The Sames Story Lives…in C&E News!!
I thought that the editors at C&EN would be the last people to re-kindle the smoldering ambers of the Sames-Sezen Scandal, but look at this letter in today’s issue of the “news” magazine. I’ve been meaning to write on the SSS, because the clock is running out on Columbia’s investigation. If you can believe what is written in their faculty handbook, by my calculations, Columbia should have an announcement for us by late October.
I’ll post the letter when I have the time to add some comments (for the purpose of claiming fair use). Maybe justice will be served after all?
Update: I ratcheted up the spam filters recently, so if your comment doesn’t post immediately, you can either: 1) wait until I get around to approving it or 2) resubmit after removing words like ‘viagra’ and ‘horny’
September 26th, 2006 at 7:54 pm
The best part is the letter in support of intelligent design right below this one.
Apparently someone forgot that the ID movement has failed to publish any peer-reviewed work to even be criticized by the scientific community!
September 27th, 2006 at 2:04 am
Danishefsky came here (Berkeley) about two months ago and told us during a meeting with him that some formal announcement would be soon forthcoming. Yet, nothing has come out…
And I wonder what happened of the whole relationship deal (did they or didn’t they have some sort of affair). A professor here claimed that Sames’ colleagues saw Bengu sitting on his lap in a bar (after she won some fellowship). But again, nothing has come out of Columbia on this or any of this scandal.
Anyway, good to see the gossip back! Always a good time.
September 27th, 2006 at 3:50 am
word all around his group is that there was no relationship. the overwheming majority of people i’ve talked to say that the affair rumor is absurd, but sames has asked his group not to answer any questions about it…
as for the investigation, at least two professors in the department have personally told me that they believe he’ll be completely cleared. i don’t know if columbia is going to make an announcement next month, but rumor has it that the first-years were assured that the decision will be out before they pick groups in december.
September 27th, 2006 at 6:12 am
I find the relationship rumor among the least important facets of the story. While I’d never do it myself (for the obvious harassment implications), in theory, I have no problem with two consenting adults choosing to accept these risks and enter a romantic relationship. I don’t think it’s smart, but I don’t think it’s unethical, either.
The first-year angle is interesting. I thought a big (and overlooked) issue in this case were the rumors, ’semi-confirmed’ by people in the department and the historical record of the Sames Lab Web site, that multiple students either chose, were asked, or were forced to leave the lab because they could not reproduce some of the results that were later retracted.
If these rumors are true:
1) First-years might want to think twice about working in such an environment.
2) Would this not count as evidence of gross negligence on the part of the advisor?
And I don’t understand how you can retract seven papers without eventually being punished. Could those profs have meant he would be ‘completely cleared’ of knowingly fabricating data? If he is ‘completely cleared,’ it would seem that she would have to be completely cleared too. If not, that’d be a clever but all-too-obvious faculty-over-students hit job. No one is going to support a system where one party gets the credit for the work but another party bears responsibility (ref: CEOs, coaches in sports, and Jimmy Carter’s 1980 campaign).
September 27th, 2006 at 4:00 pm
The only reason a possible relationship matters is if it clouded Sames’ judgement. For example, would he have been quicker to believe the other students (who were told to leave) over Bengu? It’s exactly the reason why advisors should not have relationships with their students (or post-docs). It makes you less objective of any potential malfeasance.
I also agree with you, Paul, that the corresponding author must have some responsiblity. If they are not willing to take ownership of the data when a problem exists, why are they so willing to claim ownership when things are going smoothly?
September 27th, 2006 at 8:28 pm
You can expect Columbia to do what is best for Columbia (its chemistry program, its future funding and reputation). It is not in Columbia interest to stage a public execution - the best damage control would be a salvage operation to deflect the blame from Sames, regardless of whether they like him or not. They have to investigate, to show a due dilligence in mess like this and possibly to preempt outside authorities from launching investigation on their own. I find it quite concievable that Sames will be “cleared”, but his tenure would be put on hold and his group will remain under close scrutiny by the Chem Department for some time. So I would predict a careful whitewash with some tough internal disciplinary measures. That’s my outsiders guess.
September 28th, 2006 at 10:36 am
In general, I don’t think that the travails of one faculty member affect the reputation of the department as a whole in prospective students’ eyes. So I am not sure how much the Columbia department has to worry about, at least from the perspective of getting future students. If I were applying, I know that Breslow is good, and he stays good for me. I am not concerned what Sames did because I am not interested in joining his group. I think it would be naive for me to generalize and say that I don’t want to go to Columbia because look, what their faculty are upto.
September 28th, 2006 at 11:12 pm
Paul,
here I am. It must be a horrible fate not to get accepted at Columbia, but only at Harvard and having to think about the world.
Best regards,
Mephistopheles