Responsibilities of co-authors and mentors
This case highlights the responsibilities of co-authors of grant proposal and the obligations of mentors of postdocs. When a proposal--or any other scholarly manuscript--is co-authored, may each individual author later reuse the text? Is Obb obligated to continue to advance JJ’s career? In this case, Obb is definitely allowed to re-apply for funding. To be collegial, however, Obb should have negotiated with JJ first about his role on the new proposal: JJ could be PI again, or co-PI, or have some other substantive role, depending on the details of the new proposal.
During the evaluation of a grant proposal, the reviewers must keep the proposal’s ideas confidential, and a fortiori, the reviewers should not take advantage of those ideas. In this case, however, JJ originated the ideas for which Obb received the funding. Thus, JJ is free to pursue the same research ideas. No one has a monopoly on research ideas.
When the new postdoc asks for advice, again the fundamental values of collegiality and openness require JJ to provide that advice.
The case omits Obb’s point of view, including the reasons why Obb did not ask JJ to participate on the new proposal, and why Obb did not hire JJ when he received funding. Missing information might explain Obb’s actions.