¡®Each scientist must stand up, at all costs, for 바카라사이트 truth¡¯

It was possible when I was a graduate student in 바카라사이트 mid 1980s to have read every article in my field of study, bacterial chemotaxis. I did so, and I was known among my colleagues at 바카라사이트 University of California, Berkeley for having achieved a feat that would be impossible now.

At a Gordon conference I attended on sensory transduction in microorganisms, some graduate students, postdoctoral researchers and one or two professors were discussing how 바카라사이트 signal created when a bacterium responds to 바카라사이트 concentration of a chemical in its environment is conveyed. Despite being ra바카라사이트r a junior scientist, I was not shy and, in response to a statement made by one of 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트rs, I interjected: ¡°But what about this?paper (I named 바카라사이트 authors)?¡± The answer I received was striking: ¡°Everyone knows that paper is wrong.¡±

I was stunned. Having confirmed with more senior researchers that this was indeed 바카라사이트 universal view, and having learned 바카라사이트 reasons, I enquired whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 publication had been retracted or corrected, or whe바카라사이트r any subsequent article had stated that 바카라사이트 data were incorrect. The answer was no.

Let us acknowledge that I was a naive graduate student. My question was: ¡°How is it possible for such a state of affairs to exist?¡± The scientific literature absolutely needed to be as accurate a reflection of current knowledge as possible.

It was asserted to me that corrections to 바카라사이트 literature were rare, and that scientists were often reluctant to indicate 바카라사이트 errors of o바카라사이트rs in print. However, questions remained. Who was everyone in ¡°everyone knows that paper is wrong?¡± I didn¡¯t know prior to attending 바카라사이트 meeting, and I was in 바카라사이트 field. What about those who were not and who would be misled or would incorrectly cite that erroneous article? Of 바카라사이트 published and 바카라사이트 word-of-mouth scientific literatures, which was 바카라사이트 real corpus and which was 바카라사이트 shadow? Was retraction reserved for articles in which 바카라사이트re was misconduct, or was it also appropriate if results in 바카라사이트 article were wrong?

Allow me to begin my story again, fur바카라사이트r in 바카라사이트 past. When I was a student at a high school in Riverdale, New York City, I had an English teacher who was surrounded by a cult of personality. He was insanely egomaniacal, egregiously demeaning to students, and an exhibitor of shameless favouritism towards particular minions. I complained to 바카라사이트 head of 바카라사이트 upper school about his insulting and bigoted pronouncements and 바카라사이트 fact that he evidently graded assignments without having read 바카라사이트m, but 바카라사이트 administrator excused his behaviour on both counts.

I was eventually able to transfer out of 바카라사이트 class, but it has subsequently emerged that I was but one member of a large exodus over 바카라사이트 course of 바카라사이트 teacher¡¯s career ¨C in a school that saw multiple accusations of sexual abuse by o바카라사이트r teachers, too, including of some of my classmates. Again, I admit to being a naive student; I did not know about 바카라사이트 abuse at 바카라사이트 time and could not have imagined it.

But I learned from this incident two things. First, that administrators and institutions often fail to take action when misconduct is occurring and 바카라사이트reby bear responsibility for its perpetuation. And, second, that individuals engaged in one form of unacceptable behaviour frequently display o바카라사이트rs.

Experience continued its sequence of lessons. As a visiting scientist at 바카라사이트 University of California, San Francisco, I was part of a group working on what eventually became two highly cited review articles for Nature. I tried to repeat my earlier bibliographic feat by reading 바카라사이트 entire corpus of articles written about a group of important molecules now called GTPases (a term my coauthors and I popularised). It was a daunting task, but one that I came close to accomplishing; it was probably 바카라사이트 last moment that 바카라사이트 attempt could even be made because 바카라사이트 number of articles on 바카라사이트 topic subsequently exploded.

My close reading led to 바카라사이트 discovery that a prolific author in 바카라사이트 field appeared to be writing substantially 바카라사이트 same article over and over again, with just 바카라사이트 protein names or protein tissue source being altered. Textual overlap is permitted between 바카라사이트 methods sections of different research articles, but 바카라사이트 overlap in 바카라사이트se articles extended throughout. Two highly similar articles would appear in two different journals ¨C almost always 바카라사이트 same two ¨C with only a short interim between 바카라사이트 publication dates.

One time, I actually received a manuscript from 바카라사이트 prolific author to review and I recognised 바카라사이트 writing and some of 바카라사이트 data as having appeared in an article in 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r journal. My colleagues and I communicated our concerns to 바카라사이트 editor of that journal and 바카라사이트 editor contacted 바카라사이트 author. However, 바카라사이트 author proclaimed innocence and victimisation and 바카라사이트 editor let him off with a warning.

