ETHICS OF COLLABORATION - Collaborative Computational Technologies for Biomedical Research - page 124

weakest form of collaboration; the teacher-apprentice form of collaboration,
where the apprentice learns from and emulates the teacher; a “peer-similar”
collaboration, where individuals with similar knowledge base, interest, and
status work together toward a common end; and the “peer-different” collabo-
ration, in which individuals with different knowledge base and background
work together to achieve some goal or end [6].
Drake and Schacter [7] draw a distinction relevant to the sorts of collabora-
tions Thagard identifi es. Drake and Schacter suggest that collaboration can be
dictatorial or sustainable [7]. In their understanding, dictatorial collaboration
does not allow equal power sharing or shared authority. Instead, some partici-
pants in a collaborative endeavor are forced into certain behaviors. In sustain-
able collaboration, the participants in the collaboration meet as equals and
are enjoined in the process of government for the collaboration. Thagard [8]
argues, therefore, that collaboration in science demands that potential collabo-
rators have not only a substantial knowledge of science but also considerable
procedural knowledge of how to collaborate.

8.3 THE IDEAL COLLABORATOR

The ideal collaborator will have knowledge of procedural fairness if Thagard
[6] is correct. The knowledge must be built into the collaboration itself and
must be such that each collaborator is an effective participant in the govern-
ment of the collaboration. The ideal collaborator not only has the knowledge
of procedural fairness but also has the aptitude to use that knowledge. The
key, perhaps, for a successful collaboration is trust among the collaborators,
which procedural know-how will ensure.
Rorty [9] argues that, from the broadest perspective, collaboration presup-
poses trust and requires a commitment to the common good. Rocha and Miles
[10] make a similar point in arguing for an Aristotelian-Thomistic approach
to collaboration. They argue that the Aristotelian-Thomistic approach treats
“ self - regarding ” and “ other - regarding ' preferences as ends in themselves. The
upshot of this approach is that people in the collaboration are not used as
instruments to serve another's end. The collaboration, then, is what Thagard
would call “peer different” or “peer similar.” When people are peers, they are
likely to share power and authority inasmuch as they are equal participants in
decision making. Thus, the collaboration is more likely to be sustainable as
opposed to dictatorial.
Raza [11] also identifi es trust as the most important ingredient in collabora-
tions and believes that moral virtues are necessary to any collaborative enter-
prise. Raza lists altruism, empathy, and individual commitment among the
necessary components of the collaborator's moral character [11]. Essential
ingredients of a sustainable collaboration, according to Raza, include effective
communication, establishment of minimum goals and objectives, shared and
assigned responsibilities, rules and norms for sharing and handling data as well