I think the sense that this type of problem is only a recent one is somewhat naive.

Despite what may seem as a harsh tone from me, I am truly sorry that you have been put in this situation. I was in such a case in the past, and it was not pleasant. I hope you are able to work it out to a respectable level and can regain your own sense of personal dignity and professional courage to move forward successfully.

Hi Seema, thank you for your answer...

I agree with you... But, in such case, it is very sad to know that we may not trust in our own department colleagues and which nothing should be informally commented, no? Perhaps there is no more place to be ethic nowadays...

There is necessary to consider various points of view : not always an idea comes out of our mind , while others have already considered it so. The dept of the analysis about the idea is another fact : is we purposedly developed a work plan over an idea which becomes part or a complete research for someone else close to you , then it involves more than ethical factors.

But I have always thought that when an idea comes to our mind , we must first ask ourselves if someone else has thought about it before and in what sense to direct it onto a brandnew direction if it is possible.

Kudos for discussing this brain teaser.

If one views matter with tunnel vision, two separate researchers working for the exact same study question can argue who came up with the idea first.....let's say the chicken or the egg.

However, if one let's go a their ego, then things become relatively simple and even more fruitful. The same two researchers can work together, combine funding, do larger scale study, present at twice the number of conferences, etc. The same two researchers can even do the study separately, each with their own study design. The way each answers the same study question would be interesting to the audience.

Idea steeling within institutes and departments are the scariest but it's often difficult for people to see beyond their egos.

Dear friend,

your idea may be theft someone but intellectual strategy for project is always unique for everyone so don't worry....if you are right with your idea than god always bless loyal person not an single royal...

"Suppose that you have informally spoken with a colleague from your department or institute about a new research idea that you are considering."

IMO, this points to two presumptions:

* I will be starting the work on this idea

* My colleague will not be starting the work on this idea

So… Did you tell your colleague … "Here is an idea that I WILL start NEXT MONTH"? Or did you tell your colleague … "Here is an idea that I think I might want to do (sometime soon)"?

In the former case, shame on your colleague. Perhaps you might petition to your department chair (who hopefully also knew in advance of your intent to start the work) for a case of unethical behavior. However, absent something that officially shows that you did start the work before your colleague (i.e. a certified lab notebook with date+time stamped results), I would anticipate the best outcome of such conversation is a friendly admission to over-eagerness by your colleague and an agreement to work with you to move forward. At worst, you are otherwise left with a case of he-said/she-said, which is lawyer-talk for no one has hard evidence that your complaint could even be valid (so you should stop complaining).

In the latter case (when all you said was "here is something interesting that I might want to do") … shame on you! The lesson you face from this is … Sometimes you have to take the outcome of your own (poor) choices and just move on. In this case it means, let this one go, get another idea, and actually do the work before you say anything about it.

As a good friend of mine in the real estate business was fond of saying after loosing a perspective bid on a house listing ... Oh Well. Life Sucks. Next!

I think the colleague that started the work should at least ask if the other colleague was planning on working on it, or include him/ her in the discussions, especially if they work in the same building. It seems to me to be common decency. It's like Rosalind Franklin and the discovery of the structure of DNA. She had the structure and shared this info with Watson and Crick. So why didn't she win a noble prize. The just thing to do is to award her one posthumously since they did not get it right in the first place. Watson and Crick took her information and used it in their findings.

But sometimes people just don't realize or think to include people. Or maybe the researcher who started the work already had the idea to begin with. Make no assumptions.

Yes. Well and good. In a perfect world, everyone would communicate with everyone else with no egos or disrespect in the way.

In the case of the Noble prize, principles prohibit, and the proper thing to do is NOT go back to correct "past mistakes". Rather, the proper thing to do is to move forward with the realization that we are are not in a perfect world of perfect information all around, even when we sincerely think or honestly hope that we might be. So, give proper notice to the situation that led to the "mistake" and work a bit better to avoid it the next time around.

Whether the claimed offense that started this thread was one of absentmindedness or deceit, and ultimately who really was absent-minded or deceitful, is for the original poster to determine of his own accord. Absent an honest effort to do so, at some point, crying in a public forum that a colleague "stole" a research idea becomes like … a bit of kindergarden-level theater play IMHO.

Thank you for the answers folks!