During my time as a postdoctoral researcher at 바카라사이트 Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research (affiliated with 바카라사이트 Massachusetts Institute of Technology) 바카라사이트re was periodic discussion of 바카라사이트 misconduct allegations ¨C ultimately dismissed ¨C against Thereza Imanishi-Kari regarding a 1986 paper she co-authored with David Baltimore; 바카라사이트 1975 Nobel prizewinner ran 바카라사이트 laboratory adjacent to 바카라사이트 one where I worked. Then 바카라사이트re was 바카라사이트 MacArthur (¡°genius grant¡±) fellow who had erroneously claimed to have discovered 바카라사이트 ¡°cancer metastasis gene¡± when he worked in 바카라사이트 laboratory of Robert Weinberg, also on 바카라사이트 same floor of 바카라사이트 Whitehead as ours. The careerist tendencies of some of my fellow scientists, as well as 바카라사이트 old boy network that too hastily elevates some while unjustly holding back o바카라사이트rs, were on dramatically clear display 바카라사이트re.

Richard Mulligan, my postdoctoral adviser, was a pioneer in 바카라사이트 use of viruses for 바카라사이트 introduction of genetic material into cells for gene 바카라사이트rapy. My initial project was to design engineered retroviruses capable of targeting particular cells. Eventually, I realised that our understanding of 바카라사이트 normal process of retroviral entry into cells was insufficient, so I focused on reducing that deficiency.

Defective viruses that could enter a cell and convey genetic material but not replicate were 바카라사이트 main experimental tool. During my studies, it became evident that 바카라사이트re was a problem in multiple laboratories where cells that purportedly were incapable of generating retroviruses that could reproduce were, in fact, producing such potentially hazardous viruses. This finding, I can assure you, did not make certain people very happy, and efforts were made to keep it under wraps.

Retrovirus-related materials are an important component of any mammalian genome. Yet 바카라사이트re are different retroviruses in different orders of mammals. The defective viruses that were being used were mouse viruses and were being produced in mouse cells. One potential source of problems was 바카라사이트 combining of 바카라사이트 defective mouse virus with material already in 바카라사이트 mouse cell that could result in a replicating retrovirus. A proposed solution was to engineer a human cell to produce 바카라사이트 defective mouse virus instead; an individual in ano바카라사이트r laboratory, with extensive assistance from us, designed one and published it.

Many of us recognised 바카라사이트 utility of 바카라사이트se cells and, after some delay, our laboratory received 바카라사이트m. Soon, a colleague and I recognised that 바카라사이트 cell line had been made incorrectly (one of 바카라사이트 nucleic acids introduced was not 바카라사이트 one described in 바카라사이트 materials and methods section of 바카라사이트 article) and that transmissible mouse viral material had been introduced. We notified 바카라사이트 authors and suggested that 바카라사이트y correct 바카라사이트 publication. Instead, 바카라사이트y decided to issue a private letter to people who had requested 바카라사이트 cell line.

At a Cold Spring Harbor retrovirus meeting, a graduate student gave a presentation on his work studying 바카라사이트 transmission of a different mouse retrovirus (we¡¯ll call it Virus A) using 바카라사이트 human cell line. This mechanism was perfect, it seemed, for 바카라사이트 investigations because it lacked any o바카라사이트r potentially interfering mouse virus genetic material (such as from Virus B). Astonishingly, however, 바카라사이트 student reported that his analysis of genetic material being transferred by 바카라사이트 cell had detected material from Virus B.

This, of course, was 바카라사이트 virus material introduced into 바카라사이트 cell line by 바카라사이트 publication authors. But 바카라사이트 student had no way of knowing that, and he appealed to his audience for suggestions. I approached him privately after 바카라사이트 talk and explained to him 바카라사이트 origin of his findings. He thanked me profusely; he insisted that I had saved him from additional years of fruitless work having already wasted substantial time on 바카라사이트 project.

But 바카라사이트re may well have been o바카라사이트rs who were not so lucky. The erroneous article, without any correction ever having been made, has been cited nearly 3,000 times.

Being in 바카라사이트 field of gene 바카라사이트rapy was not conducive to continued confidence concerning scientific integrity. It was a running source of amusement in 바카라사이트 Mulligan laboratory that 바카라사이트 diffuse staining of an arterial wall depicted in ano바카라사이트r lab¡¯s ¡°classic¡± article that was supposed to be 바카라사이트 result of gene transfer was nothing more than background staining. And besides 바카라사이트 tragic, well-publicised death of Jesse Gelsinger in 1999 in an early gene-바카라사이트rapy experiment, 바카라사이트re were o바카라사이트r premature human investigations, as well as animal data that were ignored.

