Abstract
Editor:
I am a microbiologist at the USDA's National Animal Disease Center in Ames, Iowa, and am writing to you regarding a paper in the May 2006 issue of Veterinary Pathology entitled “The 2000 Canine Distemper Epidemic in Caspian Seals (Phoca caspica): Pathology and Analysis of Contributory Factors.” Included in this paper, without my prior knowledge or consent, is original data that was generated in my laboratory. Additionally, the data are incorrect.
One of the paper's co-authors, G. Foster, is a collaborator of mine who periodically sends to me for ribotyping various B. bronchiseptica isolates. Upon receiving from Dr. Foster, in November 2000, some of the 2000 Caspian Sea seal isolates and carrying out preliminary ribotyping analysis I informed him all isolates had an identical pattern that either matched or was highly similar to a pattern I had defined previously as RT8. Since an RT8 standard was not included on our original gel I could not be certain of the result without additional analysis. Three months later, in March 2001, I informed Dr. Foster that the isolates were, in fact, a novel ribotype associated only with the Caspian Sea isolates (the latter still holding true at the present time) that we designated RT22. The paper to which I referred above incorrectly states the isolates were determined to be RT8 (Results section, p. 329, and again in the Discussion, p. 334.)
In the past Dr. Foster and I published together ribotyping and other information related to B. bronchiseptica isolates associated with a 1988 North Sea seal die-off. We subsequently agreed to jointly publish ribotyping data from my laboratory and additional data from his laboratory related to both the 2000 Caspian Sea and 2002 North Sea seal die-offs. Though we have communicated about other isolates or other areas of common scientific interest several times since then, no mention was made of the intent to include ribotyping data from my laboratory in any peer-reviewed journal. It is surprising that neither he nor the first author of the recent Veterinary Pathology report contacted me for permission to use the data and to verify its accuracy. Although my contribution comprises only a small portion of the study, the presentation of original data in the Results section of a peer-reviewed journal does, in my view, constitute grounds for consideration as a co-author. Additionally, I should have been provided the opportunity to comment on the significance and implications of the ribotyping results.
Based on the nature of our previous interactions I am certain this situation is simply an oversight resulting from poor communication and I am in no way questioning the integrity of Dr. Foster or any of the other co-authors. I look forward to future collaboration among our laboratories on this interesting topic. Nonetheless, inclusion of a collaborator's original, unpublished data in a published report, without the knowledge or consent of the collaborator, is a breach of scientific ethics.
I appreciate the opportunity to correct the erroneous data previously published and hope my experience will alert others as to the importance of properly crediting the scientific contributions of colleagues.
Karen Register USDA/ARS/National Animal Disease Center 2300 Dayton Rd. Ames, IA 50010