More on Misconduct
There’s a huge feature story in today’s NY Times magazine about a recent case of scientific misconduct. It’s worth the read.
Before his fall from grace, Poehlman oversaw a lab where nearly a dozen students and postdoctoral researchers carried out his projects. His research earned him recognition among his peers and invitations to speak at conferences around the world. And he made nearly $140,000, one of the top salaries at the University of Vermont. All of that began to change six years ago, when DeNino took his concerns about anomalies in Poehlman’s data to university officials. The subsequent investigation — a collaboration among the University of Vermont, the Office of Research Integrity (which is within the Department of Health and Human Services) and the United States Department of Justice — uncovered fraudulent research that stretched back through almost half of Poehlman’s career. The revelations led to the retraction or correction of 10 scientific papers, and Poehlman was banned forever from receiving public research money. He was only the second scientist in the United States to face criminal prosecution for falsifying research data.
At 50, with his career in ruins and his reputation destroyed, Poehlman could only hope to avoid one final humiliation: becoming the first researcher sentenced to prison for scientific misconduct.
also of interest:
Explore posts in the same categories: ScienceLate in the month, following a series of letters, e-mail and confrontations between Poehlman and DeNino, none of which laid the technician’s concerns to rest, DeNino went to Thomas Mercurio, the university’s general counsel, to lodge a formal, written accusation of scientific misconduct against his former mentor. The process he set in motion would take almost six years to conclude.
All universities that receive public money to conduct research are required to have an integrity officer who ensures compliance with federal guidelines. But policing its scientists can be a heavy burden for a university. “It’s your own faculty, and there’s this idea of supporting and nurturing them,” says Ellen Hyman-Browne, a research-compliance officer at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, a teaching hospital. Moreover, investigations cost time and money, and no institution wants to discover something that could cast a shadow on its reputation.
“There are conflicting influences on a university where they are the co-grantor and responsible to other investigators,” says Stephen Kelly, the Justice Department attorney who prosecuted Poehlman. “For the system to work, the university has to be very ethical.”
October 23rd, 2006 at 3:25 pm
I think federal sentencing guidelines should also include the money wasted by other researchers following up on his results.
366 days in prison very light, don’t you think?
I also find it hard to believe that only one of his students figured out he was cooking his data over the years.
October 23rd, 2006 at 3:58 pm
I totally agree…he should have gotten more. Scientific misconduct is a nasty crime and almost impossible to catch. When you get someone red-handed, especially a guy as flagrant as this one, you have to throw the book at him.
I can sympathize with the reluctance of the students to run afoul of their advisor, even though he was guilty. If you and your PhD advisor have a falling out, whether justified or not, isn’t your career in research pretty much over? Who is going to interview a student whose application lacks a letter of recommendation from her advisor? And I imagine that whistleblowers, even when acting in the most ethical manner possible, are not people that companies or institutions look to have around, either.
October 24th, 2006 at 12:44 am
Now, al least, finally, this seems to be a real case of scientific misconduct, carried out by an American scientist under the auspices of NIH, fortunately not judged in this case by some plebiscitarian American jury, but by a professional judge, as it is common in normal civilized nations. What a progress !
October 24th, 2006 at 1:04 am
And, here is one last question. Would you, Paul, have had the guts to behave like Walter deNino ? I doubt it. The only thing you dared so far in this blog was to promote your boss for the Nobel prize (and it has not worked).
Sorry, enough maliciousness for now.
October 24th, 2006 at 9:18 am
Uh, Wolfie, he pleaded guilty. That means that he doesn’t go in front of a jury; if he had not pleaded guilty, he could have still faced a jury trial. I don’t know about other common, normal, civilized nations, but in the US, citizens always have the right to waive jury trial and be tried by a judge.
October 24th, 2006 at 9:30 am
Changing labs and/or fields is a good option in this situation.
October 24th, 2006 at 4:49 pm
Wolfie, you continue to leave comments that demonstrate you’re an idiot.