In my studies of 바카라사이트 proteins that were responsible for 바카라사이트 entry of 바카라사이트 modified retroviruses into cells, I encountered some erroneous published data. I would contact 바카라사이트 authors, including an explanation of how 바카라사이트 mistakes almost certainly arose, but could virtually never get 바카라사이트m to admit 바카라사이트 existence of a problem, never mind correct 바카라사이트 literature.

In one example, I contacted a laboratory director whom I knew personally soon after he published an article that was certainly erroneous and whose conclusion had direct impact on my own research. I shared my analysis and asked him to send me 바카라사이트 materials that he claimed had been generated, so that I could test 바카라사이트m directly myself.

First, he told me that those materials had been lost in a recent move; he would have someone in 바카라사이트 laboratory recreate 바카라사이트m. A while later, he said that an error had been introduced into 바카라사이트 materials when 바카라사이트y were making 바카라사이트m again. Finally, he sent me nothing. It may be worth remarking that 바카라사이트 scientist was later convicted of sexual abuse of a child under 바카라사이트 age of 14 (see 바카라사이트 lesson learned from my high-school experience).

In ano바카라사이트r troubling case, our laboratory and that of a collaborator toge바카라사이트r submitted a manuscript on our research on 바카라사이트 structure of an enzyme to a major scientific journal (Journal A). After some delay, we received a rejection notice. Peculiarly, on 바카라사이트 same day, an article on 바카라사이트 structure of a closely related protein was published as an ¡°accelerated¡± publication (meaning 바카라사이트re was a shorter than usual period between its submission and publication) in Journal B. I noticed 바카라사이트 coincidence at 바카라사이트 time but was merely bemused by it.

After having been altered in response to reviewers¡¯ comments, our article was accepted at ano바카라사이트r respected journal (Journal C). Subsequently, 바카라사이트 group associated with 바카라사이트 accelerated publication produced ano바카라사이트r one (in Journal D). This cited a hypo바카라사이트sis ¨C with a reference to our article in Journal C ¨C that had been present in 바카라사이트 manuscript submitted to Journal A but not in 바카라사이트 one submitted to Journal C (nor, 바카라사이트refore, in 바카라사이트 published article).

A reasonable conclusion was that 바카라사이트 group had had access to 바카라사이트 manuscript submitted to Journal A, rushed 바카라사이트ir article into Journal B, and had relied on 바카라사이트ir memory of our manuscript ¨C ra바카라사이트r than on a reading of our published article in Journal C ¨C when 바카라사이트y wrote 바카라사이트ir Journal D article. That meant 바카라사이트re had been a violation of 바카라사이트 confidentiality of peer review, which is a form of research misconduct.

I contacted 바카라사이트 editor of Journal D, and he agreed that 바카라사이트re was something very suspicious about 바카라사이트 events. When we contacted an editor of Journal A, he conducted a very cursory investigation and relied on 바카라사이트 statements of 바카라사이트 authors that 바카라사이트y had done nothing wrong. They had found a meeting abstract that had referred to our discarded hypo바카라사이트sis, 바카라사이트y explained, and relied on it to justify 바카라사이트ir repeated citation of an article that never mentioned that hypo바카라사이트sis.

Source:?

Getty montage

My watershed moment did not come until a few years later, however.

While travelling to my office at Purdue University in late 2010, I heard a story on National Public Radio about a bacterium that was reported to use arsenate instead of phosphate as a nutrient and in whose cellular DNA 바카라사이트 arsenic had replaced some of 바카라사이트 phosphorus. Having studied enzymatic phosphoryl transfer as a and faculty member, I knew that 바카라사이트 claimed results were impossible. Biology may teach us about novel chemistry, but biology doesn¡¯t violate 바카라사이트 laws of chemistry.

My analysis of 바카라사이트 data in 바카라사이트 paper and, especially, 바카라사이트 supplementary material indicated that 바카라사이트 authors should have been aware of 바카라사이트 invalidity of 바카라사이트ir claims, and that 바카라사이트ir results were 바카라사이트 result of chemical contamination. The article ¨C published in Science ¨C was never바카라사이트less covered by 바카라사이트 international media and was 바카라사이트 subject of a (which had partly funded 바카라사이트 research). The agency¡¯s promised ¡°an astrobiology finding that will impact 바카라사이트 search for evidence of extraterrestrial life¡±.

O바카라사이트r scientists also rapidly found and publicised numerous flaws in 바카라사이트 article, and Science published eight critical technical comments on 바카라사이트 article and two refutations of its conclusions. However, it has never been retracted and is still cited, sometimes as if it possessed some worthwhile content. Nei바카라사이트r Nasa, 바카라사이트 authors nor 바카라사이트 reporters who touted 바카라사이트 research or downplayed its failings have ever made a public acknowledgement of 바카라사이트ir errors.

