Being manipulated by a faculty member I started my research with

[GLT-1]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Two years ago I asked a faculty member (PhD) if I could serve as my own PI for a project in her lab, she is the reason I chose the medical school I am at and she allowed me to do this study. I also recruited a notable clinical faculty member onto the project to help with recruitment of patients and help with the interpretation of the data. After designing the entirety of the project, doing the majority of the recruitment of the participants through social media, and processing literally millions blood sugar reading through complex computer programs she did statical analysis on the findings and found that some of the findings go against her current published research, she had been adamant about not publishing this aspect of the data. I told her that's fine, let's just publish the other findings we have, if there are any. After a couple weeks without responding to my texts and emails I get a text saying to sign off on something to be published because it's due in five hours. I refused, I didn't know what data set was used, understand what I was singing onto and the other clinical faculty member wasn't on the publication. She get's upset with me, tells me that my research is not good enough to get accepted into any other journal than the one she has submitted it to without my consent which I never even heard of at the time and basically I have no other option but to sign it. I still refused to sign it.

It turns out she was using the wrong dataset for the data she submitted to the journal. Eventually, our findings got accepted to be presented as a poster then published into a high impact journal. But the same pattern persisted, she gave me and the other researcher about 6 hours before the deadline to approve of the publication. I realized that she is still using the wrong dataset, I point this out to her and the other clinical faculty in email and she told me she is going to write me up for professionalism if I ever "question her expertise" again. I have since then been told by her I "cannot make assumptions about what was done or what should be done". I'm writing this poster for the study and making suggestions on the poster and publication which I am the PI of on the IRB I'm realizing more concerning mistakes she had made in processing this data and putting putting into this publication.

I don't know if I should even point these things out to her and realize another professionalism violation could seriously affect the trajectory of my entire career since I am applying to residency in a few months and having another professionalism violation will likely end up on my application.

I don't know what to do, I know there are at least a few other publications in this dataset but I feel like I am being manipulated by the faculty member I started this research with. And trust me have continued to write everything to her as respectfully as I can by posing her mistakes as questions to her asking if she is certain this is the correct data set, asking if I have the correct understanding just to show respect.

 

[ShinySephiroth]

You need to involve her boss and other higher ups, whoever they may be. This person you may never see again in your life is not worth messing up your career.

 

[ValentinNarcisse]

Two years ago I asked a faculty member (PhD) if I could serve as my own PI for a project in her lab, she is the reason I chose the medical school I am at and she allowed me to do this study. I also recruited a notable clinical faculty member onto the project to help with recruitment of patients and help with the interpretation of the data. After designing the entirety of the project, doing the majority of the recruitment of the participants through social media, and processing literally millions blood sugar reading through complex computer programs she did statical analysis on the findings and found that some of the findings go against her current published research, she had been adamant about not publishing this aspect of the data. I told her that's fine, let's just publish the other findings we have, if there are any. After a couple weeks without responding to my texts and emails I get a text saying to sign off on something to be published because it's due in five hours. I refused, I didn't know what data set was used, understand what I was singing onto and the other clinical faculty member wasn't on the publication. She get's upset with me, tells me that my research is not good enough to get accepted into any other journal than the one she has submitted it to without my consent which I never even heard of at the time and basically I have no other option but to sign it. I still refused to sign it.

It turns out she was using the wrong dataset for the data she submitted to the journal. Eventually, our findings got accepted to be presented as a poster then published into a high impact journal. But the same pattern persisted, she gave me and the other researcher about 6 hours before the deadline to approve of the publication. I realized that she is still using the wrong dataset, I point this out to her and the other clinical faculty in email and she told me she is going to write me up for professionalism if I ever "question her expertise" again. I have since then been told by her I "cannot make assumptions about what was done or what should be done". I'm writing this poster for the study and making suggestions on the poster and publication which I am the PI of on the IRB I'm realizing more concerning mistakes she had made in processing this data and putting putting into this publication.

I don't know if I should even point these things out to her and realize another professionalism violation could seriously affect the trajectory of my entire career since I am applying to residency in a few months and having another professionalism violation will likely end up on my application.

I don't know what to do, I know there are at least a few other publications in this dataset but I feel like I am being manipulated by the faculty member I started this research with. And trust me have continued to write everything to her as respectfully as I can by posing her mistakes as questions to her asking if she is certain this is the correct data set, asking if I have the correct understanding just to show respect.

