zeno; Zeno suggested incremental revisions in both methods and write-up, which you have carried out. You now believe the original goals that the two of you agreed upon have been completed and you submit the final draft to Zeno.
Professor Zeno responds that it is wholly unsatisfactory and asserts that you must not only revise the thesis document, but also do additional work on the experimental apparatus and collect substantially more data. You feel that the additions that Professor Zeno has demanded go unreasonably beyond the original scope of the project and will require another eighteen months to complete.
[Scenario based on materials from Caroline Whitbeck and Al Meyer]
Scenario 2: Between a Rock and Hard Place
As a Ph.D. student of Prof. Earnest, you have been working
hard to achieve the specified research goals.
But you have been frustrated because you want to take additional courses
to broaden your background, while Prof. E, who is a young Assistant Professor
in urgent need of published results, keeps pressuring you to spend more time
in the lab. This boils up in an unpleasant
way when a course, which is offered only in alternate years, comes up -- you
want to take it; Prof. Earnest says no. When
you persist, he tells you that you can take the course if you want, but unless
a certain specified result is achieved by the end of the semester, he will
stop providing RA support.
[Scenario by S. D. Senturia}
Scenario 3: Should You Find a New Supervisor?
You are nearing the end of your first graduate study and have been working with Prof. Grimm's group within the large Laboratory for Better Technology (LBT). You are very interested in the subject area of your research. However, whenever you make a good contribution and start feeling good about yourself and your work, Prof. Grimm gives you a lecture about what hard places MIT and the LBT are and how you really have to keep your nose to the grindstone if you expect to make it here.
You joke about his "anti-pep" talks, but they really demoralize you. It has gotten to the point that whenever you have an accomplishment in the project, you send him something in writing and avoid talking to him for several days to avoid hearing his pessimistic assessment of you.
You also notice that he has on several occasions walked into the men's room while having an interesting conversation with group members, and seems not to notice that this leaves you asking male students to fill you in on what he said there.
You are thinking about finding a different supervisor. The trouble is there is only one other faculty
member who works in this area that you want to work in, and when you talk
with one of the two women in his group, you find that this other Professor
opens his group meetings by addressing everyone as "Gentlemen."
[Scenario by Caroline Whitbeck and Al Meyer]
Scenario 4: Pressure From Consulting
You are a Ph.D. student just finishing your dissertation working in Professor Park's group. Another student, Aya, has been in the program for three years, but has made little progress on a dissertation because of the heavy demands of being a Teaching Assistant. This last year Aya has had a Research Assistant position in Professor Park's group. During this time Aya has settled on a thesis topic and started building a simulator to use for the thesis research.
One day Professor Park tells Aya to stop work on the simulator and do some calculations that he needs for a consulting project. Aya doesn't need the money and would rather work on the simulator, but is afraid that refusing might jeopardize his/her RA position. Aya confides this concern to you.
You tell Aya that it would be all right to decline the consulting
work, and that doing so would not damage Aya's future relationship with Park.
However, Aya is not reassured, and asks you to promise not to discuss the
problem with anyone, especially Professor Park.
[Scenario by Caroline Whitbeck and Al Meyer]
Scenario: Who Owns What?
Professor Pompous has a superb teaching assistant, Ms. Industrious, who has developed a set of documented examples that support Prof. Pompous’s course in computer system design. Each example is supported by a problem statement, a write-up, and references to related real-world case studies. As a result of Industrious’s fine job, her department has given her one of its prestigious teaching assistant awards.
Prof. Pompous also teaches a one-week short course on computer systems in the MIT Summer Session, and he takes this same course on the road, teaching at companies. He typically earns $10,000 beyond his normal salary teaching in the Summer Session and, at the companies, he typically receives $25,000 for one week of teaching. He uses Industrious’s examples in both the MIT Summer Session and at the companies, but does not share his fees with her.
Industrious doesn’t want to make trouble, but she feels that since her work output is used in teaching these short courses, she ought to be entitled to something. She asks her research supervisor about it, and he says that MIT Faculty often design short courses based on MIT subjects, and teach them in the Summer Session and on the road. As far as the supervisor knows, MIT does not have a policy on ownership of academic intellectual property. He says that when professors write textbooks based on MIT courses, they are allowed to own the copyright and receive the royalties from book publishers. Industrious says that since she developed some of the material, she thinks that she, and not Prof. Pompous, should own the copyright to that part of the course. On the other hand, her supervisor reminds her that MIT paid her to do this development work, so perhaps MIT should own it. She says, in response, that MIT also paid Prof. Pompous to develop his courses.
Questions:
1. Does Prof. Pompous have the right to use his MIT course materials for paid teaching outside of the regular MIT curriculum?
2. Who owns the intellectual property generated by teaching assistant Industrious?
3. Is Prof. Pompous acting correctly by using her material for the MIT Summer Session without compensation?
4. Is Prof. Pompous acting correctly by using her material in his own teaching of short courses at companies without compensation?