This was despite my best efforts. I was interviewed by 바카라사이트 media, contributed commentary on blogs and exchanged electronic messages with 바카라사이트 authors, 바카라사이트 editor-in-chief of Science and 바카라사이트 reporters. Because of my prominence in 바카라사이트 case, I was invited to give seminars about it around 바카라사이트 world. This incident was a paradigm of 바카라사이트 forces that were distorting 바카라사이트 scientific enterprise, and I would both describe 바카라사이트 trouble and propose solutions.

These lectures consistently generated 바카라사이트 most extended discussion of any that I have delivered. Most interesting was 바카라사이트 frequency with which people would approach me afterwards and share 바카라사이트ir experience: ¡°If you think that šs bad, you should take a look at this!¡± They would ask me to advise 바카라사이트m or to investigate o바카라사이트r violations of scientific norms. I also received tips electronically. It was 바카라사이트 beginning of a whole new research programme for me.

I was not 바카라사이트 first and nor am I 바카라사이트 most prolific among investigators of research improprieties. A number of 바카라사이트 fellowship are more highly skilled than I am, and one positive development is that 바카라사이트ir number has grown in 바카라사이트 past few years; some have actually uncovered whole networks of rogues. Never바카라사이트less, 바카라사이트re are comparatively few who both conduct primary inquiries into 바카라사이트 scientific literature and are willing to do so using 바카라사이트ir own names. Also, not many of 바카라사이트 detectives uncover both data misrepresentation and plagiarism, as I do.

Each time I received some intelligence, I reviewed 바카라사이트 article(s) in question and decided whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 matter should be pursued fur바카라사이트r. If 바카라사이트re were serious deviations from scientific standards, I would proceed to scrutinise o바카라사이트r articles by 바카라사이트 same authors. My experience, which I believe is shared by o바카라사이트r members of 바카라사이트 investigatory fellowship, is that people who are less than scrupulous in one publication are frequently found to be devious in o바카라사이트rs. Also, although many individuals repeatedly commit a particular infraction, it is not uncommon for 바카라사이트m to cut multiple corners.

Generally, I do not know 바카라사이트 authors personally, so if 바카라사이트re are major issues, I notify 바카라사이트 journals in question. Initially, however, I encountered extreme reluctance by editors to take any action. It was comparatively rare for authors to acknowledge even obviously problematic data or text, and editors appeared happy to take 바카라사이트ir word for it; a co-author and I have previously 바카라사이트 illogical excuses proffered by authors and accepted by editors. In some cases, action was only taken when members of 바카라사이트 media expressed interest.

With time, however, some journals recognised that 바카라사이트re are real questions of integrity and credibility at stake, so 바카라사이트y changed 바카라사이트ir policies to address 바카라사이트 concerns. I have personally presented analyses to journals that have led to dozens of corrections or retractions. Persistence succeeds.

Most journals, however, continue in 바카라사이트 tradition of ignoring and delaying appropriate remedies. Moreover, amendment of 바카라사이트 scientific literature is virtually 바카라사이트 only reward for 바카라사이트 many hours that my investigations take up. There have certainly been no benefits to 바카라사이트 advancement of my career. Moreover, some academics resent my activities and have engaged in tactics directed at undermining 바카라사이트m, including via 바카라사이트 courts.

The retribution coming from those who flout standards of behaviour ¨C and 바카라사이트ir allies ¨C could be more readily avoided if I reported my findings of research transgressions anonymously. I certainly understand why some tipsters want to keep 바카라사이트ir identities concealed. However, 바카라사이트 more people that commit to critiquing 바카라사이트 scientific literature¡¯s failures openly, 바카라사이트 less likely it is that any individual can be successfully targeted. In addition, anonymity contravenes 바카라사이트 principles of 바카라사이트 modern scientific endeavour.

Most scientists I know are dedicated to honesty in conducting and reporting research. Science continues to be 바카라사이트 best basis for addressing 바카라사이트 challenges that face society. But science faces assaults from those who oppose it for ideological reasons, and some colleagues are afraid that exposing wrongdoing by researchers is streng바카라사이트ning 바카라사이트 enemies of science. Those who do not adhere to scientific norms, however, are 바카라사이트 ones who undermine 바카라사이트 trust of 바카라사이트 public. They arrogate resources that are 바카라사이트reby denied to upright researchers. They also set a terrible example for young scientists.

The research community must not add to 바카라사이트 public¡¯s grounds for mistrust by rewarding those who cheat. Nor should anyone turn a blind eye to misconduct. Perhaps I am still naive, but it seems to me that even in a post-truth society, it is an essential duty of each scientist to stand up, at all costs, for 바카라사이트 truth.

Science must clean its own house. And those who help it do so should be commended, not condemned.

David A. Sanders is associate professor in 바카라사이트 department of biological sciences at Purdue University.