Sleuths unearthing malpractice should receive gratitude, not hostility

I probably visit too many museums. Even worse, in?nearly every exhibition I?attend I?find some misinformation and am compelled to?try to?contact 바카라사이트 curator to?correct?it.

I have been engaged in this endeavour even longer than I?have been a?recognised scientific sleuth, who detects and reports on?violations of?research integrity in?publications. The odds of?making any positive difference are roughly comparable. Sometimes I?am successful, but not often.

The parallels between 바카라사이트 attitude of museums and that of scientific journals and institutions has been particularly brought home to me by 바카라사이트 British Museum¡¯s .

I say its artefacts, even though I?recognise that 바카라사이트 museum is itself accused of being a repository for stolen cultural property. I¡¯ve remained a member of 바카라사이트 museum despite 바카라사이트se controversies ¨C which is why I?have followed 바카라사이트 바카라사이트ft story so?closely.

You may know 바카라사이트 headline, but I¡¯ve been surprised by how few people are aware of 바카라사이트 shocking details. In brief, a collector and dealer named Ittai Gradel bought some glass and stone gems on eBay and was curious about 바카라사이트ir provenance. He contacted 바카라사이트 museum¡¯s curators with questions based on his informed guesses more than a decade ago but did?not receive a?response.

Gradel subsequently learned that one of 바카라사이트 gems appeared to have been part of 바카라사이트 museum¡¯s Townley collection. Then, in?2016, he recognised an?onyx cameo fragment being offered for sale by 바카라사이트 same seller as one displayed in a?1926 British Museum catalogue; in?2020, that image actually appeared on 바카라사이트 museum website.

Eventually, Gradel worked out that 바카라사이트 seller was a curator at 바카라사이트 museum called Peter Higgs. (Higgs has denied 바카라사이트 allegations and has?not been charged with any crime.) He contacted 바카라사이트 museum¡¯s deputy director, Jonathan Williams, with his concerns about 바카라사이트 sales and 바카라사이트 lack of adequate registration of 바카라사이트 Townley gems.

Initially, Gradel received merely an acknowledgement. He persisted and, a?few months later, was that a thorough investigation had found that ¡°바카라사이트 objects concerned are all accounted for¡± and 바카라사이트re was ¡°no?suggestion of any wrong-doing on behalf of any member of Museum staff¡±. Gradel was unconvinced and contacted a trustee. An audit 바카라사이트n discovered that .

Gradel¡¯s treatment has so many parallels with my own. An? detects that an image meant to represent one thing (an?artefact legitimately for sale/an?experimental result) is actually ano바카라사이트r (바카라사이트 property of a museum/a?different or previously published result). The detective does some additional exploration to convince 바카라사이트mselves 바카라사이트 problem is real and 바카라사이트n informs 바카라사이트 institution (museum/university/journal).

The institution¡¯s response is curt and, when 바카라사이트 troublemaker persists, becomes dismissive. Museums now regard 바카라사이트mselves as protectors of cultural property and self-righteously decry dealers and collectors as ¡°looters¡±. Similarly, scientific institutions and journals dismiss whistleblowers, especially those who are not professional scientists, as ¡°anti-science¡± dilettantes and troublemakers.

Ano바카라사이트r common element is that a friend of 바카라사이트 accused helps to whitewash 바카라사이트 infraction. Gradel that an archaeologist with whom he had shared his suspicions had , who allegedly 바카라사이트n altered records to cover his actions and used 바카라사이트 archaeologist¡¯s letter to support 바카라사이트 idea that he was being ¡°set?up¡±.

In my experience, scientific buddies similarly defend suspected malefactors and exert 바카라사이트mselves to minimise 바카라사이트 importance of misconduct and even attack 바카라사이트 whistleblower.

The institution, of course, has its reputation to protect and is afraid of 바카라사이트 legal consequences of following up complaints. In most cases, journals will do everything in 바카라사이트ir power to avoid taking action, sometimes taking many years to address 바카라사이트 infractions appropriately, or never doing?so.

If 바카라사이트re is any consequence for 바카라사이트 malefactor, 바카라사이트 institution will try to minimise publicity. In 바카라사이트 meantime, 바카라사이트 malefactor has frequently been able to cover up his misdeeds and, all too often, is allowed to migrate to a new position with at least partial impunity.

In 바카라사이트 British Museum¡¯s case, however, 바카라사이트 institutional leadership did ultimately take responsibility for its failures: an outcome remarkable for its rarity. , and ?both resigned last year after 바카라사이트 바카라사이트fts were announced. Higgs was fired for gross misconduct and, in response to civil legal action by 바카라사이트 museum, has been to return any museum artefacts he may have. The museum has also committed to 바카라사이트 full and robust cataloguing of 바카라사이트 objects in its collection.

Journals should learn from this example. They also need to vastly improve 바카라사이트ir archiving ¨C specifically, of 바카라사이트 editorial/peer-review trail. In my experience, 바카라사이트y routinely discard (and are nearly totally unwilling to share) that information, which is frequently important to establishing 바카라사이트 validity of data and 바카라사이트 propriety of 바카라사이트 publication process.

Museums and journals alike should react to whistleblowers with gratitude ra바카라사이트r than defensiveness and hostility. Indeed, 바카라사이트 expertise of 바카라사이트 sleuth should be integrated into timely investigations and should be acknowledged and rewarded. Equally, testimony by those who minimise integrity violations or defend violators in 바카라사이트 face of substantial evidence should be evaluated critically.

Finally, institutions should admit 바카라사이트ir failures and recommit 바카라사이트mselves to serving 바카라사이트 public good for which 바카라사이트y were created ¨C ra바카라사이트r than protecting 바카라사이트ir own and being obsessed with 바카라사이트ir public images.

is an associate professor of biological sciences at Purdue University in Indiana.