5. If Industrious feels wronged, what pathways are open to her for resolving her complaint?
[Scenario by S. D. Senturia,
10/11/00]
Excerpt from MIT Technology
Licensing Office website:
“Guide to the Ownership, Distribution and Commercial Development of M.I.T. Technology”, Section 2.1
2.1 PATENT AND COPYRIGHT
OWNERSHIP POLICY STATEMENT
With the exception of student theses as described in Section 2.1.5, rights in inventions, mask works, tangible research property and copyright ownership of materials, including software, made or created by M.I.T. faculty, students, staff, and others participating in M.I.T. programs, including visitors, are as follows:
M.I.T. OWNED:
(a) Patents, copyrights on software, maskworks, and tangible research property and trademark developed by faculty, students, staff and others, including visitors
participating in M.I.T. programs or using M.I.T. funds or
facilities, are owned by M.I.T. when either of the following applies:
1.The intellectual property was developed in the course of or pursuant to a sponsored research agreement with M.I.T.; or
2.The intellectual property was developed with significant use of funds or facilities administered by M.I.T., as defined in Section 2.1.1.
(b) All copyrights, including copyrighted software will be owned by M.I.T. when it is created as a "work of hire" as defined by copyright law, (see Section 2.1.3) or created pursuant to a written agreement with M.I.T. providing for transfer of copyright or ownership to M.I.T.
INVENTOR/AUTHOR OWNED:
Inventors/Authors will own patents/copyrights/materials when none of the situations defined above for M.I.T.-Ownership of intellectual property applies.
2.1.1 SPONSORED RESEARCH AND OTHER AGREEMENTS
PATENTS:
Research contracts sponsored by the Federal Government are subject to statutes and regulations under which M.I.T. acquires title in inventions or first reduced to practice in the performance of the research. M.I.T.'s ownership is subject to a nonexclusive license to the government and the requirement that M.I.T. retain title and take effective steps to develop the practical applications of the invention by licensing and other means.
Contracts with industrial sponsors provide that M.I.T. retain ownership of patents while the sponsor is granted an option to acquire license rights.
COPYRIGHT:
Normally, research contracts sponsored by the Federal Government provide the government with specified rights in copyrightable material developed in the performance of the research. These rights may consist of title to such material resting solely in the government, but more often consist of a royalty-free license to the government with title vesting in M.I.T.
When a work is created under the terms of a sponsored research agreement, authors of copyrightable works should be aware that there may be contractual terms relating to the form of the report, advance notice to the sponsor before publication, and the like.
GENERAL:
M.I.T. personnel and visitors should contact the Office of Sponsored Programs (OSP) Intellectual Property Officer for information or assistance regarding interpretation of research contract terms; Lincoln Laboratory staff and visitors should contact their Director's Office. The terms of such sponsored research agreements apply not only to inventions made by faculty and staff, but also to those made by students and visitors, whether or not paid by M.I.T., who participate in performing research supported by such agreements. It is essential, therefore, that all individuals participating in research be made aware of their obligation to assign rights to M.I.T. and sign Invention and Copyright Agreements as provided under PART 5.
2.1.2 SIGNIFICANT USE OF M.I.T.-ADMINISTERED RESOURCES
When an invention,
software, or other copyrightable material, mask work, or tangible research
property is developed by M.I.T. faculty, students, staff, visitors or others
participating in M.I.T. programs using significant M.I.T. funds or facilities,
M.I.T. will own the patent, copyright, or other tangible or intellectual property.
If the material is not subject to a sponsored research or other agreement
giving a third party rights, the issue of whether or not a significant use
was made of M.I.T. funds or facilities will be reviewed by the inventor/author's
laboratory director or department head, and a recommendation forwarded to
the Technology Licensing Office (TLO), in the form of the waiver letter.
M.I.T. does
not construe the use of office, library, machine shop or Project Athena personal
desktop work stations and communication and storage servers as constituting
significant use of M.I.T. space or facilities, nor construe the payment of
salary from unrestricted accounts as constituting significant use of M.I.T.
funds, except in those situations where the funds were paid specifically to
support the development of certain materials.
Textbooks developed
in conjunction with class teaching are also excluded from the "significant
use" category, unless such textbooks were developed using M.I.T. administered
funds paid specifically to support textbook development.
Generally, an
invention, software, or other copyrightable material, mask work, or tangible
research property will not be considered to have been developed using M.I.T.
funds or facilities if:
1.only a minimal amount of unrestricted funds have been used; and
2.the invention, software, or other copyrightable material, mask work, or tangible research property has been developed outside of the assigned area of research of the inventor/author under a Research Assistantship or sponsored project; and
3.only a minimal amount of time has been spent using significant M.I.T. facilities or only insignificant facilities and equipment have been utilized. Use of office, library, machine shop facilities, and of traditional desktop personal computers and Project Athena are examples of facilities and equipment that are not considered significant; and
4.the development
has been made on the personal, unpaid time of the inventor/author.
