In 1952, Rutgers University Professor Selman Waksman won the Nobel Prize for developing Streptomycin, a powerful antibiotic that cured tuberculosis. His 23-year old graduate student, Albert Schatz, claimed to have been the first to isolate the bacterium that produced this drug in August, 1943. Schatz and Waksman applied for a patent, but the royalties all went to Waksman. Schatz sued and won a share of the royalties, but Waksman never acknowledged the part he played in the discovery. Waksman had a distinguished career until his death in 1973. Twenty years later, and fifty years after the discovery of Streptoymycin, Schatz published the second of two articles describing his role in the discovery (Schatz, 1993). This year, Schatz’ claim was confirmed by the discovery of his detailed 1943 lab notes in a box of Waksman’s papers (Pringle, 2012). The notes show that Schatz was the first to isolate the bacterium.
From a professional studies point of view, this story provides rich terrain for analysis. It is a reminder that professional communities, while said to be self-policing, are not always or perhaps ever what novices imagine them to be. The disparity between students’ idealism and reality constitutes a violation of the psychological contract implicit in the relationship between student and mentor as it is enacted within the structure of the research university. When institutions violate the psychological contract, those who work within them experience adverse psychological effects. This is not by any means limited to universities and science laboratories, but a more general phenomenon experienced by teachers, physicians, nurses, social workers, professors, and others who find themselves grappling with shifting institutional priorities, ominous new power structures, and heartbreaking barriers to best practice. What this suggests to me is that those who train professionals need to try to understand students’ images of professional life and conceptions about the field as a whole. They also need to be reflexive — able to model honest self-appraisal, self-criticism, awareness of the field’s potentially problematic effects, weaknesses and shortcomings, as well as its achievements and technical demands. There is a vital role for the humanities and the social sciences in this enterprise.
To return to the case at hand, the “system” (and the individual scientists working within it) produced a great societal benefit, yet also permitted, and may have promoted, inequity and injustice. And it is noteworthy that all this contention emerged concurrent with what one journalist described as “the birth of big Pharma.” Today, scientific discoveries are made by large, complex groups of people, yet when we teach about science, we still employ a curriculum that spotlights the work of “heroic” individual scientists who are the stars of the scientific show — immortal symbols of the quest for understanding. The media promote public conceptions of the solitary, successful, charismatic scientist (and teacher, and physician…) that no longer align well with professional life as most of us ordinary beings experience it.
Recognition remains the gold standard in the political economy of academic life — publications, citations, grants, prizes, awards, tweets, followers! Schatz never gave up his quest for recognition. And as the “op ed” letter below suggests, Wacksman was a well regarded teacher and scientist who attended to the needs of the next generation (Erikson, 1950). With respect to human lifespan development, I think this story demonstrates how scholarly priorities can change through the life course. In particular, the interests of senior scholars may move away from concerted efforts to acquire yet more intellectual knowledge toward articulation and reinterpretation of one’s life and its meaning.
Sources and Further Reading
Conway, N. & Briner, R. (2006). Understanding Psychological Contracts at Work: A Critical Evaluation of Theory and Research. Oxford University.
Erikson, E. (1950). Eight Stages of Man (Chapter 7), Childhood and Society, New York: W.W. Norton.
Forbes, P. (2012).Experiment Eleven: Deceit and Betrayal in the Discovery of the Cure for Tuberculosis by Peter Pringle – review . The Guardian, June 29.
Pringle, P. (2012). Notebooks Shed Light on and Antibiotic’s Contested Discovery. New York Times, June 11.
Rousseau, Denise M. (1996). Psychological Contracts in Organizations: Understanding Written and Unwritten Agreements. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Schatz, A. (1993). The true story of the discovery of Streptomycin. Actinomycetes, Vol. IV, Part 2: 27-39
- Letters: Defense of a Scientist (1 Letter) (nytimes.com)
Reblogged this on Rashid's Blog.