He probably has substantial clinical duties in addition to his research activities. Since his lab has not been particularly productive in the past few months, it is possible that he simply made a bad decision in presenting Johns findings. However, Dr. Kent's culpability is compounded by his apparent fabrication of data. Either Dr. Kent miraculously replicated the experiments in a matter of weeks, or he fabricated the replicate data. Unfortunately, the former is most likely as in vivo experiments often require months to complete.
Physicians often have different notions regarding the communal use of data within a research group.
Physicians are not likely to be as sensitive to the competitive nature of science as a basic science faculty members might be. Second, Kent probably has never trained a graduate student and is not familiar with the role of a mentor in graduate student research training. Thus, he might be ignorant of the value of John's work to his future as an independent scientist. Finally, physicians are often more concerned with expediting the flow of information, particularly novel, efficacious therapeutics from the bench to the bedside. Dr. Kent's comments to Dr. Barry are an attempt to stimulate this line of discussion.