When an invention, software, or other copyrightable material, mask work or tangible research property is not subject to a sponsored research or other agreement (such as an equipment agreement), but has been developed using significant M.I.T. funds or facilities, the TLO may in its discretion and consistent with the public interest, license the inventor(s)/author(s) exclusively or nonexclusively on a royalty basis. The inventor(s)/author(s) must demonstrate technical and financial capability to commercialize the intellectual property, and the TLO will have the right to terminate such license if the inventor(s)/author(s) has not achieved effective dissemination within a reasonable amount of time (generally less than 3 years). The license is also subject to the inventor(s)/author(s) waiving their rights to royalty sharing under this policy Guide. Where such a license is issued, the inventor(s)/author(s) may be required to assume the costs of filing, prosecuting and maintaining any patent rights.
2.1.3 WORKS FOR HIRE
EMPLOYEES:
A "work for hire," as defined by law, is a work product created in the course of the author's employment. Copyright of the work product in these situations belongs to the employer. For example, results of work assigned to staff programmers or writers of university publications are considered to have been created in the course of the author's employment and are the property of M.I.T. It is the policy of M.I.T. that it shall own all works for hire.
NON-EMPLOYEES:
Under the Copyright Act, copyright of commissioned works of non-employees is owned by the author and not by the commissioning party unless there is a written agreement to the contrary. All M.I.T. personnel are cautioned to ensure that independent contractors agree in writing that ownership of the commissioned work is assigned to M.I.T., except where special circumstances apply and it is mutually agreed that the author will retain ownership.
2.1.4 INDEPENDENT WORKS
M.I.T. does not claim ownership of books, articles and other scholarly publications, or to popular novels, poems, musical compositions, or other works of artistic imagination which are created by the personal effort of faculty, staff and students outside of their assigned area of research and which do not make significant use of M.I.T.-administered resources.
Furthermore, in those situations where copyright to such scholarly or artistic work resides in M.I.T. under the terms of a sponsored research or other agreement, or by operation of the copyright law or otherwise as a result of M.I.T. policy, M.I.T. will upon the author's request and to the extent consistent with the intent of the sponsor and the laboratory director or department head, convey copyright to the author of such work. An author should submit a waiver form to the TLO.
2.1.5 THESES
The ownership
of copyright in theses is set forth in Faculty Regulation 2.71. Students will
own copyright in theses which do not:
1.involve research for which the student received financial support in the form of wages, salary, stipend, or grant from funds administered by M.I.T.; or
2.involve research performed in whole or in part utilizing equipment or facilities provided to M.I.T. under conditions which impose copyright restrictions.
Where copyright
ownership is retained by the student, however, the student must grant to M.I.T.
royalty-free permission to reproduce and publicly distribute copies of the
theses.
NOTE: Where significant use is made of M.I.T. equipment or facilities provided to M.I.T. without copyright restrictions, students own copyright in theses; however, software code, patentable subject matter and other intellectual property contained in the theses are subject to Section 2.1.2 above.
Scenario: A conflict of Interest
John, a third-year graduate student, is participating in a department-wide seminar where students, postdocs, and faculty members discuss work in progress. An assistant professor prefaces her comments by saying that the work she is about to discuss is sponsored by both a federal grant and a biotechnology firm for which she consults. In the course of the talk John realizes that he has been working on a technique that could make a major contribution to the work being discussed. But his faculty advisor consults for a different, and competing, biotechnology firm.
1. How should John participate in this seminar?
2. What, if anything, should he say to his advisor-and when?
3. What implications does this case raise for the traditional openness and sharing of data, materials, and findings that have characterized modern science?
[Scenario from On being a Scientist]
Further Questions
To Accompany the Advisor/Advisee Scenarios
1. What is the role of the thesis committee in a situation like that described in Scenario 1: The Endless Dissertation?
2. How important is your dissertation advisor to your career (after you have graduated and started your first job)?
3. What is meant by a "good" relationship with a faculty research supervisor? What is the scope of matters that supervisors ought to regularly discuss? What guidance would you give to a new faculty member about how much to accommodate a student's particular:
• learning style
• life circumstance (e.g., having to drop out for a period of time to support or care for family members)
• high need for feedback, or special sensitivity to
• criticism?
4. What limits -- such as sexual contact -- would you place on advisor/advisee relations? What sorts of prior relationships (e.g., family, neighbors) might undermine an effective advisor/advisee relationship?
5. What can and should a student do (e.g., forget it, discuss it with it with the supervisor, find another supervisor) if a supervisor:
6. At what point does a misunderstanding become serious enough to require the mediation of a third person? How does a student go about finding a good person for this role? How does a faculty member?
7. At what point is an advisor/advisee relationship best ended? How does a student initiate this process? How does a faculty member?
8. What if a student believes himself or herself to have been significantly injured by some action of the faculty member and wants redress? How can/should a student proceed? How should a faculty member?
9. Are there any safeguards for students who bring up a problem involving one of their professors?
10. What characteristics do you expect in a mature researcher with respect to his or her:
11. What ought a supervisor do when a student completes a worthy thesis but has not yet acquired such research maturity?
12. To what extent must a faculty member empathize with a student in order to give that student ample time and attention? What can or should one do when cultural or other extraneous differences interfere with personal understanding?
[Questions and Scenarios have evolved from materials originally provided by S. D. Senturia, Caroline Whitbeck, and Al Meyer.]