Basically, I agree with all of you... But we know that, in an university, peoples become known by the research (or research lines) they develop ... That is, although nobody is, in fact, the owner of an idea or research line, until some time ago the researchers avoided developing works that encroach or overlap a field already exploited by another colleague from same department (except in case of scientific cooperation as discussed above by Kiran) - not because this is forbidden, but for question of collegiality and friendship. Nowadays, this seems to be changing...

A useful although perhaps selfish way to avoid such a problem would be to talk vaguely until you release your results in the form of a preprint,such as a paper on arxiv.org.

I think the sense that this type of problem is only a recent one is somewhat naive.

Despite what may seem as a harsh tone from me, I am truly sorry that you have been put in this situation. I was in such a case in the past, and it was not pleasant. I hope you are able to work it out to a respectable level and can regain your own sense of personal dignity and professional courage to move forward successfully.

I give most of my ideas away, but I am retired and feel it is the only way I can contribute now to science. But when I did work, I always loved to collaborate. Some of the best works or impact papers came from collaborations. So much more can get done when people come together to solve problems. At least in Biochemistry, each lab/ head can bring to the table unique skills.

The topic gains more important when the research is a sponsored one. when the idea is stolen and the same is presented to the funding agency.. then you might feel you are cheated.

Regardless of what is said to the colleague or anyone else, a non disclosure agreement is mandatory and please research law in your jurisdiction.

@N Andrews: I am not sure where your comment is directed, to the original poster or someone in the thread. NDAs are not mandatory between colleagues in the same business or university. Indeed they have no enforcement in the case at hand, since the individuals do not own the outcomes of the work to further their ideas, their businesses or universities do.

Also, even if I tell an idea to a colleague at a different university and she beats me to the development, I am still left with same situation as the original posting. Absent a document that certifies my work effort on the idea pre-dates hers, it is a he-said/she-said disagreement that has to be worked out between the two parties involved.

I certainly agree that NDAs are mandatory at a point well before you enter in to focused discussions to undertake collaborative efforts between people at two different supporting institutions. Even this is a gray area. For example, I am glad to provide suggestions to help researchers at a local company solve low-level problems to the point that it builds a degree of respectful trust. I certainly do not need to have the lawyers listen in to all such discussions, but I also respect the boundary where my pro-bono effort might be abused.

So, unless I am missing something in the deeper context of your short snippet, while NDAs have their important place, at the end of the day, all the law that you might propose that we have to reteach ourselves has no bearing on this case at hand.

@P Morris: A less cynical view is that administrations are just ignorant of or frightened by the level of support that truly collaborative efforts really require from them to be successful. IOW, rather than an overactive effort to promote individual competition, the real problem is a fully passive response in the face of promotions for collegial collaboration.

When a Dean (i.e. an upper administrator) says to you, "After all, interdisciplinary is just a word", you can begin to appreciate how the wheels might work this way.

Theft of an idea departs of the concept that ideas do have an owner...

I can follow your question, and I would probably feel terribly bad...

But despite of that, I cannot believe in the concept of ownership (whatever kind), so if no ownership exists then no theft and my problem is gone...

@Jeffrey Weimer .My answer was dedicated to CYA.. If you discuss an idea that you initiated. Make it in the order that it cannot be denied that it is your idea. email for instance. Some states require you tell a person thst they are being recorded, a very good deterrent, most bad entities will not speak to you if they now this. The problem is that there are a lot of bad people out there. i.e Tesla. and Edison (Edison being the bad guy)...48 laws of power disc 2. weak people of character steal and exploit the weakest at heart.

Use litmus tools to ascertain trust.

@N Andrews: Would that all folks who "initiated" an idea only corresponded with other folks via email or written correspondence. What a strange world that would be? The approach that "there are a lot of bad people out there" and "weak people of character … exploit the weakest …" sounds like something that lawyers love to hold over our heads. I would feel sorry when I would have to live my life that way, always acting out of fear that I should somehow protect every word in what I say. Phrases such as "NDA", "CYA", and "litmus tools" have no relevance to the plethora of real-world cases where two people just sit down to chat about what they are doing.

@ Jeffrey Weimer. Look at the news. Hey, I am stating fact, not spitting out propaganda. If you look at what I said as some type of choir, then you have grown up sheltered. I noticed you did not mention the Tesla/Edison history which is also fact. Your going into innuendo and opinion like a lawyer.. I respect your comments. I have to believe that for some whom articulates so well is not obtuse to say the least.

