The aim of the questionnaire is to establish the subject’s perceived appropriate behavioural patterns in research situations involving highly controversial fields of research when said research field is the subject of intense media interest. All questions should be answered honestly and according to the belief in whether the statement represents appropriate behaviour.
Do you believe as an academic project leader it is appropriate to; (Hello John)
Misuse months of a junior researchers time at the start of a Ph.D. by directing research unrelated to the specified project targets and repeating previously published research.
Accuse junior researchers of incompetence in the work environment and in their presence, when the allegation is unfounded and while the junior researcher is solving a problem generated by the senior researcher's failure to follow junior researchers recommended course of action.
Use junior researchers as ‘whipping boys’, upon which senior personnel vent their malice when encountering their own incompetence.
State uninformed, inaccurate and malicious representations of junior researchers character, competence and actions.
State unprompted abuse in regards to junior researchers non-English partners within the laboratory environment and then upon castigation which does not repeat similar abuse, accuse the junior researcher of being temperamental.
Expect junior researchers to disseminate research data to other researchers when under a C.A.S.E. industrial contract agreement.
For group leaders and senior post-doctorates to attempt to repeat junior researchers novel and ground breaking research, then upon failure
cast dispersions within the departmental environment upon the initial research achievement.
Repeatedly verbally undermine junior researchers work efforts and position, within the laboratory and departmental environments.
Reward junior researchers collaboration by unacknowledged publication of research material in scientific journals.
Ensure that post-doctoral researchers are aware that it is not appropriate
to call Ph.D. student’s ‘bastards’ when the student does not supply material under industrial partner intellectual protection.
Use information received from industrial sponsors to generate alternate
strategies employing the same principle for use in other research projects.
Complain when junior researchers do not pursue courses of action that senior personnel wish when they are supplied no training or information regarding the action desired by senior personnel
Inform students on the day of submission that they will get the patents but not the qualification for which they have worked.
To use influence over external viva examiners to attempt to promote detrimental personal opinions of junior researchers characters.
Verbally offer a work position to a student who has been without funding for ten months then ignore a further information request for over two weeks. Upon hearing the student is making other applications invite another researcher into the students laboratory, even though the position is based at another location and offer them the research position with the student present.
Competing projects, intellectual property and conflict of interest
Do you believe in relation to the heading it is acceptable to;
Intentionally engineer a conflict of interest situation between senior group leaders senior post-docs and junior researchers and fail to lay down situational guidelines before commencement of the competing project.
Keep junior researchers and the industrial collaborators in the dark about the commencement of directly competing and larger industrially funded projects in the research environment.
For group leaders to repeatedly request data transfers from a junior researcher to competing industrial projects researched by senior researchers.
Present junior researchers work without their knowledge as research conducted by seniors engaged in competing industrial projects at departmental and non-departmental scientific meetings.
To make available material generated by junior researchers to senior researchers working on competing industrial projects.
For junior researchers to inform industrial partners when requests for transfers of information from between industrially funded project to another are made by senior personnel working on competing projects.
To repay student transferral of research material collaboration to collaborators working on competing industrial projects by withholding information pertaining to the results obtained.
For academics to attempt to use viva examinations to extract commercially orientated research information from students on industrial research projects.
Do you believe as an industrial research project leader; (Hello Jane)
Provide intellectual property training, when by the student only, you are informed of the commencement of a directly competing industrially funded project with the students supervisor as a secondary researcher.
Provide requested intellectual property training when informed that data transfer requests from the juniors project to the competing industrial project are being made by senior personnel.
Provide requested intellectual property training to junior researchers when intellectual property documentation is sent to them.
Provide requested intellectual property training to students when informed of generated data security concerns.
Provide requested intellectual property training to students when researchers are in possession of potentially intellectual property sensitive research material.
Accuse junior researchers of being ‘salesman’ when they provide three sides of A4 in one meeting with ideas and industrial sponsors have a four-month work group with no reference to the junior researcher before IP protection.
When informed of a competing project situation, data transfer requests, IP protection is engaged in and after multiple requests for IP training provide a response more professional than ‘What do you want to know’. If professionals who have been made aware of the situation consider there is nothing the researcher needs to know then he cannot reasonably disagree.
Provide IP or data inclusion advice regarding thesis writing to junior researchers when intellectual property protection is in place.
Include primary researchers in strategy development for exploitation of patented material and not keep the junior researcher completely uninformed about exploitation or even if applications are being pursued.
To discuss and agree to further work and provision of materials then having been made aware of supply delays from the industrial collaborator has failed over a period of months to inform the junior researcher that reimbursement for the period waiting for delivery is not possible due to corporate policy.
To think that it is a satisfactory answer to state that the conclusion to be formed is that the industrial sponsors are not very good at delivering supplies while failing to offer reimbursement.
Can it then be interpreted as an admission of guilt to subsequently advertise a position in a weekly scientific journal requiring an individual to manage delivery of those specific supplies.
To fail to recognise the career cost in lost paper publications due to essential material delivery failures by the industrial sponsor and not offer to rectify those career costs in any manner.
To consider gossip a valid personnel evaluation tool, especially when the gossip arises from persons with vested or competitive interests against the subject of the gossip. Yes she was that stupid.
Career issues.
Junior researchers will desire that further employment and career directions are completely independent of the previous research personnel and institutions.
Having received no significant funding for 12 months the greatest time delay being due to essential supply failure, junior researchers will pursue alternative careers, especially as the entire field was going down anyway and if unsuccessful due to career interference will sell them out quicker than shit of a shovel.
And if any one is wondering, yes, these maybe considered my references for the institutions and personnel involved, but remember there only questions so are legally not actionable.
Besides still got the 25 pages so there is lots more
Good enough to plagiarise then good enough to pass.
Linear Mode
