MOVERSRichard Myers, director of Hudson-Alpha Institute for Biotechnology, Huntsville, Alabama

2002–present: Chair of genetics, Stanford University School of Medicine, California1993–present: Director, Stanford Human Genome Center, Stanford, California1985–93: Associate professor, University of California, San Francisco

Richard Myers is no fan of the tenure system. “You have to prove yourself individually from day one,” he says. Myers also discovered early on that the quest for tenure could put undue pressure on one’s career choices. During his first academic job, as an associate professor at the University of California, San Francisco, colleagues warned the young biochemist that working with others could damage his tenure bid. Nevertheless, Myers began working with his colleague David Cox.

The partnership had the opposite career effect. Myers and Cox pioneered the use of genetic signposts called radiation hybrids to build a rough blueprint of the human genome. This helped geneticists correctly arrange sequence data. Developing the technique led both Cox and Myers to jobs at Stanford.

While developing these maps and also working at the Stanford Human Genome Center, Myers and Cox nurtured another collaboration with Jim Hudson, founder of Research Genetics in Huntsville, Alabama. Hudson made oligonucleotides, clones and cDNAs for Cox and Myers, and Research Genetics distributed these tools to Human Genome Project centres free of charge. The partnership saved time and money for the genome centres, by reducing their reliance on trial and error.

Hudson sold the company in 2000 to Invitrogen, Cox left for the pharmacogenomics company Perlegen, and Myers settled into his role running Stanford’s genomics centre. But soon after, Hudson sought Myers’ help in building a non-profit research institution.

Initially, Myers was reluctant. “I’ve got a pretty good set-up and am pretty happy,” he says. But Hudson eventually convinced him. Myers will leave his post as director of the Stanford Human Genome Center next year to launch the Hudson-Alpha Institute for Biotechnology, a non-profit facility based in Huntsville, Alabama. A big selling point was the planned focus on collaborations, both within the institute and with the 12 or so companies that will be housed in the same building. The institute’s primary research role is applying whole-genome approaches to understanding and treating human diseases, an aim that necessitates interdisciplinary interactions.

“Fostering the spirit of collaboration is the whole point of how this thing is going to be run,” says Hudson. If all goes as planned at the Hudson-Alpha institute, no one will have to go it alone — or worry about tenure. ■

Paul Smaglik

Christine Beveridge and Suzanne Morris have outlined an approach to determine the sequence of authors on a multi-author paper fairly (see Nature 448, 508; 2007). Their criteria are based on percentage scores for each co-author, taking into account a set of items — such as figures, tables, text and ideas — that make up a manuscript. There is a percentage score for each element of the paper. They aim to develop a culture of understanding and agreement about the relative importance of different activities before the start of the work, and to settle the order of authors at manuscript-writing stage.

But there are situations in which a laboratory head or administrative boss includes his or her name without contributing anything (honorary or complimentary authorship), usually as the last author, thus misleadingly implying a leadership role. Such complimentary authors sometimes, by virtue of their position, garner awards or recognition for the work without doing any. Such an author might not hesitate to pass the buck to the co-authors if some wrong is detected. Also, a short-term visiting worker sometimes merely receives an ‘acknowledgement’ for genuine work in return for being trained or paid for

technical work by the group leader. This also needs to be addressed when determining authorship and sharing credit and accountability.

I would suggest that each author receive a quantitative score according to relative contribution in terms of their percentage input. Credit should be earned on the basis of ideas and planning, actual experimentation, recording of observation, data analysis and manuscript preparation. All should be given equal weight, and the overall cumulative score earned by each author taken into account to decide on authorship order. The percentage of contribution over time on the set of scores needs to be periodically reassessed and calculated, making allowance for short-term visitors. A non-participating laboratory head would be included as the last author only if he or she facilitated and verified claims made in the paper. He or she would also be made accountable in the case of disputes. Such an arrangement would go a long way towards maintaining the integrity of scientific papers (see Nature 450,1; 2007). ■

Umesh Chandra Lavania is a plant geneticist and senior scientist at the Central Institute of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants, Lucknow, India.

Authorship accountabilityNETWORKS & SUPPORT

POSTDOC JOURNAL

Double troubleI knew that two kids would a challenge, but when both became ill at the same time, I was blindsided. It’s a call every working parent dreads: “It’s the school nurse. Your child is sick, please pick him up.” Amazingly, this was topped by a second call about the health of my other child.

I effectively missed a week of work dealing with my toddler’s uncontrollable, probably virus-induced, fever. At the same time, I was shuttling my baby off to the doctor’s again and again, only to find out she had yet another ear infection and was allergic to another antibiotic. In my agitation to get something accomplished at work, I even brought her in to sit with me while I packed seeds for my winter plant nursery. This was, not surprisingly, a short-lived endeavour. At home, I was in a horrible emotional state, wishing I could help my kids more. Unable to get any work done at home or at the lab, I was sleeping even less than usual and felt that I was failing in all areas of my life. All I could do was keep moving and wait for it to pass.

Of course it did pass and the kids are now healthy. The silver lining was that their illnesses didn’t cost me more time off, as they happened simultaneously. I know these are just growing pains, and I still love the challenges of being a parent. I hope that next time, I’ll be more prepared and won’t miss a step. ■

Moira Sheehan is a postdoc in the Department of Plant Breeding and Genetics at Cornell University.

758

NATURE|Vol 450|29 November 2007CAREER VIEW