Forum:Unreasonable to ask the hired bioinformatician for his R-Script?

Question

[mo_vo_]

hi everybody,

about one year ago our lab contracted a bioinformatician to do some analyses for us. we couldn't use the results straight away, but now I have some time to put everything together (hopefully into a paper). to better understand the analysis he performed and interpret the results I asked the bioinformatician for his R-script (he previously stated that the analysis was done in R), but he refused stating that he wrote a report that contains all the information related to his analysis. is it unreasonable and/or uncommon to ask for the actual script?

thanks (and sorry if this doesn't fit the scope of the forum).

PS in his defence the report is well done, however it seems so much easier to "see" what he actually did in comparison to "interpreting" the report.

EDIT: As has been pointed out the information in my original post was incomplete and thus potentially misleading. The service was paid for so I assume there was an actual contract. I say "assume" because the part was organized by my jefe/boss and I haven't seen the contract. At the same time I work at a University and the work was done with the idea to publish the findings (obviously considering necessary requirements), in fact we have presented preliminary results at a conference (with the bioinformatician as a co-author). And yes I trying to publish results were I can not reproduce the statistic is obviously not the way forward.

Answer 1

[harold.smith.tarheel]

There's a simple solution: pay the contractor for the script (and the time required to explain it).

You hired someone to perform a service. The individual performed that service well. Now, a year later, you're asking for additional service. Why do you expect that service to be provided without compensation?

Edit: Obviously, my answer changes if the code was one of the deliverables specified in the contract (per Istvan's answer).

Answer 2

[Istvan Albert]

If this is a work that was always intended to be published then releasing this script would be a requirement. In that case your request would not only be reasonable it would be necessary and everyone involved in the process should have understood that from the very beginning.

But from the post it seems this may be something different: a contract work for a private party.

In that case I think the requirement to share the code should have been negotiated at the beginning and should be stipulated in the contract. It is similar to buying a software. A licence that gives access to source code is always treated differently than that of just running a software.

This software that the bioinformatician is using may include work that needs to amortize over multiple clients. The bioinformatician may have factored that into the initial quote and would have not agreed to the same terms otherwise.

In my opininon this now needs to be negotiated with both parties and you should probably consider paying them for having access to this script.

Answer 3

[GenoMax]

It would help to clarify the terms of the initial "contract"? You are using "contract" word in this post but if I was to guess there was no formal (especially if you are in an academic lab) written contract.

If there was a written SOW/contract then you have no recourse but to formally request access to the script. Should the contractor choose to deny access, you would need to re-do the analysis yourself since without understanding what went into the original analysis you would not want to include it in a paper (even though the "report" may be comprehensive).

If there was no formal "contract" (and this was a friendly arrangement for data analysis) then I don't think it is unreasonable to request access to the R-script. You may need to interpret it yourself or get help elsewhere since the contractor seems reluctant to share it in first place. An alternate option would be to work out a new arrangement to cover access to R-script/it's interpretation, as has been suggested by @Harold and @Istvan.

[mo_vo_]

Thanks @harold.smith.tarheel @Istvan Albert @genomax2 I appreciate the answers! You raise very good points, in particular regarding the formalities of the contract! I edited my original pots to provide some additional clarity. Unfortunately I do not know the exact detail of the contract! Yet!

[harold.smith.tarheel]

I normally agree with you, @genomax2, but I think that it's immaterial whether it's a friendly arrangement or formal contract (unless the contract specified that the script was a deliverable). In this case, the OP waited a year before reviewing the results and requesting additional information. The appropriate time would have been when the report was originally delivered. The contractor reasonably understood the project to be finished satisfactorily (I certainly would have) and has moved on to other work.

The contractor may be more motivated to help if s/he is still a co-author (as for the conference presentation), but that point was not addressed by the OP.