- Joined
- Feb 27, 2010
- Messages
- 66
- Reaction score
- 2
I wanted to get the thoughts of others in academia for what I thought is likely a very large problem based on my personal observation.
Firstly let me say that I WAS NOT a successful scientist which I will detail. I did attend a very prestigious research university where I obtained a Ph.D. with a highly ethical mentor and then obtained an M.D. (separate programs; Not MD/Ph.D. program). When I completed my MD, I entered a residency with the intention of remaining in academic medicine and research and this plan was openly discussed and planned for by my Program director. I was placed under the mentorship of an associate professor in a research program.
After about a year, I became increasingly uncomfortable with the science being done and presented in conferences and publications by members of the laboratory. I did try to state my scientific input and criticism (in a non-confrontational manner) during private discussions with the members doing the research (graduate students) but this was met with silence. While my scientific career was short-lived I did consider myself to be a competent protein biochemist, and I knew that some of the technical aspects of what was being done were clearly faulty. I continued in the lab giving the benefit of the doubt that results presented from the lab were faulty, but not fraudulent.
I did obtain a couple of national competitive grants during my mentorship and did produce a few papers, but my biggest project in the lab came to an abrupt halt when I discovered that one of the critical reagents that I was using was contaminated and clearly produced erroneous results. I did not discover this until I had already sent out a manuscript for publication to a prestigious journal. Fortunately (in my opinion) the manuscript was sent back asking for some further studies (which would have revealed the fault in my findings). I discussed the fact that the reagent contamination totally invalidated the conclusions of the manuscript and it was my intention to withdraw the manuscript from further consideration for publication until my results could be reproduced and verified using clean reagents. My mentor was clearly displeased and our relationship deteriorated from there. I would also point out that the contaminated reagent was and had been produced in-lab prior and during the time that I had begun working there and I had no role in its production. It was also used by most others in the laboratory and thus invalidated their results as well.
When my relationship with my mentor had totally deteriorated, I went to my program director and discussed the situation with her. I transferred to another mentor, but at that point, I had already become totally disenchanted with research and had made the decision in my own mind to not pursue academic medicine.
About a year after I left the laboratory, I got a call from one of the graduate students in the lab telling me that the manuscript that I had worked on had been published (in a third-tier journal) . I was able to obtain a copy and found it to be almost identical to what I had written and submitted with no new work, except that I was no longer first author. I was a bit shocked that this work had been resubmitted when I had done all the work, and had stated my position that the entire work was not valid, and that it had not even been given to me for approval prior to re-submission(which I would not have done). Basically this type of action confirmed my worst fears about the work being done in the lab. To a large extent, the reviewers of scientific journals are to blame for allowing junk science to be published, since many of my criticisms of the technical aspects of the work should have been detected by any competent protein biochemist. Yet what was even more disturbing to me was the fact that I felt there were many aspects of the work coming out of the lab that were not possible oversights or technical errors, but were scientific fraud. I considered writing to the journal where my work was published and asking to be removed as an author, but at the time I was still at the same university as junior faculty, and it would have been politically very uncomfortable and risky, and might be viewed as sour grapes on my part.
In conclusion, I left academic research because I think it was unlikely I would have been successful at it and I had become discouraged seeing what I felt to be fraud. The extended time between my graduate training, medical school, and residency made me less competitive than I could have been. Even if I had gone straight from graduate training to reseach I still think that it would have been very difficult to be a successful researcher. I think that the pressure to publish and get grants, may push some people to cut corners, fudge and this may progress to outright scientific fraud.
Perhaps I just happened to have the misfortune to work with what I consider to be an unethical researcher, but it makes me wonder how common scientific fraud is. Secondly, do others agree that the push to publish has meant the proliferation of "scientific journals," which basically profit by publication fees from the authors, but really have very poor standards.
Firstly let me say that I WAS NOT a successful scientist which I will detail. I did attend a very prestigious research university where I obtained a Ph.D. with a highly ethical mentor and then obtained an M.D. (separate programs; Not MD/Ph.D. program). When I completed my MD, I entered a residency with the intention of remaining in academic medicine and research and this plan was openly discussed and planned for by my Program director. I was placed under the mentorship of an associate professor in a research program.
After about a year, I became increasingly uncomfortable with the science being done and presented in conferences and publications by members of the laboratory. I did try to state my scientific input and criticism (in a non-confrontational manner) during private discussions with the members doing the research (graduate students) but this was met with silence. While my scientific career was short-lived I did consider myself to be a competent protein biochemist, and I knew that some of the technical aspects of what was being done were clearly faulty. I continued in the lab giving the benefit of the doubt that results presented from the lab were faulty, but not fraudulent.
I did obtain a couple of national competitive grants during my mentorship and did produce a few papers, but my biggest project in the lab came to an abrupt halt when I discovered that one of the critical reagents that I was using was contaminated and clearly produced erroneous results. I did not discover this until I had already sent out a manuscript for publication to a prestigious journal. Fortunately (in my opinion) the manuscript was sent back asking for some further studies (which would have revealed the fault in my findings). I discussed the fact that the reagent contamination totally invalidated the conclusions of the manuscript and it was my intention to withdraw the manuscript from further consideration for publication until my results could be reproduced and verified using clean reagents. My mentor was clearly displeased and our relationship deteriorated from there. I would also point out that the contaminated reagent was and had been produced in-lab prior and during the time that I had begun working there and I had no role in its production. It was also used by most others in the laboratory and thus invalidated their results as well.
When my relationship with my mentor had totally deteriorated, I went to my program director and discussed the situation with her. I transferred to another mentor, but at that point, I had already become totally disenchanted with research and had made the decision in my own mind to not pursue academic medicine.
About a year after I left the laboratory, I got a call from one of the graduate students in the lab telling me that the manuscript that I had worked on had been published (in a third-tier journal) . I was able to obtain a copy and found it to be almost identical to what I had written and submitted with no new work, except that I was no longer first author. I was a bit shocked that this work had been resubmitted when I had done all the work, and had stated my position that the entire work was not valid, and that it had not even been given to me for approval prior to re-submission(which I would not have done). Basically this type of action confirmed my worst fears about the work being done in the lab. To a large extent, the reviewers of scientific journals are to blame for allowing junk science to be published, since many of my criticisms of the technical aspects of the work should have been detected by any competent protein biochemist. Yet what was even more disturbing to me was the fact that I felt there were many aspects of the work coming out of the lab that were not possible oversights or technical errors, but were scientific fraud. I considered writing to the journal where my work was published and asking to be removed as an author, but at the time I was still at the same university as junior faculty, and it would have been politically very uncomfortable and risky, and might be viewed as sour grapes on my part.
In conclusion, I left academic research because I think it was unlikely I would have been successful at it and I had become discouraged seeing what I felt to be fraud. The extended time between my graduate training, medical school, and residency made me less competitive than I could have been. Even if I had gone straight from graduate training to reseach I still think that it would have been very difficult to be a successful researcher. I think that the pressure to publish and get grants, may push some people to cut corners, fudge and this may progress to outright scientific fraud.
Perhaps I just happened to have the misfortune to work with what I consider to be an unethical researcher, but it makes me wonder how common scientific fraud is. Secondly, do others agree that the push to publish has meant the proliferation of "scientific journals," which basically profit by publication fees from the authors, but really have very poor standards.
Last edited:
