I
wish to point out (as I unsuccessfully did to Nature) that
by
just READING the infamous Table 1 (data collection and refinement stats,
hidden
in the supplemental material) any review worth its name should
immediately
have raised multiple red flags. Check for yourself.
Also
the B-factor distribution is worth a look (Fig 13-20 in my paper weight).
Also, the report by Zbysek Otwinowsky is most gripping forensic yarn.
http://bones.swmed.edu/people.html
BR
From: CCP4 bulletin board
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Paula Salgado
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 2:06 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] FW: pdb-l: Retraction of 12 Structures
Actually, I don't think that should be any consolation at
all... As scientists, from whatever field, we should be appalled by this kind
of mischief from anyone that calls themselves scientists. Not only it has
effects on further research, delaying science sometimes by years, but it just
gives an appalling image of science and scientists. And of course, is
unethical and wrong...
Today is a sad moment for crystallography and science.
=========================================================
Dr Paula Salgado
Division of Molecular Biosciences
Department of Life Sciences
Faculty of Natural Sciences
Biochemistry Building, 5th Floor
Imperial College London
South Kensington Campus
SW7 2AZ
London
Tel: 02075945464
2009/12/10 Boaz Shaanan <[log in to unmask]>
If that's of any consolation for us crystallographers, this
"situations" arise in other fields too. Here is another example. See
this link:
Boaz
----- Original Message -----
From: Roger Rowlett <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thursday, December 10, 2009 21:07
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] FW: pdb-l: Retraction of 12 Structures
To: [log in to unmask]
This kind of unfortunate situation
only reinforces the notion that there must be some sort of laboratory
oversight/communication/mentoring/documentation procedures in place. In my
research lab (populated by a postdoc and a bunch of undergraduates) raw images
and data processing log files are visible to everyone on the central XRD
server, there is a lot of intra-laboratory communication about every structure
that is processed, and lots of required documentation that must go onto our
electronic laboratory notebook/wiki. While a determined individual could still
find a way to perpetrate fraud, it is a lot more difficult when there are a lot
of eyes looking at every structure, and raw data and documentation is widely
visible within the lab. This is not a bad thing for co-authorship purposes,
also.
Nathaniel Echols wrote:
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 5:59 PM, Jacob Keller <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
I assume this is the denouement of the Ajees et al debacle a while back? Does this mean all authors on all of those papers were complicit? Otherwise, how would one author alone perpetrate this kind of thing? He pretends to go to the synchrotron, comes back with the hkl file, and goes from there? What about the crystals? Grows some lysozyme crystals, labels as protein x, proceeds to go "to the synchrotron" and then...? This whole thing is really hard to imagine--is there an "initiation" procedure in that lab, when the "noble lie" is revealed to all would-be authors?
I'm curious about this too, but it is actually very likely that some (perhaps the majority) of the co-authors were unaware of the fraud, especially those whose name is only present on a single paper. I didn't look closely, but I recognized one name of someone who certainly doesn't need to fake anything at this point in his career; I would be shocked if he had any clue what was going on. Likewise, if there were co-authors from entirely different fields, I'm sure they wouldn't know what a Wilson plot is supposed to look like. Many excellent scientists have been burned like this before; wouldn't you assume that your collaborators are acting in good faith?
There are two other things to keep in mind:
1. The standard for co-authorship is often very low. This is a problem by itself, and it's one reason why Nature (and a few others) now list author contributions by name.
2. Rumor has it that in some labs, the PI may take the data and solve the structure personally, cutting out the postdoc or grad student who did most of the benchwork. (I've seen one or two author contribution sections that indicated this had occurred.) After all, spinning dials and looking at electron density is the "fun" part of crystallography. Who is going to second-guess the professor when a recommendation letter (and future career) is at stake?
-Nat
--
Roger S.
Rowlett
Professor
Department of Chemistry
Colgate University
13 Oak Drive
Hamilton, NY 13346
tel: (315)-228-7245
ofc: (315)-228-7395
fax: (315)-228-7935
email: [log in to unmask]
Boaz Shaanan, Ph.D.
Dept. of Life Sciences
Ben-Gurion University of the Negev
Beer-Sheva 84105
Israel
Phone: 972-8-647-2220 ; Fax: 646-1710
Skype: boaz.shaanan