The Endless Frontier

OK, back to the SSS letter to the editor. The Oracle at Google leads me to believe that this gentleman is the author. The only reason I mention this fact is because he appears to be an unbiased party and has a cool picture on his Web site. Quoth Mr. Mengnjoh:

I was disappointed to read that Columbia University chemistry professor Dalibor Sames retracted four more scientific papers (C&EN Online Latest News, June 16). I wonder if this is a trend of a professor and student getting into serious trouble and putting the future of U.S. chemistry, which is the envy of the world, in jeopardy.

Wow…and people accuse me of using hyperbole. In defense of Sames and Sezen, I think you can also count the journals and Columbia among the parties who have bruised the field in this mess.

I was also surprised to learn that Sames was asked to police himself by trying to redo the experiments, while the student who conducted the experiments had moved on to a German university and was pursuing a doctorate in another subject area. Can someone at ACS explain to us what is really going on here?

Hey, I’ve got a great idea to solve the crime problem in this country. Let’s put all accused criminals in charge of processing their own crime scenes. And let’s put the suspects’ families in charge of their prosecution. While we’re at it, let’s allow the system to operate behind closed doors and announce verdicts at its leisure.

Ugh. Our system for investigating scientific misconduct is truly pathetic.

Should professors supervising graduate students in chemistry be more vigilant in monitoring what is going on in their labs and making sure our chemistry research is not tainted by students who are not careful in recording their findings in lab notebooks? The lab notebooks should be carefully examined before signing off on students’ findings so that we don’t have the situation that has happened at Columbia. I’m sure other ACS members would also like the answer to the questions I have raised here.

I get the feeling that a lot of people still think this is a case of possible negligence instead of possible misconduct. Either way, Mr. Mengnjoh is right: everyone involved in a project bears some of the responsibility for its accuracy and authenticity. For those of you worried about the implications, you can take solace in the likelihood that the community will forgive a scientist who gets caught with a bad collaborator on a paper or two. Seven papers is a different story.

In other news, 60+120+60= late October by my calculations. That’s when we can start expecting to hear the results of Columbia’s investigation. I thought that the school would have wanted to wrap everything up before the start of the school year. After all, Dr. Sames is teaching Advanced Organic Chemistry this semester. Fortunately, another professor is sharing the course. I guess Sames gets the first half?

Why October? Take a gander at Columbia’s new policy on scientific misconduct:

1. A response to an Allegation shall consist of three phases:

a. Inquiry: the gathering of preliminary information and fact-finding to assess whether such Allegation has substance and if so, whether an Investigation is warranted (an “Inquiry”);

b. Investigation: the formal development of a factual record with respect to such Allegation and the examination and evaluation of such record leading to dismissal of the case or a recommendation of a finding of Research Misconduct and/or other appropriate corrective actions (an “Investigation”); and

c. Adjudication: the formal procedure for reviewing and evaluating the evidentiary record and report of an Investigation and for determining whether to agree with the recommended findings and to impose appropriate corrective actions (an “Adjudication”).

8. In general, an Inquiry should be completed within 60 days of its initiation, provided that the Standing Committee may approve one or more reasonable extensions to the extent deemed necessary or appropriate.

8. In general, an Investigation should be completed within 120 days of its initiation, provided that the Standing Committee may approve one or more reasonable extensions to the extent deemed necessary or appropriate.

3. In general, an Adjudication should be completed within 60 days of its initiation, provided that the EVPR may approve one or more reasonable extensions to the extent deemed necessary or appropriate.

That’s about eight months total. Let’s assume that the people at Columbia started their investigation on March 1st, when the initial set of retractions came out. Eight months later would be late October/early November. In reality, the investigation should have started last year, when this story first erupted, but whatever. As letters to the editor, WWW traffic, and water cooler talk can attest, the community will not let Columbia drop this case without an explanation. Let’s hear it…

Explore posts in the same categories: Science, Chemistry

This entry was posted on Saturday, September 30th, 2006 at 12:19 am and is filed under Science, Chemistry. You can subscribe via RSS 2.0 feed to this post's comments. You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site. Your comments will appear immediately, but I reserve the right to delete inappropriate comments.