You have everything to lose in this situation now that the word ’professionalism’ has been dropped. I would talk to your MSTP leadership before things escalate further. If there is an issue with academic integrity with this faculty member, maybe there is a way you can not participate in the current bogus papers, pull out your clinical dataset you collected, and reanalyze/publish with a new statistician and the MD you are working with on the project. Before you do all of this, just be completely sure about this dataset issue, I cannot imagine a faculty member behaving in this manner after you have brought up the issue.

 

[ShinySephiroth]

You have everything to lose in this situation now that the word ’professionalism’ has been dropped. I would talk to your MSTP leadership before things escalate further. If there is an issue with academic integrity with this faculty member, maybe there is a way you can not participate in the current bogus papers, pull out your clinical dataset you collected, and reanalyze/publish with a new statistician and the MD you are working with on the project. Before you do all of this, just be completely sure about this dataset issue, I cannot imagine a faculty member behaving in this manner after you have brought up the issue.

Yeah, when I read this I was heavily leaning to give the benefit of the doubt. I have to admit I thought about the scenario where OP was actually interpreting the data wrong and causes a fuss over their mistake. Hoping that either way this works out for you, OP!

 

[Neuronix]

What level are you? Student, resident, post-doc/fellow, faculty?

 

[GLT-1]

What level are you? Student, resident, post-doc/fellow, faculty?

Third year medical student

 

[dl2dp2]

A couple of generic things:

1. A student can be a PI for a study, but typically cannot be a PI for an IRB, since you don't have the proper licensure to deal with all the contingencies of a human subjects study. It's unfortunate that your own PI didn't tell you this, and this is screwing up your administrative role.

2. People who are interpersonally very skilled can sometimes "skip a level", and be PIs on major grants, IRBs, etc. This requires complicated and dynamic skills to deal with lots of potential contingencies. However, applications of interpersonal skills are not a science--mistakes can be made, and risk management is very important.

3. You are breathlessly explaining a very complicated situation in a way that's not even very clear. I would start there. Explain, and write down what exactly happened to who, and what was said and what was done. Then, take this piece of information to your administrative supervisor (which in your case is your MSTP director), and ask for mentorship and advice.

4. In general, academic conflicts can be resolved in a win-win with the appropriate interpersonal finess. Unfortunately people don't get enough mentorship and don't have enough experience to handle these things, and they get emotionally entangled in a mess. Thinking back I've made so many rookie mistakes, and if I actually had good mentorship I would've handled the situation so much better. So your first order of business is to discuss this with one or ideally multiple senior mentors. Because these things are dynamic (i.e. your response depends on what happens to you), it needs to be a *relationship* rather than just a one time consultation. Furthermore, these relationships are predicated on trust and a lack of conflict of interest, so one important skill is to appreciate what these "outside interests" are. I never understood these things until literally years later.

 

[Neuronix]

Third year medical student in an mstp? What's your research background?

 

[Maebea]

Does your school have an ombudsperson? This is a very challenging situation, and you need someone who will look out for your interests. The ombuds can discuss your options and are not obligated to report things up the chain if you tell them you do not wish it to go farther.

 

[Dormouse]

So sorry that you're in this situation. I'm assuming from your post that you're a MD-only student. As a PhD faculty member and presumably the last author on your papers and posters, she is technically the "principal investigator" on this study, even though you might have been given a lead role and applied for the IRB approval. Second the suggestion from more senior SDN members that you need to reach out to your dean or another advisor from the school of medicine at this point to help you navigate the process to find a solution that is mutually beneficial and agreeable to you and this PhD faculty member.

I realized that she is still using the wrong dataset, I point this out to her and the other clinical faculty in email and she told me she is going to write me up for professionalism if I ever "question her expertise" again.

I'm thoroughly confused as to how this is unprofessionalism on the GLT-1's part. Is it that she's disputing the OP's interpretation of the data? If the faculty mentor is consistently using the wrong dataset, then that needs to be corrected, because that is precisely the professional and ethical thing to do. What does the other clinical faculty member on the study say about this?

 

[GLT-1]

So sorry that you're in this situation. I'm assuming from your post that you're a MD-only student. As a PhD faculty member and presumably the last author on your papers and posters, she is technically the "principal investigator" on this study, even though you might have been given a lead role and applied for the IRB approval. Second the suggestion from more senior SDN members that you need to reach out to your dean or another advisor from the school of medicine at this point to help you navigate the process to find a solution that is mutually beneficial and agreeable to you and this PhD faculty member.


I'm thoroughly confused as to how this is unprofessionalism on the GLT-1's part. Is it that she's disputing the OP's interpretation of the data? If the faculty mentor is consistently using the wrong dataset, then that needs to be corrected, because that is precisely the professional and ethical thing to do. What does the other clinical faculty member on the study say about this?

