We refer to the readers letter “Ethics and Science at the University of Bergen” from Professors Graham, Rosenberg and Smith, and to the appeal “Openness and Freedom of Speach in Science” from Professor Robin Jacoby et al.
The letters suggest, among other things, that there is some doubt about UiB’s position on the rights of co-authors. It is alleged, among other things, that the University of Bergen [has] ”compromised on established international practice that co-authors should have the right to study raw data independently” (Rosenberg, Graham & Smith). Professor Jacoby et al. express similar views. These statements have been made without any of the authors having at any time contacted UiB in order to assure themselves that their views are based on the correct facts.
The management of UiB would like to emphasise that there should be no doubt whatsoever that UiB endorses international standards with respect to research ethics and the rights of co-authors – including the Vancouver Convention. Moreover, UiB supports researchers’ right to fulfil their obligations and exercise their rights in accordance with these standards. This is not a matter for debate. UiB does, however, have to defend itself against the incorrect and/or misleading accusations that have been made.
Generally speaking, it should be said that when profound conflicts arise and there is a breakdown of trust between fellow researchers concerning their rights in relation to each other, then this is primarily a matter that must be resolved by the parties involved. UiB has neither a right nor a duty to decide questions of rights that arise between collaborating partners. As an employer and educational institution, however, UiB has a duty to ensure an adequate and reasonable working environment/ teaching environment. UiB has, not least, a responsibility for ensuring that a candidate who has been admitted to a doctoral programme is given an opportunity to complete his/her doctorate.
In a situation in which trust has broken down and the relationship between a supervisor and a research fellow is characterised by mistrust and conflict, it must lie within the bounds of acceptability for UiB to propose solutions which take account of the interests of both parties. In connection with the specific conflict discussed in the letter from Professors Graham, Rosenberg and Smith, UiB proposed that Professor Refsum be given access to the research fellow’s raw data either on the research fellow’s or on the head of department’s PC. The research fellow accepted this solution; Refsum did not. As a result of this, Professor Refsum refused to allow the research fellow to send articles for publication until the data were transferred to her. The outcome was therefore that all the data from the research fellow were eventually transferred electronically to Professor Refsum – also data that were not originally available in electronic form. This is the highly extraordinary background to the “disagreement provision” in clause 5 of the settlement, and the view that this clause expresses UiB’s general position on co-authors’ rights must therefore be refuted.
Sigmund Grønmo, Rector
Kåre Rommetveit, University Director