@S A Mosquera: Good note. However at some point you do have intellectual property that is your right to protect, and every idea has an origin point. The distinction here is to seek due credit as the originator of the idea based on a valid claim to protect your own intellectual property. The difficulty in this particular case is that it could fall in to a dispute over who said what and when, and those are never easy cases to resolve.

@Jeffrey Weimer/ Knowledge and assertiveness are not consistent with fear.

Thank you J Weimer.

I am active at publishing my work, I do consider myself (proudly enough) as a creative thinker and innovator (at least to some extent in my field).

Despite of that, already time ago I gave up filing patent applications because if any of my ideas may help people get better (in my case better medicine), I do not risk my thirst for money may obscure my humanity.

Now you pointed out a different aspect, that is "to seek due credit as the originator of the idea" and to this I fully agree except for the financial advantage of the concept of ownership.

I think there are ways to give the due credit to the originator, and I also think "bad people" are still a minority, so in my personal case I risk that "theft" and try protecting me by publishing (as early as possible).

To the whole threaders: But what about "unconscious" completely independent simultaneous developments. Is intellectual property still valid because someone in country x filed a patent 1 minute before someone else in country y?

I think it is important sometimes to not worry about credit, if your livelihood is not dependent on it. Getting credit is achieved at all different levels. There is just doing something for personal satisfaction, or because it is your gift to humanity. Then there is the level that your friends and family know of your work. Then there is the level that comes from your job situation, and your peers in science. At the end of the day, someone who truly takes someone else's discovery, has to live with that knowledge and they may actually regret it.

I like Samuel's approach to things.

This is nothing compared to what I experienced with one of research institute deans in my Country who enticed researchers as a man believing moralities but trying to take the whole project and omitting me from the institute, I did not give the papers to him, but he pushed me out of the institute and Mr. Prof. Dr. Christian Peter Kubicek (Thank Him Very Much) from Vienna University of Technology saved me from fossilizing in that situation in my own country, one other than Austria. The worse is that You see such people become dean and remain dean, and stick to dean.

The way to prohibit such thefts may be the establishment of an International and Completely Independent NGO where researchers can submit and register their own projects and/ ideas getting an internationally valid and effective tracing code, and if it is accepted and financed there would be no matter. But when it is rejected, it is still registered and can be traced. If this presumptive system is somehow corrupted or abused, the project to be misused by a immoral person would not be favored and confirmed because the registered real one (rejected intentionally for next misuse by the part of corrupted system) is of inhibitory effect and priority and is internationally watched. May such an international and completely independent NGO be established?

@N Andrews: I appreciate your perspectives. I just find that they come across as rather abrupt and, perhaps inadvertently, invoke a sense of paranoia relative to the broader theme of the discussions at hand. I certainly agree that knowledge and assertiveness are important, and I grant that your recommendations for legal actions are vital especially to the next step of carrying an idea forward to a viable action. I do not think that this is the place to dissect the evils of great scientists / engineers or to ruminate on the sad state of news today.

This is a big necessity as will change the big silence to blooming. The world needs reliability, confidence and rapid progress for a safe and peaceful life for whole Humanity all over the world. Minds and where they breath in and out (Brains), Humans and Lives are better to be respected.

@M Moss: "… if your livelihood is not dependent on it".

The unfortunate state of affairs is that successful advancement in an academic career is based almost entirely counter to the premise that individual credit has no meaning, and it is so sometimes almost to a fever pitch.

Dear Krystle

This is no something to be called competition. Competition is something positive as it encourages both competitors but this is something negative (theft) that frustrates the one who has studied and worked much i order to find something new for increasing income or to serve for Humanity and or for both (all positive) and who has know the traitor as a good Human. Sometimes as with my case and many others, the wrong body misuses his power of rank like a pirate, not a Scientific Person.

A tricky problem, and an old one (think Newton-Liebnitz).

If you invite someone to think about an idea (explicitly or implicitly), it then becomes difficult to expect them not to them follow through their own take on the subject after they believe that you've "invited them in". I suppose that a partial answer might be to prefix any discussion with a clear statement that this is very much what YOU are intending to work on, and that you're floating the idea with them as a colleague in case they might have any suggestions that are useful to YOUR project. That might at least minimise the chance of an honest misunderstanding about context in which you shared (okay, not "shared") your idea with them.

