# data[].attributes.body
- All three parties should have come up with the work from the beginning.
- Meeting weekly with supervisor one-on-one
- Some level of written understanding of which party obligations are.
- Who earns the intellectual property should be clear from the beginning
- Confidentiality issues must be discussed
- Publication plan - how a student can have a paper submitted without the supervisor approval?
- Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research - Section 15 (Intellectual Property Policy)
- Having mediators in the meetings (no COI)

# data[].attributes.body
February 2018. Previously endorsed at Research and Research Training Committee.

# data[].attributes.body
1. The student is using industrial information without consent which is a big ethical issue
2. Infrequent Meeting between the supervisors and students
3. There should have a clear understanding between the parties on what is expected and what is not expected

# data[].attributes.body
Workshop Slides are here!

# data[].attributes.body
The case study is here!

# data[].attributes.body
Effectively policies relating to correct student supervisor meetings are already in place; these don’t appear to have been correctly followed in this case. A large amount of the difficult would normally be mitigated if there were regular meetings between the student and supervisor ‘one on one.’ In addition some sort of MOU relating to industry expectations on the student would be useful.

2.

# data[].attributes.body
At the beginning, all parties should get agreements on the scope of the project, ethical concerns, work allocation, communication methods, frequency of meetings, and authorship...

Document student's progress on the regular basis

Contract with industry partners at the beginning