My initial gut reaction is that, yes, this is plagiarism, period, particularly if the draft is being used without lab member 1’s permission. That said, my feeling is that this is one of those situations where the devil is in the many details that are missing from the description. I do agree with Michael that the question posed has to do with the lab’s head use of the draft produced by lab member 1 and not whether the data are flawed, though I believe that for reasons stated by others, the latter to be the bigger can of worms for all involved. Anyway, the quality of the data aside, whether the lab head can use the draft or not may depend on a couple of factors. For example, one that comes to mind is the question of whether the draft of the paper was initiated from scratch. For example, my understanding is that some labs have evolved templates for methods sections that are reconfigured to fit the specific experiment being described. That material may even include a list of references or even a prewritten literature review template and projected results all of which are then updated/changed to conform to the new variables being tested. If lab member 1 generated his/her draft based on a pre-existing template and there is some sort of pre-existing arrangement or common practice in the lab to share such work (see Scott Allen’s post) then the head of the lab may (and I mean MAY) be justified in using the draft though I would expect that even in this situation credit would be given in a byline for lab member 1’s contributions. But, the reality is probably much messier than the above scenario with all sorts of permutations that vastly complicates the case but that, in my view, would likely result in a plagiarism verdict anyway: For example, the paper was produced from scratch, lab member 1 did not (and would not) give his permission to use his work, whether it is tradition or not to do so in this particular lab. In sum, there are many conceivable details relevant to this case that might weigh in either direction.
My initial gut reaction is that, yes, this is plagiarism, period, particularly if the draft is being used without lab member 1’s permission. That said, my feeling is that this is one of those situations where the devil is in the many details that are missing from the description. I do agree with Michael that the question posed has to do with the lab’s head use of the draft produced by lab member 1 and not whether the data are flawed, though I believe that for reasons stated by others, the latter to be the bigger can of worms for all involved. Anyway, the quality of the data aside, whether the lab head can use the draft or not may depend on a couple of factors. For example, one that comes to mind is the question of whether the draft of the paper was initiated from scratch. For example, my understanding is that some labs have evolved templates for methods sections that are reconfigured to fit the specific experiment being described. That material may even include a list of references or even a prewritten literature review template and projected results all of which are then updated/changed to conform to the new variables being tested. If lab member 1 generated his/her draft based on a pre-existing template and there is some sort of pre-existing arrangement or common practice in the lab to share such work (see Scott Allen’s post) then the head of the lab may (and I mean MAY) be justified in using the draft though I would expect that even in this situation credit would be given in a byline for lab member 1’s contributions. But, the reality is probably much messier than the above scenario with all sorts of permutations that vastly complicates the case but that, in my view, would likely result in a plagiarism verdict anyway: For example, the paper was produced from scratch, lab member 1 did not (and would not) give his permission to use his work, whether it is tradition or not to do so in this particular lab. In sum, there are many conceivable details relevant to this case that might weigh in either direction.