It might also help if you'd given them the option of not hearing your idea: "Hi! I wonder if you'd be okay if I bounced some ideas off you ... but it's for a project that I very much want to do myself". That makes it clear that you're likely to be upset if they do something similar themselves without asking you ... and also gives them the opportunity to decline, if, for instance, they might already have their own similar secret project and they don't want to run the risk of being unfairly accused of stealing their own idea.

I see it as two possible distinct cases:

Case 1: I tell someone that I'm going to work on XYZ and that I think a certain aspect of it needs exploration and that it would be interesting to apply technique ABC. That person then goes off and does exactly what I said.

My reaction: I don't mind. Why? Because imitation is the best form of flattery and it proves I had a good idea. It is good if we independently work on the same thing and some competing papers come out. I will be motivated to get my paper out faster than his :-) He has done me a big favour.

Case 2: I tell him the same as in the first case, but this time I give out very specific details of some entirely novel methods/approaches/techniques I am going to use that no one has thought of before. He goes off and writes a paper using those ideas.

My reaction: Angry. Why? What is the difference between case 1 and case 2? The difference is in the first case I have only spoken generally. Anyone in the world can be working on that unbeknownst to me anyway. What he does makes no difference. But case 2 is different because I have gone into detail with novel ideas. Firstly, I would not go into that level of detail, anyway, unless I was talking to someone who was agreeing to collaborate. If they go off and do their own thing, they have broken a collaborative agreement.

Let's hypothetically say Newton and Liebnitz once had a general chat about slopes of graphs with each other and then both came up with differentiation. There's nothing wrong with that. They both worked independently and came up with different approaches. If one had copied that exact same approach of the other then that would be a cause for concern. But that was not the case here.

So what do I do in case 2? Ok, I'm human and I may temporarily feel angry. But my philosophy is to do nothing. I simply don't collaborate with that guy ever again. There's no point taking further action. Further action is time consuming and distracts from research. If that guy is so desperate that he needs to steal an idea from me, he will soon disappear off the research scene by natural selection anyway. I need do nothing. The system will devour him in the end. As for me, I have more ideas than I can possibly work on in my lifetime, so I am happy to share the lurve so to speak.

I have been faced will the situation, a number of times, where I have an angry PhD student or postdoc coming to me and saying "so and so stole my idea, what should I do?" My advice has always been "concentrate on your other good ideas, you have many. Being distracted by this one incident is taking away from moving onto your next great idea. Forget the other person, they will become nothing and one day you will be a great scientist. You can prove you are better than him by publishing more, and being cited more. That is going to be the sweetest revenge."

I think there are two parts to this question. First, how would I feel. Second, what would I do about how I feel. How would I feel? I would feel suspicious, partly because there is the belief that my work is uniquely mine and no one else could possibly come up with such a brilliant idea without me. I might also feel violated because someone else has something that I felt was mine and only mine. Once I thought about it, I would probably feel a little like the air was taken out of my balloon because now someone else will steal a bit of my thunder, so to speak. However, in reality, it's possible that their research will help pave the way for mine. The truth is that the idea is not the work. I might have been considering the idea several months ago, but it wasn't MY idea. I can't police the thoughts of the world, pouncing on anything that looks remotely like a thought I once had. My colleague has put in the work to develop a thought that we had discussed together.

This leads me to what I would do. I would probably go to them and offer to help them. After all, I was interested in it at one time and maybe we could publish together. If that's not an option and I'm truly concerned about someone stealing my thoughts, I would keep them to myself moving forward.

Some might consider this counsel to be passive and naïve. However, to me, it's about who I want to become. Do I want to be angry for the rest of my life toward this person, do I want to become paranoid about colleagues stealing my work, or do I want to live optimistically? It's a single idea. I will have more. I have an abundance of ideas, too many to follow up on them all. The relationship with this person may prove to be more valuable, particularly in the long run, than the idea was. Regardless, I choose to support my mental health by not feeling angry, violated, or paranoid any longer than absolutely necessary.

It is same to me my previous adviser(Not a professor, just a phD student on that time) stolen my thesis proposal and now he has a lot of paper from my work. I didn' t know what to do. please help me.