I don't understand how questioning her expertise is a professionalism issue either, I think she is clearly trying to intimidate me, which is probably a professionalism issue on her side? So I'm listed as PI on the IRB, she is listed as the advisor, and after refusing to publish the work after she tried pressuring me to do so the first time she told me by email and text "you need to understand I am the guarantor of this work". MD faculty is as confused as I am but thinks we should drop the project after one publication since he still has to work with her after this but I know there are at least three more publications in this dataset.

 

[Dormouse]

It's not a professionalism issue on your part and don't be intimidated. If you're concerned, reach out to your med school advisor/dean to ask advice on this dilemma that you have. It's unclear if this person is being borderline unethical in her research conduct, or your data could simply be reorganized and presented in a different way, but overall some people are difficult to work with but you still have to deal with them.

When I'm in these kinds of situations, it helps me to think of everything in terms of 1) what does this faculty member want and 2) what is it that I need for myself.

As a PhD faculty, she likely wants:
-more publications and presentations from her group
-results that support the former work of her lab that help her secure more grant funding
-free labor in the form of med students

You as a medical student about to apply to residency need and benefit from:
-more publications and presentations
-good recommendation letters and your mentor's network, if she has any, in your field of interest

First of all, if your MD faculty collaborator wants to continue to work with her, you cannot drop her at this point and take your datasets to someone else. If she's been your mentor, in the research world she now has credit and ownership over the work as well. You need the MD faculty member on your side because you'll need someone to write your a recommendation letter.

You and the PhD person both benefit if you can get your datasets submitted and published in the form of manuscripts. Her support as an established investigator elevates your work. If she wants to write the papers, then that's even better for you because it saves you more time to focus on other things in life, as long as you still get credit for what you did do.

If you fear that she's misconstruing the data in an unethical way and tying your name to it, I would specify to her in writing what you think your findings are and how you would personally interpret it, but then acknowledge in writing that obviously she has more experience on this topic as a faculty member and that you therefore defer to her judgment on this matter. And CC your collaborator and later forward it to your med school dean/advisors as your witnesses. Unless you're publishing in a very controversial area with a very high impact paper, chances are no one will ever read your paper that closely. And there is always the possibility that she is right and you as a student are missing something in your analysis, especially if your clinician collaborator is also not challenging her on this.

One day when you're ever a mentor yourself, be a better one than she was to you, and use this awful and frustrating situation as a lesson for learning what kind of person to never work with ever again.

Edit: to clarify, by dean I mean the academic dean to students at your medical school who is in charge of advising students and who often writes your residency letter for example, whatever that position is called at your institution.

 

[GLT-1]

A couple of generic things:

1. A student can be a PI for a study, but typically cannot be a PI for an IRB, since you don't have the proper licensure to deal with all the contingencies of a human subjects study. It's unfortunate that your own PI didn't tell you this, and this is screwing up your administrative role.

2. People who are interpersonally very skilled can sometimes "skip a level", and be PIs on major grants, IRBs, etc. This requires complicated and dynamic skills to deal with lots of potential contingencies. However, applications of interpersonal skills are not a science--mistakes can be made, and risk management is very important.

3. You are breathlessly explaining a very complicated situation in a way that's not even very clear. I would start there. Explain, and write down what exactly happened to who, and what was said and what was done. Then, take this piece of information to your administrative supervisor (which in your case is your MSTP director), and ask for mentorship and advice.

4. In general, academic conflicts can be resolved in a win-win with the appropriate interpersonal finess. Unfortunately people don't get enough mentorship and don't have enough experience to handle these things, and they get emotionally entangled in a mess. Thinking back I've made so many rookie mistakes, and if I actually had good mentorship I would've handled the situation so much better. So your first order of business is to discuss this with one or ideally multiple senior mentors. Because these things are dynamic (i.e. your response depends on what happens to you), it needs to be a *relationship* rather than just a one time consultation. Furthermore, these relationships are predicated on trust and a lack of conflict of interest, so one important skill is to appreciate what these "outside interests" are. I never understood these things until literally years later.

What sucks is that both of these people are my research mentors, it seems like my best option is to go to the ombusperson of the university to resolve this issue, I'm not getting letters of recommendation from either of them for residency and I shouldn't have to risk my career and residency application with a potential professionalism violation by working with this lady and I shouldn't have to hide the results of my data to please the PhD faculty member

 

[Eye-eye]

Crap like this is why I hate research