Office of the Ombuds · UC San Diego

The Missing Co-Author

A short lab scenario for practicing one skill: telling the difference between what actually happened and the story we build on top of it.
1
At Thursday’s lab meeting, Priya watches her labmate Marcus present preliminary data from the assay she spent six weeks optimizing — the one where she finally got the protocol to stop giving inconsistent results. His slide credits it as “troubleshooting by the Chen lab,” no individual names attached. She says nothing in the meeting.
2
By Friday, she’s convinced Marcus is positioning himself for first authorship on the eventual paper, has mentioned to two people in the hallway that “he does this,” and has started keeping a private log of what she’s calling “incidents.”
3
On Monday, their PI pulls her aside to ask why she’s seemed cold toward Marcus all week. Priya lays it all out — the slide, the hallway comments, the log — relieved someone is finally taking it seriously.
4
It turns out the slide was an old template Marcus recycled at 11 p.m. the night before group meeting. He’d only added the new data that morning and never got around to updating the credit line. Authorship hadn’t crossed his mind once.
For each statement below, decide: is this something a camera or recorder could have captured — or a conclusion Priya added on top? Tap Fact or Story for all six, then check your answers.
0 of 6 sorted
0 / 6
Review the notes on each card above for why.
The Takeaway
The story hardened into fact before anyone asked a single clarifying question.