#1) The list of odds was made based on whom I thought would win the Prize. I said that explicitly; go check. If it were made based on whom I thought should win the Nobel, then Djerassi and DuPont (you can give the Prize to an organization, and I’d give it to them for fluorocarbons) would be at the top of the list. Also, there’s about a 0.0000001% chance that anyone of importance in making these decisions reads this blog, so who cares? Based on not seeing his IP address in the access log, I’m pretty sure my boss doesn’t read this site either.
#2) How the hell do you know what I’d do in a similar situation? Do you know me? If you’ve got a good reason to think the way you do, please share it. Your standard arguments basically involve throwing out insults based on nothing.
Also, we are all waiting to hear how you know Bengu. That is, if you are not Bengu herself.
October 24th, 2006 at 6:27 pm
At least it is obvious that the two of you agree that it is a mistake to leave the Sames/Sezen case to be worked over by Columbia PR.
If Ms. Sezen (or anyone) can prove the retracted chemical protocols work as stated, then she should sue Columbia and have her day in court.
Personally, I would be happy if the protocols were correct because they advance the field, regardless of my past connections with Columbia.
October 25th, 2006 at 11:28 am
I think best advance to the field was done by debunking the baloney. As a side-effect, bright students were saved from joining that group. But as Paul said, it was tragic for existing group members, for the hardworking students whose job prospects tanked with Sames
October 26th, 2006 at 5:31 pm
The Sames/Sezen retraction was a recent topic on the APS “Ask an Ethicist” column.
The editor-in-chief says that retraction isn’t an option when:
(1) one or more of the authors haven’t been offered a chance to
respond to a retraction
and
(2) there is no independent proof of misconduct as per the
institutional/funding guidelines.
http://www.aps.org/apsnews/0806/080616.cfm
My gut tells me the research is baloney, but I reserve judgment because I’ve never tried the rxn or seen a peer reviewed article debunking it. This is science after all.
The hexacyclinol affair turned out much better…retraction forthcoming I hope.
October 26th, 2006 at 6:28 pm
Wow. Thanks for the link, Joel. That article merits a full post.
October 26th, 2006 at 8:15 pm
Thanks for the comment, Klug, so at least Mephisto has learned something.
Quote: “Your standard arguments basically involve throwing out insults based on nothing.” end quote
But Paul, what are your standard arguments against Sames/Sezen based on ??
October 26th, 2006 at 8:30 pm
How about the fact that he retracted seven papers…without the approval of the first author…then implicitly blamed her? And the fact that everyone in the business seems to have heard the exact same story about how everything went down? You’re right, Wolfie…nothing suspicious there! Put your head in the sand, everyone. At least the smell won’t be as bad as where Wolfie’s is.
October 26th, 2006 at 9:22 pm
One thing might be to say “I don’t know”
But instead: “Put your head down in the sand, everyone”, as Paul wants it !
Well, the best way to remove the smell, would be to write an article, to discuss the pros and cons, to get judged by some referees, to write the rejection letters and to correct the typos in the galley proofs. A hard way, I admit, even for a Harvard student.
October 26th, 2006 at 9:44 pm
What’s the matter, Wolfie? Did you forget how to spell your name? Are you going to start pretending that there are people that share your opinion?
October 26th, 2006 at 10:21 pm
Who knows ? Anyone can forget to press the right button, but who knows what is right ? Check it out…
October 27th, 2006 at 10:20 am
Bah, only old europe-ans don’t know what is right and wrong. George Bush, he’s the man, can clearly tell you what is right. He hasn’t really said that yet, but he said that child porn and terrorism are wrong. Old Europe is going down if you guys can’t get with the program of clear rights and wrongs.
Heidelberg eh? What kind of proper name for a city is that? Sounds… ambiguous and neutral.
Bush hasn’t said anything about research misconduct, but that might be a good question to ask him during a campaign stop.