Suzanne Booth is recruited as a postdoctoral to a laboratory where research is centered on the cell biology of a specific mammalian cell type. Suzanne's training has been in eucaryotic gene cloning and molecular genetics; no such technology is available in this laboratory. Suzanne completely trains a senior level graduate student working in the group. Under Suzanne's supervision, the student proceeds to build a cDNA library and isolates by molecular cloning a gene for a membrane protein. Several months later a manuscript describing this work is prepared for submission. The principal investigator of the laboratory, Professor Jack Taylor, and the student are listed as co-authors. Suzanne is listed in the acknowledgement section of the paper. She is upset with this disposition and confronts Dr. Taylor. Taylor that he has strict rules about authorship and that Suzanne's contribution was a technical one which does not merit authorship. Taylor quotes from several different standards of conduct documents indicating that authorship must be strictly based on intellectual and conceptual contributions to the work being prepared for publication. Technical assistance, no matter how complex or broad in scope, is not grounds for authorship. Does Suzanne have a case for authorship. Required:
Does Suzanne have a case for authorship? Why or why not?