Addressing research misconduct by a previous postdoc

[clean]

CC the dean?

[hazelshade]

If you want to kick this up the chain, Google the postdoc's new institution's research misconduct policy. Typically, you should be able to find a point of contact (or, in some cases, a hotline/reporting site) for raising these concerns. This should funnel your message into the institution's federally-mandated research integrity process, which has reasonably strict rules about timelines and next steps for processes like these. If you need a hand finding the research misconduct policy for the institution in question, feel free to DM me.

[Caracal]

If you want to kick this up the chain, Google the postdoc's new institution's research misconduct policy. Typically, you should be able to find a point of contact (or, in some cases, a hotline/reporting site) for raising these concerns. This should funnel your message into the institution's federally-mandated research integrity process, which has reasonably strict rules about timelines and next steps for processes like these. If you need a hand finding the research misconduct policy for the institution in question, feel free to DM me.

To review.

1. It doesn't seem like this has any impact on your research or work.
2. The postdoc seems like someone who might escalate things if challenged.
3. The supervisor seems like they also might be a difficult person and someone you don't have a good relationship with.

Academic integrity and professional responsibility don't mean that you are personally obligated to pursue every instance of academic dishonesty. That would be an absurd standard. To my mind, you have an obligation to act on theft of intellectual property when:
a. Someone under your supervision commits the offense
b. Someone denies attribution or steals something from someone under your supervision.
c. You are tasked with reviewing an article or are in a position of responsibility for a journal.
d. If you know or suspect someone else is being harmed by the theft of intellectual property. (Although if none of the other three apply, I would tend to say in many cases it might be more appropriate to inform the victim and let them pursue it if they choose)

None of those things seem to apply here. Look, I agree that to some extent we are all responsible for maintaining academic integrity. However, in practical terms, that can't be a limitless responsibility that you have to pursue regardless of the costs. You wrote to the advisor letting them know about the issue. If they don't care, that's on them, not you. I just find it strange to argue that you have an obligation now to go report this to a different institutions research integrity process or their dean, or whatever. If nothing else, this becomes a time suck for you, but things like this can get ugly really fast when you aren't dealing with people of good will. Just let it go.

[clean]

a. Someone under your supervision commits the offense
b. Someone denies attribution or steals something from someone under your supervision.
d. If you know or suspect someone else is being harmed by the theft of intellectual property.

Maybe I didnt read the OP carefully enough, but I think that these 3 issues have occurred and by Caracal's own reasoning, necessitate following up.

a.  The postdoc was under the OPs supervision when the data was stolen.
b.  The postdoc HAS denied attribution to the OPs grant and supervision.
d.  The current postdoc advisor is now in jeopardy by the postdoc's actions. 

In what ways am I misunderstanding this from the OPs posts?

[Dismal]

I think contacting the current supervisor is enough. Presumably there are no more results that this postdoc will be publishing from the OP's lab, and the current supervisor got a head's up. Current supervisor might be embarrassed and exasparated.

We had a PhD student move away and then publish a paper based on data from our lab without mentioning the funder or including the main PI as a co-author. PI emailed him to tell him about professional conventions but the truth is that the paper was really, really uninteresting and was published in a very minor journal.

[theteacher]

I agree with Dismal and Caracal. So I'll call it a completed task, and I won't follow up with anyone on this.
Thanks, everyone, for the valuable ideas!

[Caracal]

a. Someone under your supervision commits the offense
b. Someone denies attribution or steals something from someone under your supervision.
d. If you know or suspect someone else is being harmed by the theft of intellectual property.

Maybe I didnt read the OP carefully enough, but I think that these 3 issues have occurred and by Caracal's own reasoning, necessitate following up.

a.  The postdoc was under the OPs supervision when the data was stolen.
b.  The postdoc HAS denied attribution to the OPs grant and supervision.
d.  The current postdoc advisor is now in jeopardy by the postdoc's actions. 

In what ways am I misunderstanding this from the OPs posts?

I don't think we need to belabor this too much since it sounds like the OP has moved on but
a. It doesn't seem like they stole anything while they were under OP's supervision. They were working with OP. The misconduct happened later. Out of curiosity-What is the normal procedure with something like this where someone has worked on a project with someone in a lab and then moved on? If the postdoc had included Teacher as an author on the paper would that be ok? Or would they still need to ask for permission to publish?

b. I think I worded this badly. What I meant was that if another postdoc or student had worked with the OP on this project and they had also not been listed as an author, OP would be obligated to take this further. I guess there's a technical case about the grant, but it doesn't sound like this article is of any great value to anyone.

d. It seems like Teacher has discharged their obligations to the current supervisor by letting them know about the issue. The current supervisor is the one best positioned to handle it. If they choose not to at this point and it comes back to bite them, that's not on the OP.

[clean]

It doesn't seem like they stole anything while they were under OP's supervision.

They stole the results - the data!

Just including someone's name, without permission, would be wrong.  Suppose that there were additional problems with the paper (plagiarism?)  Adding the other without permission doesnt stain their reputation any less!  Im often asked to sign permission (rights) to the paper to the journal, and would not do so without having read the paper!  Who knows what other errors an apprentice may have committed. 

[mamselle]

The degree of apparent room for laxity in interpretation here may be field-specific; the humanities and the sciences see this issue very differently, as I recall.

Data-derived discussions from lab experiments are the hard-won, documented product of grant-funded research:  accountability for the use of the data is strictly overseen in the sciences.

I may have gone to a lot of trouble to track down the textual components of a medieval liturgical play, visiting several far-flung libraries, translating all the sources, etc., but that 'data,' rightly or wrongly, doesn't accrue to me in the eyes of the humanities, in the same way...and getting it published can be a bear (15 years and counting)...

Ergo...

M.

[Caracal]

It doesn't seem like they stole anything while they were under OP's supervision.

They stole the results - the data!

Just including someone's name, without permission, would be wrong.  Suppose that there were additional problems with the paper (plagiarism?)  Adding the other without permission doesnt stain their reputation any less!  Im often asked to sign permission (rights) to the paper to the journal, and would not do so without having read the paper!  Who knows what other errors an apprentice may have committed.

All I mean is that this isn't someone the OP is now supervising. They did this under someone else's supervision. If the current supervisor was writing and asking if they needed to do something, I'm pretty sure everyone would say "of course, you can't just allow a student to do something like this."

[mamselle]

Carcal, there are government grants involved.

You can't overlook stuff where that's the case.

That's why I said above it's different in the humanities and the sciences.

It has to be followed up on.

M.